D&D (2024) Thief Rogue / True Strike

[MarkB]

Why the wording "that requires that action" if it works on all magic items.

It doesn't. It works on magic items that require a magic actions to use, and not all do.

Why does no enspelled item say anything about an action?

Because what it requires to use it depends on which spell it's enspelled with, so there's no one answer that applies to all enspelled items.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It doesn't. It works on magic items that require a magic actions to use, and not all do.

Because what it requires to use it depends on which spell it's enspelled with, so there's no one answer that applies to all enspelled items.

Of you think that is a good ruling, fine.

I don't think that this is the intent.
The spellcasting items clearly state: you cam cast spell X.

If you like to break your game, do it.
I don't.

I can't hinder you. But I can leave that comment there for everyone who likes some balance in their game.

I also don't want to lecture you in logic. I just leave following: You assume transitivity for the ability. This is not something that is given automatically.

 

[MarkB]

Of you think that is a good ruling, fine.

I don't think that this is the intent.
The spellcasting items clearly state: you cam cast spell X.

If you like to break your game, do it.
I don't.

I can't hinder you. But I can leave that comment there for everyone who likes some balance in their game.

I also don't want to lecture you in logic. I just leave following: You assume transitivity for the ability. This is not something that is given automatically.

Do you realise how utterly little the thief rogue has going for it aside from this feature? It's pretty much the weakest subclass of the weakest class in the 2024 edition. Nobody's going to be building game-breaking combos with this feature because even if they optimise it to the limit, it'll still be dragged down by the chassis it's having to be built on.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Do you realise how utterly little the thief rogue has going for it aside from this feature? It's pretty much the weakest subclass of the weakest class in the 2024 edition. Nobody's going to be building game-breaking combos with this feature because even if they optimise it to the limit, it'll still be dragged down by the chassis it's having to be built on.

Having 2 attacks from level 3 seems balanced to you?

Hint: No, it is not.

The thief is fine enough. Just not a great damage dealer.
Not everyone has to be one.

 

[MarkB]

Having 2 attacks from level 3 seems balanced to you?

Hint: No, it is not.

What, you ban monks and two weapon fighting too?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What, you ban monks and two weapon fighting too?

No, why should I?

What do those two have in common with what we are discussing?

If you can't see the difference, we can stop discussing right here.

Fun gaming for you... if that is possible with those houserules.

 

[MarkB]

No, why should I?

What do those two have in common with what we are discussing?

If you can't see the difference, we can stop discussing right here.

What do two other ways of having two attacks right from the start have to do with one way of having two attacks from third level? I think you can join those dots if you try.

Fun gaming for you... if that is possible with those houserules.

Do please stop pretending that your personal interpretation is the only possible one, and any other is either houserules or deliberate misreading. It's disingenuous and dishonest.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What do two other ways of having two attacks right from the start have to do with one way of having two attacks from third level? I think you can join those dots if you try.

You know. Apples and oranges. Try connecting dots yourself.

Do please stop pretending that your personal interpretation is the only possible one, and any other is either houserules or deliberate misreading. It's disingenuous and dishonest.

Nah. I am totally honest. And not disingenious.

I am not the one saying that one can cast any spell as an action with the enspelled staff. That was Kobold tactocs you use as reference.

As long as they claim that, their interpretations are just not credible.

So yes. I say your interpretation is a houserule. The RAW clearly states: you cast a spell.
The thief ability says: if you ise an item tgat requieres a magic action.

Two different things.

But I am already used to people claiming that two different things are the same. Seems to be common enough.

So as I say. Happy gaiming with your rulings.

 

[MarkB]

You know. Apples and oranges. Try connecting dots yourself.

So, two attacks at third level is bad, unless it isn't. Got it.

Nah. I am totally honest. And not disingenious.

I am not the one saying that one can cast any spell as an action with the enspelled staff. That was Kobold tactocs you use as reference.

It's how I read the rule.

As long as they claim that, their interpretations are just not credible.

So yes. I say your interpretation is a houserule. The RAW clearly states: you cast a spell.
The thief ability says: if you ise an item tgat requieres a magic action.

Two different things.

But I am already used to people claiming that two different things are the same. Seems to be common enough.

So as I say. Happy gaiming with your rulings.

If casting that spell doesn't involve using the item, then I guess you can just cast any spell you like anytime, free of charge.

If it does involve using the item, then you've just used a magic item that requires a magic action to use, which means that if you're a thief rogue you get to do it as a bonus action.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, two attacks at third level is bad, unless it isn't. Got it.

It's how I read the rule.

If casting that spell doesn't involve using the item, then I guess you can just cast any spell you like anytime, free of charge.

Now you are funny.

If it does involve using the item, then you've just used a magic item that requires a magic action to use, which means that if you're a thief rogue you get to do it as a bonus action.

Not transitive*. Failure in logic.

*failure in my own logic.
It is not the transitivity. It is mixing up the inclusions A => B (=>C) and B => A

One is using the item to use the magic action to cast a spell.

The other is use a magic action to use the item.