The way I think about it is in "slots" There are several slots that things in combat occupy:
Action Bonus Action
Reaction
Movement
"Interaction" (a weird one)
When you are looking at your "Action" slot, you have a few options to choose from: Attack Action, Cast a spell action, Use an Object action, Dash action, etc....
"making an attack" USUALLY uses the "Attack action" BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO!!! Examples: Booming Blade makes a melee weapon attack using the "cast a spell action", Two weapon fighting makes an attack using the "Bonus action", Opportunity attacks use the "Reaction".
ALL this proves that the ATTACK ACTION is not the only source "Attacks".
The argument here ISN'T that acid flasks and alchemist fire AREN'T attacks, because they clearly are. The question is do they use the Attack action? The tool itself is an object that is being used. YES an attack is made as part of its use, but we've already established that just because an attack is made, doesn't mean the attack action had to be taken. I'd say its a better argument to say that "Use an Object" is the action selected simply because you are using an object.
Everything else that requires the attack action explicitly states "The attack ACTION". The fact that acid says "As an action, you can make an attack" leaves it ambiguous on which action is required (since once again, there are PLENTY of other "attacks" that use actions other than "the attack action").
As there is no sage advice on this (that I can find at least) I believe it would be up to the DM which action has to be used. But I know I would rule it as a Use an Object because....well.... you're using an object?
The problem is when I oppose the fact that a mage can throw two daggers in the same turn since both weapons have the property "light & thrown'' but that to throw two flask it's impossible for a thief who has fast hand
It is a RAW problem of course, any DM can decide what to do with it, still it is a perfect example of a strange application of the rules
A Wizard can throw two daggers in the same turn.
A Rogue can throw two daggers in the same turn.
A Wizard cannot throw two flasks at someone.
A Rogue cannot throw two flasks at someone.
There is nothing a Wizard can do (regarding thrown attacks) that a Rogue can't, so your argument that "a Rogue should be able to do it, because Rogues have Fast Hands and Wizards don't" does not apply. A Rogue also can't cast Mass Heal... should they be allowed to, because of Fast Hands? Of course not. The point is, Fast Hands does not allow you to make an extra attack (involving an attack roll) during your turn, so you can't use it as justification for anything that does involve an extra attack roll on your turn.
Now, as others have pointed out, there are some "attacks" (using the word colloquially) that do not involve attack rolls, which you could do using Fast Hands. Unfortunately, none of those are throwing a vial of acid at someone. You could, though, pour a flask of oil on the ground, or spill some ball bearings.
The rules are mostly there to reflect logic and a fast hand thief who could throw a healing potion to an enemy to save his life at the cost of a BA but could not throw a vial of acid to the same enemy defies my own logic (especially considering the benign side of throwing a vial of acid in BA). In order to get around this interesting problem with a rational solution, my group and I decided to simply add the tag "light" to the vial. I think this is the kind of situation where you have to take a step away from the problems and reconsider the whole thing from a different angle.
I note, however, that the arguments put forward by Beardsinger and HeironymousZot are both valid from my point of view, but after reading their exchange the problem persists.
As a wise yogi once said: "Travel light, live the light, spread the light, be the light" and I will simply add: "Just carry a light weapon".
The problem is when I oppose the fact that a mage can throw two daggers in the same turn since both weapons have the property "light & thrown'' but that to throw two flask it's impossible for a thief who has fast hand
It is a RAW problem of course, any DM can decide what to do with it, still it is a perfect example of a strange application of the rules
A Wizard can throw two daggers in the same turn.
A Rogue can throw two daggers in the same turn.
A Wizard cannot throw two flasks at someone.
A Rogue cannot throw two flasks at someone.
There is nothing a Wizard can do (regarding thrown attacks) that a Rogue can't, so your argument that "a Rogue should be able to do it, because Rogues have Fast Hands and Wizards don't" does not apply. A Rogue also can't cast Mass Heal... should they be allowed to, because of Fast Hands? Of course not. The point is, Fast Hands does not allow you to make an extra attack (involving an attack roll) during your turn, so you can't use it as justification for anything that does involve an extra attack roll on your turn.
Now, as others have pointed out, there are some "attacks" (using the word colloquially) that do not involve attack rolls, which you could do using Fast Hands. Unfortunately, none of those are throwing a vial of acid at someone. You could, though, pour a flask of oil on the ground, or spill some ball bearings.
The rules are mostly there to reflect logic and a fast hand thief who could throw a healing potion to an enemy to save his life at the cost of a BA but could not throw a vial of acid to the same enemy defies my own logic (especially considering the benign side of throwing a vial of acid in BA). In order to get around this interesting problem with a rational solution, my group and I decided to simply add the tag "light" to the vial. I think this is the kind of situation where you have to take a step away from the problems and reconsider the whole thing from a different angle.
I note, however, that the arguments put forward by Beardsinger and HeironymousZot are both valid from my point of view, but after reading their exchange the problem persists.
As a wise yogi once said: "Travel light, live the light, spread the light, be the light" and I will simply add: "Just carry a light weapon".
The restriction is most probably due to balance, not logic. By the same "logic", Rogues should be able to make an attack, any attack, as a Bonus Action with Fast Hands. Or use any skill, really. All those actions take less time (in real life, at least) than picking a lock or disarming a trap, so it makes no logical sense that a Rogue can pick a lock as a Bonus Action, but not, say, Intimidate an opponent. So it's up the DM and/or players to "make up" an in-game reason why those things work, and other actions don't. My suggestion: thieves are, in fantasy fiction, able to pick locks, disarm traps, palm or steal items, and fiddle around with objects in the battlefield with more skill than other types; thieves, though, are not particularly able to attack more often than other types (in most fantasy settings, at least).
Bear in mind that adding the light property to vials of acid doesn't really do anything. It won't allow Two-Weapon Fighting, since you need to take the Attack action for it to work, and you additionally need melee weapons for that (and vials of acid are treated as improvised weapons, which are not melee weapons). It won't allow Crossbow Expert bonus attack, since you're not taking the Attack action, which is required for that.
If, as DM, you want to allow Rogues to throw vials of acid and similar items as Cunning Action, or only for Thief Rogues as Fast Hands, then allow so, explicitly.
You do know that attacks occur outside the attack action all the time, right? In fact every spell attack and every attack with a bonus action or reaction are not attack actions.
So the whole "using this object involves making an attack so it can't be a use an object action," argument has no precedent or rule to support it.
You can house rule it if you want, but I prefer the RAW/RAI way.
Pretty much every bonus action attack occurs because you have either already taken the attack action - Polearm Master's bonus action attack with the blunt end requires you to have already made an attack with the pointy end thus your attack using a bonus action is already part of the attack action. Or it is as a result of a cast a spell action. When you use quicken spell to cast a spell as a bonus action you are still using the cast a spell action, if you use GFB which allows you to then make a melee attack you are still using the cast a spell action.
If you allow a thief with fast hands to make a second attack by using the interact with object action, then why not let him throw a knife, or a throwing axe? This is at 3rd level, remember - pure martials only get their second attack at level 5 and only fighters get any more than 2. That would give the thief better and earlier access to extra attacks. Just stop and think about it, logically it makes no sense as has been said, but it isn't about logic - it's about balancing the class abilities.
You do know that attacks occur outside the attack action all the time, right? In fact every spell attack and every attack with a bonus action or reaction are not attack actions.
So the whole "using this object involves making an attack so it can't be a use an object action," argument has no precedent or rule to support it.
You can house rule it if you want, but I prefer the RAW/RAI way.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
If you allow a thief with fast hands to make a second attack by using the interact with object action, then why not let him through a knife, or a throwing axe. This is at 3rd level, remember - pure martials only get their second attack at level 5 and only fighters get any more than 2. That would give the thief better and earlier access to extra attacks. Just stop and think about it, logically it makes no sense as has been said, but it isn't about logic - it's about balancing the class abilities.
A thief could throw a knife as a bonus action with two weapon fighting starting at level 1. I see no faulty logic in letting them attack with a non-weapon 2 levels later. Since it requires specific consumable items (that are not cheap for low level characters), how would it be unbalanced to let the feature work as intended?
You do know that attacks occur outside the attack action all the time, right? In fact every spell attack and every attack with a bonus action or reaction are not attack actions.
So the whole "using this object involves making an attack so it can't be a use an object action," argument has no precedent or rule to support it.
You can house rule it if you want, but I prefer the RAW/RAI way.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
Nope. This is wrong. Not all attacks are made as part of the attack action. This has been established several times now.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
That isn't how cause and effect work. "I'm making a weapon attack, so I must need the attack action. But how am I supposed to cast GFB with an attack action?" Using the item grants an attack, you cant throw 2 vials of acid with extra attack (well you can, but it would be up to DM if the use item effect happens when you do). But the attack action isn't required.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
This is all true. It isn't an argument against my point.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
That isn't how cause and effect work. "I'm making a weapon attack, so I must need the attack action. But how am I supposed to cast GFB with an attack action?" Using the item grants an attack, you cant throw 2 vials of acid with extra attack (well you can, but it would be up to DM if the use item effect happens when you do). But the attack action isn't required.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
This is all true. It isn't an argument against my point.
Cool, then the next time my elf thief wants to use Fast Hands I'll make sure it's with their longbow so I can get two shots in one turn.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
That isn't how cause and effect work. "I'm making a weapon attack, so I must need the attack action. But how am I supposed to cast GFB with an attack action?" Using the item grants an attack, you cant throw 2 vials of acid with extra attack (well you can, but it would be up to DM if the use item effect happens when you do). But the attack action isn't required.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
This is all true. It isn't an argument against my point.
Cool, then the next time my elf thief wants to use Fast Hands I'll make sure it's with their longbow so I can get two shots in one turn.
Huh? Wha...?
I mean, I guess you're annoyed someone's arguing against you, but how does completely misunderstanding the other side, then passive-aggressively attacking your opponent make any sense whatsoever?
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
That isn't how cause and effect work. "I'm making a weapon attack, so I must need the attack action. But how am I supposed to cast GFB with an attack action?" Using the item grants an attack, you cant throw 2 vials of acid with extra attack (well you can, but it would be up to DM if the use item effect happens when you do). But the attack action isn't required.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
This is all true. It isn't an argument against my point.
Cool, then the next time my elf thief wants to use Fast Hands I'll make sure it's with their longbow so I can get two shots in one turn.
What? That doesn't have to do with using an object. Longbows don't grant an attack when used, they use weapon rules. Getting different rules intentionally wrong also is not an argument against my point.
When you use a vial of acid, you make an attack, because that is what the item description says happens. What does a bow's description say happens when you use it? Nothing. So fast hands does nothing with a longbow.
You can make an attack without using the attack action. The game is rife with spells and bonus action attacks to prove this is true.
The attack action is specific game terminology and is used with purpose. Whenever you see the words "attack roll" that does not equate to attack action, even if a weapon is used. The words attack action will always be used to deliniate when that is the action required. When you do not see the specific term attack action then it means the action taken is some other kind of action.
A vial of acid is an object. It is found in the table with all of the other miscellaneous adventuring gear that is considered objects.
The description of the use of the vial dictates you use an action to use it. Nowhere does the use of the term attack action appear in the item's description. Therefore it is not an attack action to throw the vial.
The Use an Object Action does not preclude the ability to make an attack roll as part of the action. It simply states that if an object requires an action to use, you use the Use an Object Action to do so. This is establishing what this type of action is called. Just as the attack action terminology is used to deliniate a type of action.
The Vial of Acid is an object, and its use costs an action and therefore the action used is the Use an Object Action.
Fast Hands allows you to do specific things as a bonus action. One of them being the Use an Object Action. Fast Hands does not have any text precluding the ability to make an attack roll as part of the ability.
So, throwing the Vial as per the items description is a Use the Object Action, which then falls under the perview of Fast Hands. This does not open up the rogue to making whatever bonus action attack they want, as Bearsinger seems to think as if the sky is falling. It only applies to attack rolls that are made when using an object as per the Use an Object Action and the items that fall within its scope.
This really isn't difficult. Once you stop conflating attack rolls with the attack action, the rules spell out what you can do with these abilities quite clearly.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
That isn't how cause and effect work. "I'm making a weapon attack, so I must need the attack action. But how am I supposed to cast GFB with an attack action?" Using the item grants an attack, you cant throw 2 vials of acid with extra attack (well you can, but it would be up to DM if the use item effect happens when you do). But the attack action isn't required.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
This is all true. It isn't an argument against my point.
Cool, then the next time my elf thief wants to use Fast Hands I'll make sure it's with their longbow so I can get two shots in one turn.
Huh? Wha...?
I mean, I guess you're annoyed someone's arguing against you, but how does completely misunderstanding the other side, then passive-aggressively attacking your opponent make any sense whatsoever?
Weapons are objects. If I can use objects as a Bonus Action, then I can use weapons, too.
Weapons are objects. If I can use objects as a Bonus Action, then I can use weapons, too.
This is true. Unfortunately, using a weapon (as with the use an object action) has no effect. Weapons have different rules for their use that do not fall under the use an object action.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
That isn't how cause and effect work. "I'm making a weapon attack, so I must need the attack action. But how am I supposed to cast GFB with an attack action?" Using the item grants an attack, you cant throw 2 vials of acid with extra attack (well you can, but it would be up to DM if the use item effect happens when you do). But the attack action isn't required.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
This is all true. It isn't an argument against my point.
Cool, then the next time my elf thief wants to use Fast Hands I'll make sure it's with their longbow so I can get two shots in one turn.
Huh? Wha...?
I mean, I guess you're annoyed someone's arguing against you, but how does completely misunderstanding the other side, then passive-aggressively attacking your opponent make any sense whatsoever?
Weapons are objects. If I can use objects as a Bonus Action, then I can use weapons, too.
Oh, sure! You can use a longbow to prop open a window, or use a sword to knock over a statuette from a pedestal, yeah!
But attacking with a weapon is not part of Use an Object. You know this, of course, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against throwing acid vials with Fast Hands. Nobody has claimed that you can attack with a weapon by using the Use an Object action. You apparently think someone has, though. The closest anybody has gotten to claiming that are the people that are arguing that when you Use an Object, and the object's description includes a specific effect (like acid vials, flasks of oil, flasks of alchemist's fire, flasks of holy water, etc.), and that specific effect includes an attack, then that attack is part of the Use an Object action. Which, actually, no only makes sense, but is necessary for any sane and logical interpretation of the rules. Otherwise, if that would change the action to an Attack action, then you wouldn't be using the object's specific action, and so the object's effects wouldn't apply. Instead, you'd be only attacking with a possibly improvised weapon, dealing the appropriate amount of damage (1d4+str, if improvised), and nothing else (since the specific effects detailed in the object's description require you to Use the object, not Attack (capital "A", as in the action) with it, even if Using it involves attacking (lowercase "a", as in the activity) with it). Casting any attack spell would be impossible, since at the moment you're required to roll an attack, you'd "switch" to the Attack action, instead of the Cast a Spell action, which you need to, well, cast a spell.
Weapons are objects. If I can use objects as a Bonus Action, then I can use weapons, too.
This is true. Unfortunately, using a weapon (as with the use an object action) has no effect. Weapons have different rules for their use that do not fall under the use an object action.
And when thrown, a flask of acid is treated as an improvised weapon. This makes it an Attack.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Crawford was asked 3 years ago as to whether throwing alchemist's fire was Use an Object or an Attack, and he punted. He didn't even answer. The only thing he said was Dexterity gets added to the damage roll of the attack when it lands.
Tonio I'm a bit confused. You posted that you could not throw a vial of acid at someone with the Use an Object Action, but your last post seems to be in support of the opposite.
The whole weapons thing is nonsense Jounichi. Weapons have their own rules, and items that are weapons are clearly labeled as such. They have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Also seriously? How many times does it need to be said that not all attacks are made as part of an attack action. Please stop conflating these game terms.
Tonio I'm a bit confused. You posted that you could not throw a vial of acid at someone with the Use an Object Action, but your last post seems to be in support of the opposite.
I did, before I was made aware that the flasks' and vials' standard use actions involved the attack and effects. I was under the wrong impression that they had extra effects that applied when you attacked with them. Actually, I mostly argued regarding general attacks, etc., but I did at one point mistakenly state that Rogues could not throw a flask at someone, even though they could spill one on the ground.
Okay cool. Thanks for clarifying, Tonio. I completely agree with your stance on attacks and the actions that govern them in general. It was that one bit about the vials that stood out as odd when I felt like our views were in accordance otherwise.
The way I think about it is in "slots"
There are several slots that things in combat occupy:
Action
Bonus Action
Reaction
Movement
"Interaction" (a weird one)
When you are looking at your "Action" slot, you have a few options to choose from: Attack Action, Cast a spell action, Use an Object action, Dash action, etc....
"making an attack" USUALLY uses the "Attack action" BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO!!! Examples: Booming Blade makes a melee weapon attack using the "cast a spell action", Two weapon fighting makes an attack using the "Bonus action", Opportunity attacks use the "Reaction".
ALL this proves that the ATTACK ACTION is not the only source "Attacks".
The argument here ISN'T that acid flasks and alchemist fire AREN'T attacks, because they clearly are. The question is do they use the Attack action? The tool itself is an object that is being used. YES an attack is made as part of its use, but we've already established that just because an attack is made, doesn't mean the attack action had to be taken. I'd say its a better argument to say that "Use an Object" is the action selected simply because you are using an object.
Everything else that requires the attack action explicitly states "The attack ACTION". The fact that acid says "As an action, you can make an attack" leaves it ambiguous on which action is required (since once again, there are PLENTY of other "attacks" that use actions other than "the attack action").
As there is no sage advice on this (that I can find at least) I believe it would be up to the DM which action has to be used. But I know I would rule it as a Use an Object because....well.... you're using an object?
The rules are mostly there to reflect logic and a fast hand thief who could throw a healing potion to an enemy to save his life at the cost of a BA but could not throw a vial of acid to the same enemy defies my own logic (especially considering the benign side of throwing a vial of acid in BA). In order to get around this interesting problem with a rational solution, my group and I decided to simply add the tag "light" to the vial. I think this is the kind of situation where you have to take a step away from the problems and reconsider the whole thing from a different angle.
I note, however, that the arguments put forward by Beardsinger and HeironymousZot are both valid from my point of view, but after reading their exchange the problem persists.
As a wise yogi once said: "Travel light, live the light, spread the light, be the light" and I will simply add: "Just carry a light weapon".
The restriction is most probably due to balance, not logic. By the same "logic", Rogues should be able to make an attack, any attack, as a Bonus Action with Fast Hands. Or use any skill, really. All those actions take less time (in real life, at least) than picking a lock or disarming a trap, so it makes no logical sense that a Rogue can pick a lock as a Bonus Action, but not, say, Intimidate an opponent. So it's up the DM and/or players to "make up" an in-game reason why those things work, and other actions don't. My suggestion: thieves are, in fantasy fiction, able to pick locks, disarm traps, palm or steal items, and fiddle around with objects in the battlefield with more skill than other types; thieves, though, are not particularly able to attack more often than other types (in most fantasy settings, at least).
Bear in mind that adding the light property to vials of acid doesn't really do anything. It won't allow Two-Weapon Fighting, since you need to take the Attack action for it to work, and you additionally need melee weapons for that (and vials of acid are treated as improvised weapons, which are not melee weapons). It won't allow Crossbow Expert bonus attack, since you're not taking the Attack action, which is required for that.
If, as DM, you want to allow Rogues to throw vials of acid and similar items as Cunning Action, or only for Thief Rogues as Fast Hands, then allow so, explicitly.
You do know that attacks occur outside the attack action all the time, right? In fact every spell attack and every attack with a bonus action or reaction are not attack actions.
So the whole "using this object involves making an attack so it can't be a use an object action," argument has no precedent or rule to support it.
You can house rule it if you want, but I prefer the RAW/RAI way.
Pretty much every bonus action attack occurs because you have either already taken the attack action - Polearm Master's bonus action attack with the blunt end requires you to have already made an attack with the pointy end thus your attack using a bonus action is already part of the attack action. Or it is as a result of a cast a spell action. When you use quicken spell to cast a spell as a bonus action you are still using the cast a spell action, if you use GFB which allows you to then make a melee attack you are still using the cast a spell action.
If you allow a thief with fast hands to make a second attack by using the interact with object action, then why not let him throw a knife, or a throwing axe? This is at 3rd level, remember - pure martials only get their second attack at level 5 and only fighters get any more than 2. That would give the thief better and earlier access to extra attacks. Just stop and think about it, logically it makes no sense as has been said, but it isn't about logic - it's about balancing the class abilities.
If you want it RAW/RAI, then fine. The flask of acid, when used to make a ranged attack, is treated as an improvised weapon. That means you're making a weapon attack. And that means you're taking the attack action.
You also don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless you're also proficient in improvised weapons. Better get yourself Tavern Brawler. Oh, and it lacks the Thrown property, so you can't use Strength as the linked ability.
A thief could throw a knife as a bonus action with two weapon fighting starting at level 1. I see no faulty logic in letting them attack with a non-weapon 2 levels later. Since it requires specific consumable items (that are not cheap for low level characters), how would it be unbalanced to let the feature work as intended?
Nope. This is wrong. Not all attacks are made as part of the attack action. This has been established several times now.
That isn't how cause and effect work. "I'm making a weapon attack, so I must need the attack action. But how am I supposed to cast GFB with an attack action?" Using the item grants an attack, you cant throw 2 vials of acid with extra attack (well you can, but it would be up to DM if the use item effect happens when you do). But the attack action isn't required.
This is all true. It isn't an argument against my point.
Cool, then the next time my elf thief wants to use Fast Hands I'll make sure it's with their longbow so I can get two shots in one turn.
Huh? Wha...?
I mean, I guess you're annoyed someone's arguing against you, but how does completely misunderstanding the other side, then passive-aggressively attacking your opponent make any sense whatsoever?
What? That doesn't have to do with using an object. Longbows don't grant an attack when used, they use weapon rules. Getting different rules intentionally wrong also is not an argument against my point.
When you use a vial of acid, you make an attack, because that is what the item description says happens. What does a bow's description say happens when you use it? Nothing. So fast hands does nothing with a longbow.
Okay, from the top.
You can make an attack without using the attack action. The game is rife with spells and bonus action attacks to prove this is true.
The attack action is specific game terminology and is used with purpose. Whenever you see the words "attack roll" that does not equate to attack action, even if a weapon is used. The words attack action will always be used to deliniate when that is the action required. When you do not see the specific term attack action then it means the action taken is some other kind of action.
A vial of acid is an object. It is found in the table with all of the other miscellaneous adventuring gear that is considered objects.
The description of the use of the vial dictates you use an action to use it. Nowhere does the use of the term attack action appear in the item's description. Therefore it is not an attack action to throw the vial.
The Use an Object Action does not preclude the ability to make an attack roll as part of the action. It simply states that if an object requires an action to use, you use the Use an Object Action to do so. This is establishing what this type of action is called. Just as the attack action terminology is used to deliniate a type of action.
The Vial of Acid is an object, and its use costs an action and therefore the action used is the Use an Object Action.
Fast Hands allows you to do specific things as a bonus action. One of them being the Use an Object Action. Fast Hands does not have any text precluding the ability to make an attack roll as part of the ability.
So, throwing the Vial as per the items description is a Use the Object Action, which then falls under the perview of Fast Hands. This does not open up the rogue to making whatever bonus action attack they want, as Bearsinger seems to think as if the sky is falling. It only applies to attack rolls that are made when using an object as per the Use an Object Action and the items that fall within its scope.
This really isn't difficult. Once you stop conflating attack rolls with the attack action, the rules spell out what you can do with these abilities quite clearly.
Weapons are objects. If I can use objects as a Bonus Action, then I can use weapons, too.
This is true. Unfortunately, using a weapon (as with the use an object action) has no effect. Weapons have different rules for their use that do not fall under the use an object action.
Oh, sure! You can use a longbow to prop open a window, or use a sword to knock over a statuette from a pedestal, yeah!
But attacking with a weapon is not part of Use an Object. You know this, of course, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against throwing acid vials with Fast Hands. Nobody has claimed that you can attack with a weapon by using the Use an Object action. You apparently think someone has, though. The closest anybody has gotten to claiming that are the people that are arguing that when you Use an Object, and the object's description includes a specific effect (like acid vials, flasks of oil, flasks of alchemist's fire, flasks of holy water, etc.), and that specific effect includes an attack, then that attack is part of the Use an Object action. Which, actually, no only makes sense, but is necessary for any sane and logical interpretation of the rules. Otherwise, if that would change the action to an Attack action, then you wouldn't be using the object's specific action, and so the object's effects wouldn't apply. Instead, you'd be only attacking with a possibly improvised weapon, dealing the appropriate amount of damage (1d4+str, if improvised), and nothing else (since the specific effects detailed in the object's description require you to Use the object, not Attack (capital "A", as in the action) with it, even if Using it involves attacking (lowercase "a", as in the activity) with it). Casting any attack spell would be impossible, since at the moment you're required to roll an attack, you'd "switch" to the Attack action, instead of the Cast a Spell action, which you need to, well, cast a spell.
And when thrown, a flask of acid is treated as an improvised weapon. This makes it an Attack.
Crawford was asked 3 years ago as to whether throwing alchemist's fire was Use an Object or an Attack, and he punted. He didn't even answer. The only thing he said was Dexterity gets added to the damage roll of the attack when it lands.
Tonio I'm a bit confused. You posted that you could not throw a vial of acid at someone with the Use an Object Action, but your last post seems to be in support of the opposite.
The whole weapons thing is nonsense Jounichi. Weapons have their own rules, and items that are weapons are clearly labeled as such. They have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Also seriously? How many times does it need to be said that not all attacks are made as part of an attack action. Please stop conflating these game terms.
I did, before I was made aware that the flasks' and vials' standard use actions involved the attack and effects. I was under the wrong impression that they had extra effects that applied when you attacked with them. Actually, I mostly argued regarding general attacks, etc., but I did at one point mistakenly state that Rogues could not throw a flask at someone, even though they could spill one on the ground.
Okay cool. Thanks for clarifying, Tonio. I completely agree with your stance on attacks and the actions that govern them in general. It was that one bit about the vials that stood out as odd when I felt like our views were in accordance otherwise.