So everyone knows about how the Thief 'fast hands' power and how it works with the Healer feat. It got me thinking though, why can't you use the Fast Hands power for other fun actions?
Fast Hands (PHB pg 97):
'Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to make a Dexterity (sleight of Hand) check, use your thieves' tools to disarm a trap or open a lock, or take the Use an Object Action'
Use an Object (PHB pg 193):
'You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your actoin for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn. (OR YOU ARE A FLIPPEN THIEF)'
So your 3rd level Thief could in a single combat turn:
-Movement Action (Interact/Draw the object you are going to use with Fast Hands)
-Attack Action
-Bonus action to use Fast Hands
Fast Hands could do the following:
Drink a Healing Potion OR any Potion for that matter
Drink an Antitoxin
Drop Ball Bearings
Drop Caltrops
Use a Healer's Kit (even better with the Healer feat)
Set a Hunting Trap
Bind a Creature in Manacles (this one is great for dropped creatures that were just knocked out rather then killed)
Apply Posion to your weapon
Throw a grappling hook
Now the big question is can you use the following items as a bonus action?
Acid
Alchemist Fire
Holy Water
On one hand they are items so you are doing the Use an Object action with them. But on the other hand all three items are calling for ranged attacks. So, which one is it? A Use an Object action or an Attack Action?
If it is a Use an Object action then Theifs just got a lot more fun to play.
More to the point, I would worry about using a wand.
Bringing back the good old Fighter/Mage/Thief from AD&D:
For my action, I will cast Fireball. Then, I will use my Action Surge to take another action and cast Fireball. Finally, with my bonus action I will use this wand to cast Fireball.
A neat idea but there is no 'use wand' action. There is a 'cast spell' action that needs a spell focus 'wand' or material comp. But no, you are not casting spells with the fast hands action.
Saying you can use a Bonus Action to attack (key word, here) with Acid is the same as saying you can use a Bonus Action to attack with a Greatsword. "BUT THEY'RE BOTH OBJECTS!" A lenient DM might let you pour it on a grappled and prone opponent without an attack, so maybe then (I'd still require an attack, but with advantage, since even though you're basically pouring it on them, they can still wiggle out of the way).
Nice catch on some of the other ones, like Manacles and Caltrops 
(also, agreed about the wand thing)
My 2 cp: If it requires casting a spell (even from an item) or making an attack roll, it doesn't work. For instance, splashing oil onto a creature requires an attack roll, so it doesn't work with Fast Hands. However, pouring oil onto the ground does not require an attack roll, so it will work.
Another matter that takes an action, donning a shield, Fast Hands to do it as a bonus action! Great for switching from bow to rapier and shield.
I'm with ya Jay, I think its not too game breaking in that it will cost the rogue A LOT of gold to spam use of acid/fire/holy water. As for activating a spell with an item... we will have to wait and see what the DMG says. If activating a wand takes the, use an item action, then it is pretty clear it would work. If activating a magic item has a new action.. say "active magic item action" then it will clearly not work. With all the extra time they are spending on the DMG I hope they get it right.
Slaughterj, nice on the doning a shield. My fighter might go three rogue just for that power now!
dwgautier wrote:
Fast hands thief and wand of magic missiles = OP. Fast hands thief at 13th with wand of lightning bolt = broken. Fast hands is one of the best abilities in the game easy, even if it's just for drinking a healing potion and attacking in the same round, over and over....
I am personally fine with allowing a Fast Hands possessing character to throw oil, acid, alchemist's fire, or other similar items with a bonus action.
I think that them not having scaling damage, and not getting to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll called for without spending a feat, and being pretty costly (in my games, at aleast) is enough to balance that they are essentially allowing the thief a bonus action attack.
In most cases, such item attacks seem less potent than the bonus action attack that could be gained by insted two-weapon fighting, so I don't see a huge balance issue.
Magic items, on the other hand, I think I will consider to be used via the Cast a Spell action if they produce the effect of a spell (with healing potions getting a pass because of their inclusion on the adventuring gear chart and their not atually duplicating the effect of a spell).
Psikerlord wrote:
Varisthenes wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Varisthenes wrote:
Strill wrote:
Varisthenes wrote:
dwgautier wrote:
Noon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Thank you, Clutchbone, for the references... but again, not all attacks are Attack actions, and I have seen nothing which says that actions other than the Attack action aren't allowed to have an attack as a result.
In fact, it seems obvious that they can, since Cast a Spell is an action that often results in an attack roll (an attack, but not an Attack action).
Similarly, the Use an Object action seems to specifically be the action used when using an item, such as alchemist's fire, even if there are attack rolls involved.
And, obviously, some attacks are made via bonus actions or reactions, which clearly aren't attack actions (even though they are attacks). Some things trigger when you make an attack (like if you are hidden, you become visible). That has nothing to do with whether the action is formally the attack action. But no one could possibly be contesting that, I would think, so I might be misunderstanding what the argument is about here.
paulstrait wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Alchemist fire specifically states that you make a ranged attack. That, in my opinion, makes it an attack action.
I hope the DMG does not implement arbitrary action restrictions, like magic items can not be use as objects.
OoftaMeg wrote:
In fact because Acid/Fire state they require an action to use and not an attack action, they explicitly CAN'T be used as part of an attack action. No matter how many attacks you can make as part of the attack action, it still takes a full action to throw 1 fire/acid.
OoftaMeg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
I know this is a bit off-topic but, at 50 gp per flask for a once-only attack with a reasonable chance of failure and relatively low damage, as far as I'm concerned, PCs can use an attack action, a bonus action and a use object action if they like - they'll soon run out of money, anyway. Does anyone use this stuff in games?
El_Condoro wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
It seems everyone is coming at it from different angles.. but the underlying points are these:
Making an attack isn't necessarily an Attack Action, because we have bonus actions and reactions that are by definition, NOT the Attack Action, and yet can be attacks, involving attack rolls. So why can't the Use Object Action also involve an attack roll without it necessarily requiring the Attack Action instead of the Use Object Action?
If the "Use Object" Action is to use the object as a weapon, then does it, by definition, require the object to now be an improvised weapon, and thus require the use of the Attack action instead of "Use Object" action?
The book does explicitly state that anything that requires an attack roll is an attack, but at no point do we have a statement that all attacks require the use of the Attack Action. In fact, with examples like bonus action and reaction, we know that attacks can be done outside of the Attack action. Though, using the object as a weapon would make use of the Improvised Weapon rules, it would not require the use of the Attack Action. But now we're purely into the realm of semantics and interpretation... is using a sword as a weapon (which uses the attack action) fundamentally different from using a sword as a weapon (using the Use Object action)? Not really. Mechanically, they are different though because:
If a character has 2 attacks per turn, and is holding two jars of alchemist fire, and wants to lob both at a target, can they throw twice? They'd only be able to throw twice if using their Attack action. I think for purposes of gameplay, if a player makes an attack using an object on their turn, not from a bonus action, it is the Attack action. If a character uses the Use Object action, it is any object manipulation that doesn't use an attack roll, like drawing a 2nd weapon, stowing a weapon, pulling a lever, opening a door, etc.
Does Use Object not encompass object interactions that result in attack rolls? Use Object can have an attack roll because it doesn't explicitly exclude them, but it can be argued that it doesn't include object interactions that result in attack rolls. As always, "Depends. Ask your DM".
A new phrasing of my argument, showing the specific rules and the general rules they trump:
- Generally, you use the Attack action to attack with an improvised weapon.
- Acid, alchemist's fire, holy water, grenades, bombs, and the like, specifically call out using an action, but not specifically the Attack action, which is what the Use an Object action specifically says items will do when you use the Use an Object action is how you use those items.
- Such items then specifically call for an attack roll with an improvised weapon - I presume for the purpose of determining if the character applies their proficiency bonus to the attack roll or not.
Edit to Add: This, like many other arguments I have participated in regarding the 5e rules, is where I issue a challenge - if you think I am wrong about the intended reading of the rules, tweet Jeremy Crawford and ask him about it... or just do as I do, and resolve to run your table your way no matter what anyone else happens to think outside your table.
It seems to me like everyone is presuming that acid has to be usable only by one of the two options. Why couldn't it be both? It seems to me like it fits the requirements of the "use an object" action (it is an object that requires an action to use) and it also fits the requirements of an "attack action" (it calls for an action that attacks with a ranged improvised weapon). Since both cost an action, and since nothing in the RAW seems to preclude either of their use in this situation, and since the only implication of allowing it to be used as a 'use an object' action is that a rogue can throw acid with fast hands, and the only implication of allowing it to be used as an 'attack action' is that a high level fighter holding one in each hand could throw more than one (potentially three, since they could use their object interation to grab a third, presumably) in one round, and since neither of those implications seem game breaking, it seems to me reasonable to allow a player to use whichever action s/he would prefer.
I was looking at something else when I happened across this line under "Making an Attack" section (page 73 in the basic rules).
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.
I would say that by RAW throwing alchemist fire is therefore an attack.
OoftaMeg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
An action that is an attack is in my opinion, an attack action. Rule whichever way you want, I just disagree.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
So we have attacks that can take place outside of taking the Attack Action: bonus actions resulting in an attack roll like the attack from Polearm Master or Martial Arts, the Ready Action which can set an attack as a Reaction. Opportunity attacks, which are attacks outside of the Attack Action. So the question is can the Use Object Action involve an attack roll, or does using the object as a weapon on your turn require the use of the Attack Action instead of the Use Object Action? Ask the DM.
I guess a better question is, why does it matter? I personally would use the Attack Action if my character has the "extra attack" feature so I can get in multiple attacks from the one action.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Damn glitchy phone. Deleted half my post.
Anyways, I would rule that using Alchemist Fire, Acid Flask, Holy Water, etc.....would in fact be the Attack Action. Here's why.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack
action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an
arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged
attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules
that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature
o f the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack
with this action.
Alchemist’s Fire.
This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air.
As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet,
shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against
a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an
improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire
damage at the start of each o f its turns. A creature can
end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10
Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.
Spells that have ranged attack die rolls are in a class unto themselves, and have their own modifiers based off of their Proficiency+Relevant Ability Modifier (not DEX as with normal ranged attack that the Attack Action uses), but still fall under the 'Cast a Spell' action.
That's a good reason to say that you can do it with the attack action, but I don't think it establishes that it can *only* be done with an attack action (especially since other non-attack actions allow you to make one melee or ranged attack).