Can a rogue do this

[Sir cryosin]

The Thief rogue's fast hands ability to interact with a object as a bonus action. Can you throw black egg's ( black egg's are egg's that have a hole punch into it. And drained out and replaced with many different things like chill powder, small small shards of glass, ect.. to blind and hurt someone's eyes.) So would I be able to throw one at a enemy. Or can I throw a Moltaf, Alchemist fire and what not.

[Specter]

Weirdly enough, yes, as long as it doesn't require an attack roll. A ninja, for example, could drop a fog ball to evade combat, but not targeting an enemy.

[smcmike]

If you are throwing it at an enemy, it probably requires an attack roll and counts as an attack. If you are throwing at the ground, though..

[R.Shackleford]

The Thief rogue's fast hands ability to interact with a object as a bonus action. Can you throw black egg's ( black egg's are egg's that have a hole punch into it. And drained out and replaced with many different things like chill powder, small small shards of glass, ect.. to blind and hurt someone's eyes.) So would I be able to throw one at a enemy. Or can I throw a Moltaf, Alchemist fire and what not.

No.

These become weapons (improvised) and wouldn't fall under the "use an item" action.

If you allowed this to work then a weapon attack, improvised weapon attack, net attack, or whatever else would work too (it doesnt)

[BiPolar]

No.

These become weapons (improvised) and wouldn't fall under the "use an item" action.

If you allowed this to work then a weapon attack, improvised weapon attack, net attack, or whatever else would work too (it doesnt)

Agreed, interacting is not attacking. As long as what you're doing isn't an attack roll, it should be fine (still up to your dm, though)

In addition, this uses up your bonus action, so no cunning action, etc.

[BurchardOfEn]

If you are throwing it at an enemy, it probably requires an attack roll and counts as an attack. If you are throwing at the ground, though..

This is what I would say is probably the most accurate. If it is trying to harm anything directly, it wouldn't work. If you happen to have a hypothetical Potion of Grease for whatever reason, you should be able to hypothetically throw it down on a spot and have that spot function as per the Grease spell since you're not necessitating any attack rolls. This is similar for Fog Cloud. Something like Fireball is harder to weigh in on(through a Necklace of Fireballs), so that'd likely be up to a DM's discretion.

I would really say that Necklace of Fireballs type of situation is the border of what's acceptable by RAW.

[R.Shackleford]

This is what I would say is probably the most accurate. If it is trying to harm anything directly, it wouldn't work. If you happen to have a hypothetical Potion of Grease for whatever reason, you should be able to hypothetically throw it down on a spot and have that spot function as per the Grease spell since you're not necessitating any attack rolls. This is similar for Fog Cloud. Something like Fireball is harder to weigh in on(through a Necklace of Fireballs), so that'd likely be up to a DM's discretion.

I would really say that Necklace of Fireballs type of situation is the border of what's acceptable by RAW.

Magic items don't fall under the "use an item action". They are their own thing or they end up going under "cast a spell" action.

[BurchardOfEn]

That seems counter-intuitive even if done for balance reasons. The PHB doesn't clarify, so I'll go check the DMG to be sure.

Edit: Okay, so there's this.


If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.

This would exclude any magic item that requires activating, but not any of them already activated. It'd take me scouring the magic item table to find exactly what does and doesn't work with this, and, yes, I know that any sane DM should slap you for being so rules-lawyer specific when the RAI is that you shouldn't be able to combine the two based on the DMG.

I will note that this wouldn't exclude the hypothetical of potions since those don't require an activation action, but that's also probably why the hypothetical Potion of Grease or Potion of Fog Cloud doesn't exist.

[BurgerBeast]

I wanted to wait for others to post before I weighed in. I'm in the smcmike/Shackleford camp on this one.

[Slipperychicken]

The Thief rogue's fast hands ability to interact with a object as a bonus action. Can you throw black egg's ( black egg's are egg's that have a hole punch into it. And drained out and replaced with many different things like chill powder, small small shards of glass, ect.. to blind and hurt someone's eyes.) So would I be able to throw one at a enemy. Or can I throw a Moltaf, Alchemist fire and what not.

If you're making an attack roll, then it's an attack. That means you can't do it with the fast hands bonus action.

[Sir cryosin]

Besides of dropping caltrops, ball barings, medkit, Poison, drinking a potion, what are some other things can you do?

[R.Shackleford]

Besides of dropping caltrops, ball barings, medkit, Poison, drinking a potion, what are some other things can you do?

You can't drink a potion with it.

You can open doors, lock doors, pull levers, and other random stuff. You can pull out a weapon.

[Corran]

Ok, since we are talking about this, can we please clarify a few things?

A) Fast hands and healer feat.
The second benefit of the feat healer, says and I quote: As an action, you can expend one of the healer's kit charges to heal a creature for that many hit points. Is it safe to assume that this action falls under the use object action and thus can be used with the fast hands ability of a thief rogue, or just because the feat description specifies it must be used with an action, then the specific (which is the feat description) overules the general (which is the fact that this action falls under the use object action)? I personaly think it's the first case, and that the thief rogue can use it with a bonus action, but I just wanted to check.

B) Fast hands and disarm.
Ok, I 've seen this idea thrown around here and there, but does it actually work? And if yes, how? Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we have a battlemaster fighter/ thief rogue build. And both the maneuvre disarming strike, and the thief's fast hands feature are in play. When we are using the maneuvre disarming strike successfully, does fast hands offers us some benefit, or not?

[R.Shackleford]

Ok, since we are talking about this, can we please clarify a few things?

A) Fast hands and healer feat.
The second benefit of the feat healer, says and I quote: As an action, you can expend one of the healer's kit charges to heal a creature for that many hit points. Is it safe to assume that this action falls under the use object action and thus can be used with the fast hands ability of a thief rogue, or just because the feat description specifies it must be used with an action, then the specific (which is the feat description) overules the general (which is the fact that this action falls under the use object action)? I personaly think it's the first case, and that the thief rogue can use it with a bonus action, but I just wanted to check.

B) Fast hands and disarm.
Ok, I 've seen this idea thrown around here and there, but does it actually work? And if yes, how? Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we have a battlemaster fighter/ thief rogue build. And both the maneuvre disarming strike, and the thief's fast hands feature are in play. When we are using the maneuvre disarming strike successfully, does fast hands offers us some benefit, or not?

A: you are gaining a new way to use an item with that feat. You are still using an item action to use that item. I believe CRAWford said you can use fast hands + healer feat.

B: Disarm isn't the use item action. No synergy.

[Coffee_Dragon]

In addition, this uses up your bonus action, so no cunning action, etc.

Technically Fast Hands modifies Cunning Action, so that's what you're doing.


A) Fast hands and healer feat.

[...]

I personaly think it's the first case, and that the thief rogue can use it with a bonus action, but I just wanted to check.

Technically yes. But as a DM I'd house rule away bandaging as an action for everyone anyway; I just don't see the logistics of it (free hands, everyone standing politely still including the balrog, taking off armour, cleaning wound, wrapping, tying, kissing it better, taking on armour again, etc.) happening within seconds.

[Corran]

A: you are gaining a new way to use an item with that feat. You are still using an item action to use that item. I believe CRAWford said you can use fast hands + healer feat.
That makes sense.


B: Disarm isn't the use item action. No synergy.
My bad, allow me to clarify. You are using the disarming maneuvre which you can apply on a hit at no action cost (battlemaster maneuvre). My question is if fast hands (which allows use object as a bonus action) would allow some meaningfull interaction with the dropped weapon, that the obeject interaction does not allow.




Technically yes. But as a DM I'd house rule away bandaging as an action for everyone anyway; I just don't see the logistics of it (free hands, everyone standing politely still including the balrog, taking off armour, cleaning wound, wrapping, tying, kissing it better, taking on armour again, etc.) happening within seconds.
Yeah, I agree. However, since the rules allow it, I would turn a blind eye to logic if the player found a creative way to explain it. Afterall, with the restriction of once per short rest for every target, it is not that op.

[R.Shackleford]

That makes sense.


My bad, allow me to clarify. You are using the disarming maneuvre which you can apply on a hit at no action cost (battlemaster maneuvre). My question is if fast hands (which allows use object as a bonus action) would allow some meaningfull interaction with the dropped weapon, that the obeject interaction does not allow.



Yeah, I agree. However, since the rules allow it, I would turn a blind eye to logic if the player found a creative way to explain it. Afterall, with the restriction of once per short rest for every target, it is not that op.


My bad, I was thinking that you meant Fast Hands = disarm.

You totally could use fast hands to grab a weapon that is close to you. It wouldn't even need the BM maneuver to do it.

Action: Disarm
BA: Catch weapon with fast hands.


Edit

If you count belt buckles as locks... you could unbuckle someone's belt.

[Sir cryosin]

Technically Fast Hands modifies Cunning Action, so that's what you're doing.



Technically yes. But as a DM I'd house rule away bandaging as an action for everyone anyway; I just don't see the logistics of it (free hands, everyone standing politely still including the balrog, taking off armour, cleaning wound, wrapping, tying, kissing it better, taking on armour again, etc.) happening within seconds.

Dude battle field medic's can banage a wound quick. Just look it up.

Edited: and we are talking about a fantasy world here.

[R.Shackleford]

Dude battle field medic's can banage a wound quick. Just look it up.

Edited: and we are talking about a fantasy world here.

You will find that most people ignore this. Then they say "suspension of belief" as some half butt excuse.

But you know, the Elves, giants, flying dragons, magic, and all the other stuff doesn't blip the radar :smallwink:

The worst thing about the entire D&D community is how they get wrapped up in the Tolkien-esc view of fantasy and forget to actually apply the idea of fantasy to the fantasy game . :smallbiggrin:

[Cybren]

Technically Fast Hands modifies Cunning Action, so that's what you're doing.



Technically yes. But as a DM I'd house rule away bandaging as an action for everyone anyway; I just don't see the logistics of it (free hands, everyone standing politely still including the balrog, taking off armour, cleaning wound, wrapping, tying, kissing it better, taking on armour again, etc.) happening within seconds.

Bonus actions don't take any less time than actions. It would be no more plausible as an action

[Coffee_Dragon]

Bonus actions don't take any less time than actions. It would be no more plausible as an action

The first is debatable; the second is correct, which is why I wrote just that.


But you know, the Elves, giants, flying dragons, magic, and all the other stuff doesn't blip the radar :smallwink:

The worst thing about the entire D&D community is how they get wrapped up in the Tolkien-esc view of fantasy and forget to actually apply the idea of fantasy to the fantasy game . :smallbiggrin:

I had to hire a chronomancer to summon additional copies of me from the future so I could roll my eyes at this as much as it deserves.

[Dalebert]

You can't drink a potion with it.

I disagree. I think you're assuming too much to say you're using the ad hoc (per Crawford) action to activate a magic item. The action your using is mundane. You're drinking something, simple as that. There's no action to take to activate the magic. That happens automatically when it enters your system. You could drink the potion accidentally or be tricked into it. The action is mundane and has a magical side-effect that you may or may not be aware of. Are you suggesting that if someone tries this on a thief, he will get warned by the fact that he suddenly and inexplicably can't do it as a bonus action? Thus he gets a warning that drinking this particular ordinary-looking drink, will have magical effects on him?

IF there were an action needed to activate it, then presumably you could go ahead and drink it but not activate it for a while. That's not the case. You have no choice. In a manner of speaking, the effect is forced onto you without any action to activate it.

[RickAllison]

I disagree. I think you're assuming too much to say you're using the ad hoc (per Crawford) action to activate a magic item. The action your using is mundane. You're drinking something, simple as that. There's no action to take to activate the magic. That happens automatically when it enters your system. You could drink the potion accidentally or be tricked into it. The action is mundane and has a magical side-effect that you may or may not be aware of. Are you suggesting that if someone tries this on a thief, he will get warned by the fact that he suddenly and inexplicably can't do it as a bonus action? Thus he gets a warning that drinking this particular ordinary-looking drink, will have magical effects on him?

IF there were an action needed to activate it, then presumably you could go ahead and drink it but not activate it for a while. That's not the case. You have no choice. In a manner of speaking, the effect is forced onto you without any action to activate it.

That is what I assumed at first, because it seems rather strange that items in the PHB could not be used with the ability. Then I picked up these gems from the DMG:


If an item requires an action to activate, that action
isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature
such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to
activate the item...

Some items are used up when they are activated. A
potion or an elixir must be swallowed, or an oil applied
to the body. The writing vanishes from a scroll when it is
read. Once used, a consumable item loses its magic.

So despite it being very unintuitive, Shacky is correct on this one.

[Dalebert]

Fair enough. So that is in fact the RAW. I'm continuing to allow rogues to use potions with fast hands and acknowledging it as a house rule. There aren't that many things to use the feature on.

[Cybren]

Fair enough. So that is in fact the RAW. I'm continuing to allow rogues to use potions with fast hands and acknowledging it as a house rule. There aren't that many things to use the feature on.

I think WotC has this idea in their head of rogues trying to disarm a trap or work a lock in the middle of a fight

[RickAllison]

I think WotC has this idea in their head of rogues trying to disarm a trap or work a lock in the middle of a fight

And truly, it is a useful ability if the DM allows for more creative items than are just in the PHB. Smoke bombs to give disadvantage as he escapes or get into a better position, tying off a rope on a massive creature so it is easier for your allies to get on and hang on if it flies away.

For extra fun, toss Haste on a Thief. Then he can fire cannons or any other siege weapons that require two actions between shots unaided.

[Dalebert]

Those are all cool ideas and I like the idea of introducing some of them in my game. I'd like alchemy to have some sort of reasonable practical value, for instance, and smoke bombs that maybe do a very temporary and localized heavy obscurement seem cool and not game-breaking.

That said, potions aren't that easy to come by anymore other than the basic healing potion. I don't see it as a problem for fast hands to be occasionally useful. The other rogue archetypal abilities are. For crimony's sake, please don't try to tell me this breaks the game when the equivalent for my swashbuckler is almost having the Mobile feat.

[R.Shackleford]

Fair enough. So that is in fact the RAW. I'm continuing to allow rogues to use potions with fast hands and acknowledging it as a house rule. There aren't that many things to use the feature on.

There are tons of things to use the feature on, you just need to get creative.

Which is actually what makes this a bad class feature. It relies on outside help (DM) instead of having a solid foundation of what it can do. You are mostly reliant on a flexible DM.

Class features should be more self reliant than DM reliant.