D&D (2024) Thief Rogue / True Strike

[OptionalRule]

Ok two things.

First if you are doing this your casting stat will always be better than your dexterity, that pretty much goes without saying.

Second the limit on sneak attack is once per turn not once per round. You use the bonus action to use the scroll and get a sneak attack on your turn and then if you hit take the ready action to attack agaoin off turn. So your second Truestrike comes on someone else's turn meaning you can use sneak attack again.

If you miss with the scroll truestrike you use your action to do it again on your turn (saving your reaction).

Okay, that's neat and whatever people want in their game. I don't see this as OP as they're burning a resource (a scroll) and constantly replacing that is going to get costly if they want to do it every time. So I'd be okay with it.

I think people feel a little uncomfortable with this, not because of the power level, but because they worry the game is going to devole into a pedantic rules twisting If you're into that then good on you. I'm a DM and not a computer game so I'd be less interested if it went that route but this alone wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

 

[ECMO3]

Having 2 attacks from level 3 seems balanced to you?

My Ranger/Monk had 3 attacks at level 2 ..... so yeah, not very OP.

If you like to break your game, do it

There is no way this breaks the game, not even on a multiclass with a full caster. IF the game is breaking it is due to something other than Fast Hands allowing scroll use.

 

[Eric Olson1]

This is about understanding the rules and finding a balance for fun.
House ruing to make something more powerful is usually never the right way. The dm should just explicitly balance it.
Given that people have seen the DM but we really don't know much more. I'd really like to see the description for something that might be iconic for a fast-hands Thief. We know the public "uni" items clearly describe taking a magic action:

cloak: While wearing the cloak, you can take a Magic action to pull its hood over your head and expend 1 charge to give yourself the Invisible condition for 1 hour.

club: As a Magic action, you can strike the weapon against a hard surface to create a loud clap of thunder
As a Magic action, you can strike the weapon against the ground to create an intense seismic disturbance

bow: As a Magic action, you can fire one energy arrow from this weapon at a target you can see within 60 feet of yourself.
As a Magic action, you can loose a flurry of energy arrows from this weapon at a wall

And then you have some other items that do not use that phrase. This not an accident.
mace: While holding the Mace, you can expend 1 of its charges to cast Summon Celestial (+9 to hit with spell attacks).
and enspelled weapons: While holding the weapon, you can expend 1 charge to cast its spell
and scrolls: You can read the scroll and cast the spell ...

Until I understand why the descriptions are seeming taken from two different molds, one clearly stating "as a magic action" and the other "you cast a spell" ... I will assume it is specifically to exclude fast-hands. I'd love to see the description for a wand of magic missiles ... That seems iconic to me as a rogue tool. And the abuse is not from a rogue, it is from a caster reliably sending off two powerful spells per round. Quicken has significant level limits

As a DM, I'd be sure to balance-up the thief with specific items for them. I'd have items that say they work -- I'd probably invent more interesting items for them.. why not be able to activate a true-sight crossbow from 30 away to setup advantage in an ambush (or to stage an assassination and frame a bystander) .

As a player, ask your dm if you can expect to find appropriate items that help keep this sub-class on par with the others.. because you think it would be fun to play it that way. If the DM is going to make you craft items that are not really unbalanced but bend the rules ... I'd play a different class.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My Ranger/Monk had 3 attacks at level 2 ..... so yeah, not very OP.

Yeah. That is nice. Level 2 ranger with TWF?

So we are looking at 3d6+9 damage.


The thief has 2 attacks with 2d6+3 damage. So seems close.

Oh no, the thief does this at range. With vex. Your ranger monk does it in melee.

Looking at level 4, the thief does 2d6+4 two times.

Looking at level 5 (when your example still has only one attack and no damage boost except for flurries 3 times per short rest)

2 times 4d6+4

At level 7, when you finally add another attack (and increase damage to d8)

2 times 5d6 + 4

Or later BA fireballs...

There is no way this breaks the game, not even on a multiclass with a full caster. IF the game is breaking it is due to something other than Fast Hands allowing scroll use.

I rather err on the side auf being too cautious.

 

[ECMO3]

Until I understand why the descriptions are seeming taken from two different molds, one clearly stating "as a magic action" and the other "you cast a spell" ... I will assume it is specifically to exclude fast-hands.

Casting a spell uses the magic action.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Casting a spell uses the magic action.

Yes.

But you don't use the magic action to use the item.
You use the item to use a magic action to cast the spell.

This is logically not the same. It is actually the logic reversed.

Before I thought it was a problem with transitivity... but I have to correct myself.

It is mixing up the inclusions A => B with B => A.

 

[ECMO3]

Yeah. That is nice. Level 2 ranger with TWF?

So we are looking at 3d6+9 damage.

Thrown Weapon Fighting. It is usually 4d6+7 if he has to use/move Hunter's Mark and up to 6d6+10 if he doesn't

So yeah a lot more than this 3rd level thief and without the need for scrolls every turn, using his reaction or qualifying for sneak attack.

Looking at level 4, the thief does 2d6+4 two times.

If he gets sneak attack.

Keep in mind, Rogues can usually get sneak attack, but a part of that is Cunning Action and Steady Aim which you can't use if you are using your bonus. There will be a significant number of times you won't be able to sneak attack with both your attacks, while for the Ranger that damage is very reliable ... and if we are assuming unlimited scrolls then the Ranger has unlimited Hunter's Mark.

Looking at level 5 (when your example still has only one attack and no damage boost except for flurries 3 times per short rest)

Level 5 is a 4 Ranger/1 Monk. I have a lot of options:

Thrown weapons while moving/casting HM: 4d6+7
Truestrike with Musket and Hunter's Mark: 1d12+2d6+4
3 Melee Attacks with Hunter's Mark already going: 6d6+6
2 Thrown Weapons and then an unarmed strike with Hunter's Mark: 6d6+10
Unarmed Strike and melee Truestrike without Hunters Mark: 1d8+2d6+7
Unarmed Strike and Green Flame Blade without Hunter's Mark: 3d8+1d6+10 divided between two targets

And I don't need any special sneak attack conditions to do any of that!

At level 7, when you finally add another attack (and increase damage to d8)
2 times 5d6 + 4

At level 6 (5 Ranger/1 Monk) it is 6d6+12 if I have to put up or move Hunter's Mark or up to 8d6+15 if I don't.

(Hand Axe 1d6+5+1d6 HM, Hand Axe 1d6+5+1d6 HM, Dagger 1d6+2+1d6 HM, unarmed Strike 1d6+3+1d6HM)

And that is without using my reaction or needing sneak attack set up AND I will be pushing Wisdom, this would be even higher if I pushed dex.

Oh and at this point I also have Monk-Spike Growth as an option a couple times a day.

Or later BA fireballs...

Not really OP.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thrown Weapon Fighting. It is usually 4d6+7 if he has to use/move Hunter's Mark and up to 6d6+10 if he doesn't

So yeah a lot more than this 3rd level thief and without the need for scrolls, using his reaction or qualifying for sneak attack.





If he gets sneak attack.

Keep in mind, Rogues can usually get sneak attack, but a part of that is Cunning Action and Steady Aim which you can't use if you are using your bonus. There will be a significant number of times you won't be able to sneak attack with both your attacks, while for the Ranger that damage is very reliable ... and if we are assuming unlimited scrolls then the Ranger has unlimited Hunter's Mark.



Level 5 is a 4/1 Ranger. I have a lot of options:

Thrown weapons while moving/casting HM: 4d6+7
Truestrike with Musket and Hunter's Mark: 1d12+2d6+4
3 Melee Attacks with Hunter's Mark already going: 6d6+6
2 Thrown Weapons and then an unarmed strike with Hunter's Mark: 6d6+10
Unarmed Strike and melee Truestrike without Hunters Mark: 1d8+2d6+7
Unarmed Strike and Green Flame Blade without Hunter's Mark: 3d8+1d6+10 divided between two targets

And I don't need any special sneak attack conditions to do any of that!




At level 6 (5 Ranger/1 Monk) it is 6d6+12 if I have to put up or move Hunter's Mark or up to 8d6+15 if I don't.

(Hand Axe 1d6+5+1d6 HM, Hand Axe 1d6+5+1d6 HM, Dagger 1d6+2+1d6 HM, unarmed Strike 1d6+3+1d6HM)

And that is without using my reaction or needing sneak attack set up AND I will be pushing Wisdom, this would be even higher if I pushed dex.

Oh and at this point I also have Monk-Spike Growth as an option a couple times a day.




Not really OP.

Ok. The ranger monk combo is quite good IF you can manage your bonus actions.

 

[ECMO3]

Yes.

But you don't use the magic action to use the item.

Yeah I think you do if it is a magic item and takes an action to use and it does not even scratch the surface as something OP in 2024. I would argue using it on a pure Rogue like this is actually weak and below average as far as classes go, even if you had unlimited scrolls. Perhaps stronger than some other Rogue options, but probably still weaker than some things you could do with Arcane Trickster even.

Using it on a multiclassed Rogue-caster with a normal amount of scrolls is situationally powerful, but that is 3 caster levels you are giving up, and that is a very high price to pay.

 

[Eric Olson1]

Yes.

But you don't use the magic action to use the item.
You use the item to use a magic action to cast the spell.

This is logically not the same. It is actually the logic reversed.

Before I thought it was a problem with transitivity... but I have to correct myself.

It is mixing up the inclusions A => B with B => A.

This is exactly right. And we should be able to find an example where B => A is clearly not intended.
Once again, the precise words:
RAW: [use a bonus action to] Take the magic action to use a magic item that requires that action. (granted, this phrase is awkward)
Crawford/Intent: "The thief will be able to take a magic item that requires a magic action for activation and thanks to fast hands, activate it as a bonus action."
Applying the intent to the rules: [Use a bonus action to] Take the magic action to use a magic item that requires a magic action to activate.

Reversed: [Use a bonus action to] activate a magic item that requires the action to be a magical action.

Is there an example where the reversed statement is clearly unreasonable? yes. The simplest might be:
A magical "+1 to DC "Holy Symbol. "You can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus" to cast a magic action spell ... now as a bonus action. (PHB says holy symbols can be "used" to cast spells).

Whereas many DMG magic items are clearly matching the exact wording of the intent: "As a magical action you can ...."