D&D (2024) Thief Rogue / True Strike

[Eric Olson1]

It is a tough job to describe something succinctly and have it mean everything you want. They can't just list the stuff that it can't do and have the text be easy to read.

Some of the current positions can be used to create cases that many would consider abusive. For example:
Scroll of the cantrip Thorn Whip. The reading the scroll allows the character to cast thorn whip, which takes an action. The thorn whip makes an attack using a finesse weapon. So this is a bonus action as a Thief, right? Finesse weapon attack qualifies for sneak attack damage. This follows the same logic as true-strike?

Since the scroll was just a magic item enabling the character to cast the spell (providing the material component - no spell slot is needed for cantrips, does not need the 'recipe' in the head, since the character probably knows the cantrip anyway)

Then this should work even better: (one-time cost/better to-hit)
Wand of the war caster. This item acts as a spell focus enabling the character to cast the Thorn whip cantrip (since it too, is a magic item providing the material component). We get pluses to the attack roll from the other wand ability. So this also qualifies as a bonus action (since it is a magic items that is used to cast a spell that takes an action).
This magic item is "used" in the same manner as a spell scroll.
--
Side note.. I do find the true-strike scrolls a little silly. The material component (the weapon) is "consumed" when the scroll is created. The spell makes the attack with the weapon used as the material component. Either this makes the spell not ever work (no fun) or it 'summons' the weapon that was consumed when the spell is cast and makes the attack with that weapon. I assume you keep dropping the old ones into a pile when you read new scrolls? As a DM... It would be memorable if players find a true strike scroll cast on a magical dagger that a wizard kept "hidden" in the scroll.

 

[MarkB]

Side note.. I do find the true-strike scrolls a little silly. The material component (the weapon) is "consumed" when the scroll is created. The spell makes the attack with the weapon used as the material component. Either this makes the spell not ever work (no fun) or it 'summons' the weapon that was consumed when the spell is cast and makes the attack with that weapon. I assume you keep dropping the old ones into a pile when you read new scrolls? As a DM... It would be memorable if players find a true strike scroll cast on a magical dagger that a wizard kept "hidden" in the scroll.

"If the spell consumes its Material components, they are consumed only when you complete the scroll."

 

[Eric Olson1]

"If the spell consumes its Material components, they are consumed only when you complete the scroll."

Yes, I see. Thanks
so then a true strike scroll is not actually used for anything, if you already know the spell? (No additional material components needed, no spell slots needed, recipe in head so not needed. So how would a useless scroll make it faster? Nothing has changed vs just casting it. I can't visualize how this works now.

 

[abirdcall]

Yes, I see. Thanks
so then a true strike scroll is not actually used for anything, if you already know the spell? (No additional material components needed, no spell slots needed, recipe in head so not needed. So how would a useless scroll make it faster? Nothing has changed vs just casting it. I can't visualize how this works now.

Yeah, this has been stated a few times in the thread.

A scroll doesn't take time to read, only to cast so fast hands doesn't actually do anything.

According to this interpretation a thief rogue with a scroll of vicious mockery is faster at casting it than a bard (it only has verbal components).

The argument is literally that the ability speeds up spellcasting when it says it helps to activate an item.

 

[ECMO3]

It also seems clear that the ready an action rule is not thought to be used to trigger on crearure starts their turn.

Starting a turn is not a perceivable trigger. Still people try to exploit that.
Same goes for emanations.

So I had no problem allowing scrolls to be used woth fast hands, if the person did not try to use it to double thief damage by exploiting rules.

If optimizers try to gain more damage because technically it is allowed, I as a DM start being technical too to shut it down.

But it is pathetically weak.

No optimizer who is actually "optimizing" is going to do this because this is a far suboptimal build, even for a single class Rogue in a game with unlimited scrolls.

I've been called an "extreme optimizer" on this board and this is not something I would even consider if I was trying to build a mechanically strong PC, or even if I was set on building a strong Rogue.

Useful? Yes it is situationally useful on a character with a weak subclass and class who arranges their stats in a suboptimal fashion.

Optimal Rogue? Not even close.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But it is pathetically weak.

No optimizer who is actually "optimizing" is going to do this because this is a far suboptimal build, even for a single class Rogue in a game with unlimited scrolls.

I've been called an "extreme optimizer" on this board and this is not something I would even consider if I was trying to build a mechanically strong PC, or even if I was set on building a strong Rogue.

Useful? Yes it is situationally useful on a character with a weak subclass and class who arranges their stats in a suboptimal fashion.

Optimal Rogue? Not even close.

Maybe. But that is not the point.

 

[abirdcall]

In thinking of this post I've realized that it may sound sarcastic but that is not my intent.

We are used to holding a lot of complex rules and terminology and thinking about how they work. When I used to play M:tG I had printed off the official rules which were some 50 pages or so because local judges often messed them up.

In one tournament I had to say to my opponent: "During your end step, after your upkeep step, I cast Waylay (then on my turn I cast Crusade and attack for 14 on turn 4)." This was an exploit someone found in the way they worded the end step that allowed an instant to still be cast after the intent was that the turn was over.

This whole thing can appear to be complicated to parse and implement because we have overthought the rules. Now that the DMG is out we can create instructions on how to resolve Fast Hands and magic items.

1. Look up the magic item in the DMG.
2. Does it say Magic Action?
-- If yes; Fast Hands applies
-- If no; Fast Hands does not apply

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One item I found, that had a redundant wording, if fast hands can be used to cast spells from items with a bonus action:

Cape of the Mountebank​

Wondrous Item, Rare

This cape smells faintly of brimstone. While wearing it, you can use it to cast Dimension Door as a Magic action.

Casting Dimension door would require a magic action anyway. So why specifically state it that way? Because now fast hands can be used to cast it as a bonus action.

So while some people claim it is difficult to explain why you can´t cast scrolls faster, I think the ability is very easy to understand if you just take it at face value:
if an items states that you take a magic action to use a property, replace that with bonus action.

Everything else might be a false equivalency. It is inserting an extra step of logic that might not be correct.

edit: also note, that spells never have a casting time of "1 magic action".
Spells always have a casting time of "1 action". You just need a magic action to cast them.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd like to revisit this question of multiple sneak attacks per round by means of the Fast Hands feature of the Thief.

OK. Let's say you're a Rogue(Thief) with the magic item Ring of the Ram:

This ring has 3 charges and regains 1d3 expended charges daily at dawn. While wearing the ring, you can take a Magic action to expend 1 to 3 charges to make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself. The ring produces a spectral ram’s head and makes its attack roll with a +7 bonus. On a hit, for each charge you spend, the target takes 2d10 Force damage and is pushed 5 feet away from you.

So can the thief with Fast Hands use the Ring of the Ram as a bonus action, make an attack with it, gain sneak attack on that attack (assuming advantage or ally next to foe), and then with their action ready an action to make a regular attack with their weapon on the same target as soon as their turn is over and the next turn is beginning, gaining sneak attack on that attack as well (provided they have advantage on the attack or an ally next to the target)?

Similar question for the Tentacles Rod:

This rod ends in three rubbery tentacles. While holding the rod, you can take a Magic action to direct the tentacles to stretch outward, each one attacking a creature you can see within 15 feet of yourself. For each tentacle, make a melee attack roll with a +9 bonus. A tentacle deals 1d6 Psychic damage on a hit. If you hit the same target with all three tentacles, the target must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or have the Restrained condition until you have the Incapacitated condition, until you take a Bonus Action to release the target, or until the target is no longer within 15 feet of you. While Restrained in this way, the target takes 3d6 Psychic damage at the start of each of its turns. At the end of each of its turns, the target repeats the save, ending the effect on itself on a success.

So can the thief with Fast Hands use the Tentacles Rod as a bonus action, make an attack with it, gain sneak attack on that attack (assuming advantage or ally next to foe), and then with their action ready an action to make a regular attack with their weapon on the same target as soon as their turn is over and the next turn is beginning, gaining sneak attack on that attack as well (provided they have advantage on the attack or an ally next to the target)?

Do these work? If not, why not?

 

[billd91]

I'd like to revisit this question of multiple sneak attacks per round by means of the Fast Hands feature of the Thief.

Do these work? If not, why not?

I wouldn’t allow holding an action to be triggered by something as metagame as the end of their own turn. It would have to be something more concretely real to the rogue from their in-character perspective.