D&D (2024) Thief Rogue / True Strike

[MarkB]

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 ...."

Okay, the stumbling block for me is the idea that WotC would actually expect their players to jump through these logical leaps rather than just seeing "wand that shoots fireballs as an action" and thinking "okay, sounds like this qualifies for my cool ability".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Okay, the stumbling block for me is the idea that WotC would actually expect their players to jump through these logical leaps rather than just seeing "wand that shoots fireballs as an action" and thinking "okay, sounds like this qualifies for my cool ability".

I think it is quite the opposite. There are more logical leaps to actually try to combine those abilities.

Oh, I can cast spells with that wand. Oh, some spells are actions. Ergo, the wand requires that action. So I can use my fast hand abilities... So there is trying to string different things together and hereby making a mistake with the inclusions (what follows what).

 

[MarkB]

I think it is quite the opposite. There are more logical leaps to actually try to combine those abilities.

Oh, I can cast spells with that wand. Oh, some spells are actions. Ergo, the wand requires that action. So I can use my fast hand abilities... So there is trying to string different things together and hereby making a mistake with the inclusions (what follows what).

Yeah, but that's not how most people will look at that. It's a stick that shoots fireballs. All that "well, it's not actually the stick that's shooting the fireball, it's letting me cast a spell, and then the spell is shooting the fireball" is detail that most people wouldn't concern themselves with, nor should they be expected to.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, but that's not how most people will look at that. It's a stick that shoots fireballs. All that "well, it's not actually the stick that's shooting the fireball, it's letting me cast a spell, and then the spell is shooting the fireball" is detail that most people wouldn't concern themselves with, nor should they be expected to.

I agree that 2 words: that require a magic action TO ACTIVATE would have been helpful. And a general buff to rogue damage. Which could be following:

Precise attack:
When taking the attack action, rogues deal an extra 1d6 damage on a successful hit once per turn. 2d6 at level 11. 3d6 at level 17.

 

[Eric Olson1]

I think we can all agree that the rule is complex. In making the associated text concise, they made it confusing.
My belief is they tried to make it simple on the surface: just look for "as a magical action" in the item, that tells you it works.
But they also defined a deeper methodology for magic actions that nobody really understands yet.

At a high level, they wanted to let thieves do the iconic fast hands things with items again, but wanted to exclude scroll, etc that caused issues with the ability in 4th edition. This kind of 'item-based' character could be really fun, but the DM needs to help it along -- not easy to balance as a new dm.

 

[abirdcall]

I think we can all agree that the rule is complex. In making the associated text concise, they made it confusing.
My belief is they tried to make it simple on the surface: just look for "as a magical action" in the item, that tells you it works.
But they also defined a deeper methodology for magic actions that nobody really understands yet.

At a high level, they wanted to let thieves do the iconic fast hands things with items again, but wanted to exclude scroll, etc that caused issues with the ability in 4th edition. This kind of 'item-based' character could be really fun, but the DM needs to help it along -- not easy to balance as a new dm.

Yeah, and thematically it just doesn't make any sense which is where we can best make our decision.

A thief rogue being able to cast Vicious Mockery faster because their hands are fast is nonsensical.

The thing that costs time is the casting of the spell not the manipulation of the item.

 

[ECMO3]

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 ...."

Yeah but using precise words Fast Hands lets you "use" an item not only "activate" an item. Reading a scroll is clearly using it!

You can't claim the wording is precise for a reason and then ignore the actual written wording of the ability you are talking about.

Further, Crawford's statements are both not RAW and also not in conflict with anything thing that is RAW. Using Fast Hands to "activate" an item does not preclude it for being used for something else (if reading a scroll is even something else). I mean Crawford did not say you could use Fast Hands for the utilize action to deploy caltrops or put manacles on someone either, does that mean you can't use it for that? Of course not!

 

[Eric Olson1]

Yeah but using precise words Fast Hands lets you "use" an item not only "activate" an item. Reading a scroll is clearly using it!

You can't claim the wording is precise for a reason and then ignore the actual written wording of the ability you are talking about.

Further, Crawford's statements are both not RAW and also not in conflict with anything thing that is RAW. Using Fast Hands to "activate" an item does not preclude it for being used for something else (if reading a scroll is even something else). I mean Crawford did not say you could use Fast Hands for the utilize action to deploy caltrops or put manacles on someone either, does that mean you can't use it for that? Of course not!

If you want to really read as RAW: reading is not "using it" .. I read newspapers, dogs use newpapers. I read bathroom doors, I only use them if the gender matches.

But expanding to the whole phrase: use a magic item that requires that action. A scroll lets you cast a spell. The scroll does not require anything. It enables you. The spell you cast uses the magic action.
"reading a magic item that enables you to take a magical action as a bonus action"? THAT is not "as written".
(this semantic difference is not just crazy... it is represented by the word "activate" which is what the creator was trying to explain).

But your last statement summarizes how to intemperate the rule: Crawford's statement of intent does not conflict with anything that is RAW. That is how he meant it to work.
In most minds: Crawford + RAW >> your intent + iffy RAW + potential for abuse
There is no harm to the game if you fall into the Crawford intent camp. The other camp has spawned a bunch of vidoes and statements about "here is a broken build..", If you are just being sympathetic to underpowered Thieves.. just give the Thief stuff that does work.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah but using precise words Fast Hands lets you "use" an item not only "activate" an item. Reading a scroll is clearly using it!

But to use the item, you don't need any action. You just use it and THEN cast a spell using your action.

You try to retroactively use your ability after the use of the item already happened. So you try to go back in time.

You can't claim the wording is precise for a reason and then ignore the actual written wording of the ability you are talking about.

I think you are ignoring the rules here.

Further, Crawford's statements are both not RAW and also not in conflict with anything thing that is RAW. Using Fast Hands to "activate" an item does not preclude it for being used for something else (if reading a scroll is even something else). I mean Crawford did not say you could use Fast Hands for the utilize action to deploy caltrops or put manacles on someone either, does that mean you can't use it for that? Of course not!

Crawford has nothing to do with it.
It is basic logic.

Either you use fast hand to use an item that requires a magic action to use.

Or you use an item with no associated action. That allows you to now use your action to cast a spell. The usage of the item is already done. So you can't retroactively apply your fast hand ability.

 

[MarkB]

If you want to really read as RAW: reading is not "using it" .. I read newspapers, dogs use newpapers. I read bathroom doors, I only use them if the gender matches.

Yeah, but when you read a newspaper you don't channel the arcane energies that a spellcaster has imbued into it to unleash a magical effect upon the world.

A scroll is not just an instruction manual. It is a magical item imbued with power, that is consumed in the act of unleashing that power. That is much more than just "reading" it. You are using it - in fact, you are using it up.