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.
So we ignore that the vial says
As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.
and instead only look at is as:
In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 2d6 acid damage.
So we ignore that is says it takes an action and now instead count it as an improvised weapon meaning that if I have the extra attack feature I can throw two, which goes against the first line of the items description saying that it takes an action.... wait if we says it is an improvised weapon then we contradict it's own text.
So why does it call it an improvised weapon? Well then if it is not because it is an attack action, since it is an object, and states it takes an action to thrown, then the improvised weapon sentence must be to tell us who to roll it, because the object itself does not confer what bonuses to add to the roll. Really Jounichi, there is devils advocate, but you are just being silly by taking two words and claims rules around them.
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.
And as stated many times already: you can make an attack outside of the attack action. In this case, you are making an attack with the use an object action, because that is the effect of using the item.
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. t 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?
Absolutely anyone can chose to make a second attack with their bonus action as part of two weapon fighting. I left it out of my point because it is so damn obvious that it was stupid to mention it. But again, as in many other threads, there is no point debating with you, because your view is that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, no matter what. If a person refuses to accept that there is even the slightest possibility that they are wrong then debate is pointless.
Bit, of a bad argument there Beard -refusing to "argue: with someone because they think they are always right when YOU are literally doing that through this entire thread. Hell you even quoted a question thrown at you and ignored it (something you apparently blocked HeironymusZot for). You have not been friendly nor have you been accepting of conversation. Instead you have belittled or ignored those you disagree with instead of even hearing their words. Please take a moment to read your posts and reflect on them. Because if anyone in this thread is being unproductive, it is the person who has now stated they refuse to argue with someone over non or made up isses.
Vials of acid TAKE AND ACTION, just that they take an action, they DO NOT TAKE the attack action because the gd item description (that you even quoted) says it takes an action. So you use the "Use an item" action and then the vial tells you what you can do. the vial does not say "using the attack action." plenty of things say "as an action make an attack roll" that do not then fall under the "attack action" category.
I think, under the strictest reading of the rules, Fast Hands would not allow throwing a flask of oil etc. My reasoning is that it says "as an action you may...". It does not say "with the Use An Object Action you may". Fast hands only covers Use An Object, Dex(Sleight of Hand) checks, disarming a trap or picking a lock. Hence, by the very strictest reading, I would say you must use your action.
That said, I would probably allow it to count as Use An Object, or as an Attack. You are using the flask, and you are making an attack with the flask as an improvised weapon. I would probably count it as light and thrown, too, allowing it to be thrown using TWF rules as a bonus action, as long as an attack had been made using a light single handed weapon using the attack action first.
the fact that the vial says it takes an action to use is covered in the "use an object" rules:
Use an Object
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
So vial of acid (an object by game definition) says it requires an action therefore as with the above rule in the PHB the player would take the Use an OBject action.
SO fast hands allows (specific beats general) that a thief can use a BA to "use an object" which is normally an action. That means that in order for something to qualify for Fast Hands it must fit the above quoted rule. Vial of acid does - therefore allowed under Fast Hands.
I would argue that, strictly, it doesn't say it takes an action to use it, nor does it say you throw it with the Use An Object action. If you are going to be strict and bar it from being thrown using the Attack Action, then that same logic stops it from being thrown with the Use An Object Action.
All it says is "As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet". As an action, nothing more. As "specific beats general", it's strictly a completely different, specific action to splash or throw, not the Use An Object action or the Attack action.
If you are going to enhance that to say "It's an Object, you are Using it, so it is the Use An Object Action", then I will throw back, "You are Attacking with it (as an Improvised Weapon), so it is the Attack Action". Both work logically, and I would allow either at my table. Anyone arguing it was one and not the other at my table would get the response that it was either both or neither.
I would argue that, strictly, it doesn't say it takes an action to use it, nor does it say you throw it with the Use An Object action. If you are going to be strict and bar it from being thrown using the Attack Action, then that same logic stops it from being thrown with the Use An Object Action.
All it says is "As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet". As an action, nothing more. As "specific beats general", it's strictly a completely different, specific action to splash or throw, not the Use An Object action or the Attack action.
If you are going to enhance that to say "It's an Object, you are Using it, so it is the Use An Object Action", then I will throw back, "You are Attacking with it (as an Improvised Weapon), so it is the Attack Action". Both work logically, and I would allow either at my table. Anyone arguing it was one and not the other at my table would get the response that it was either both or neither.
Did you not even read the rule I quoted? "When an object requires your action for its use." So vial of acid as per it's description requires an action to use. It as per the RAW rule of how Use an Object action is written falls into the Use an Object action. I am not "buffing" anything
Vial says to use it takes an action - Use object action says objects that take an action to use fall under "Use an Object" action - So a vial of acid being used by a PC is done under the Use an Object action. Fast hands states that PC can use their BA to do certain things, one of them is Use an Object.
the attack action argument works if you decide ALL things that say attack are therefore attack actions, spells, BA attacks, etc.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
So per the rules this action is actually a separate thing that when you take, you get to make one melee or ranged attack. This rule does not say "if something says make an attack roll is is considered the attack action." Argument for this falls under the premise that you choose this action and then say I am attacking with my acid of vial. But the vial states it takes an action to use, meaning it cannot be selected for the attack action as you can only make a single attack. This action does not allow you to chose anything that says make a attack, but instead you are allowed to make one attack.
Rule wording is very important. obviously the next comment is "Why is Use an Object" written the way it is? Simple they wrote it to allow for certain objects to have certain activation times. If an object says it takes 1 minute to activate, then it cannot be done in one action and therefore is not governed by the use an object action. Use an object action again states that if an object requires you action to USE it is then governed by this action.
Your table can rule as you see fit but it seems the common consensus is that a thief is meant to use certain items that mention they typically require an Action (not Attack Action) to use:
Basically I do not think there is a hard and fast answer but to not allow them to use stuff like alchemist fire and acid flask seems needlessly prohibitive as the list of what they can use with the feature is already really really low and bad.
There seems to be no hard and fast answer only because people needlessly confuse this rule.
Urth, you're wrong on this one. The vial of acid is an object and it requires an action to use. The Use an Object Action is what you call any action used to "activate" an object. There are no special exceptions because there is an attack roll involved. You're making up a rule by saying it's its own special action. It is an object. It takes an action. Therefore it is the Use an Object Action. It's that simple.
There seems to be no hard and fast answer only because people needlessly confuse this rule.
Urth, you're wrong on this one. The vial of acid is an object and it requires an action to use. The Use an Object Action is what you call any action used to "activate" an object. There are no special exceptions because there is an attack roll involved. You're making up a rule by saying it's its own special action. It is an object. It takes an action. Therefore it is the Use an Object Action. It's that simple.
It does seem clear to me as well....but the way 5e uses "natural language" has been more of a problem than a solution IMO.
Its created more issues than just codifying certain things. The way they write things forces a DM to make a ruling in the moment or potentially discuss ahead of time if the forethought is there.
Either way every time you force the DM to make a call that is not clearly delineated in the rules it causes potential strife. In this case I think its more clear...but obviously several others disagree and JC just decided to ignore the actual question as usual.
OK, hollowtpm, yes I misread that. Apologies. That's what happens when you skim read stuff lol.
However, house rule or not, I would definitely allow it to done as an attack, too. It would be ridiculous if you could pull a rock or an empty vial/flask out and throw it as one of your attacks, but not be able to do the same with a vial which contained acid or a flask which contained oil.
Yeah I agree, natural language has definitely muddied certain things up more than necessary.
I just don't think this is one of those times. We're dealing with a bunch of codified terms. Action, Use an Object Action, Attack Roll, Attack Action. Those are all specific game terms that are used very purposely throughout the books. As far as a can tell all of the confusion stems from conflating attack rolls with the attack action, or in Urth's case, coming to the conclusion that it is its own special action despite having no game text to prove as such.
JC refusing to answer is annoying, but maybe he didn't think it was necessary. It certainly doesn't mean that there is no correct reading. There is one. As long as you match up the game terms used in the abilities you know what to do. It's when people start inserting confused ideas about what an attack roll means that muddles everything up.
Yeah I agree, natural language has definitely muddied certain things up more than necessary.
I just don't think this is one of those times. We're dealing with a bunch of codified terms. Action, Use an Object Action, Attack Roll, Attack Action. Those are all specific game terms that are used very purposely throughout the books. As far as a can tell all of the confusion stems from conflating attack rolls with the attack action, or in Urth's case, coming to the conclusion that it is its own special action despite having no game text to prove as such.
JC refusing to answer is annoying, but maybe he didn't think it was necessary. It certainly doesn't mean that there is no correct reading. There is one. As long as you match up the game terms used in the abilities you know what to do. It's when people start inserting confused ideas about what an attack roll means that muddles everything up.
However, house rule or not, I would definitely allow it to done as an attack, too. It would be ridiculous if you could pull a rock or an empty vial/flask out and throw it as one of your attacks, but not be able to do the same with a vial which contained acid or a flask which contained oil.
I disagree, I don't think it's ridiculous. I think it's perfectly logical for a Fighter to be more skilled in using weapons more effectively, and therefore be able to make multiple attacks in a turn with them, but not as skilled in throwing flasks/vials in the "proper" way (so as to have them break the right way to properly have their listed effects), so that they could only throw one in a turn. They can still throw multiples, using them as improvised weapons (same way they could, with mugs and other random objects), but they might not necessarily break where, when, and how they should to have their effects. They might just bounce off their target's torso and smash on the ground harmlessly, or glance off their head, doing damage but not breaking on them. That is, they'd be using them as weapons, with the intent of having them hit their targets and damage them through that impact, and not as objects, with the intent of having them break and spill their contents on the target. (To use a real-world analogy, which doesn't translate to D&D, but I think does support my point: just because someone's really practiced at darts, and can throw them faster and more accurately, doesn't mean they'll be able to do the same with throwing axes. It's a different skill, even if they both involve throwing and hitting something. It doesn't translate to D&D, because the only difference between throwing darts and throwing hand axes is that one uses Dexterity, the other Strength, but the number of attacks you can do with either doesn't change.)
Which is not to say I think your proposed house rule is bad. I think it also works, fine. I just don't think it's a logical necessity.
I may be getting a bit snippitty because my head is pounding, but I still don't agree. To use your example that using an object to make an attack is not the same as using the attack action purely because it is an object - a Knife is an object. If I use fast hands to interact with a knife (which would be valid as it is an object), a valid way of using said knife is that I could throw it at an enemy and make an attack roll, but it doesn't count as making an attack because I am interacting with an object. Same could then be extended to any weapon. I am not taking an attack action, I am taking an interact with object bonus action to fire a crossbow, or hit them with a scimitar etc because they are objects that I am interacting with. It makes no sense logically. From there could you potentially then end up arguing that certain defences that are triggered when being attacked wouldn't work because the other guy is taking an interact with an object action and not taking the attack action. Yes I realise that is far fetched, but if people are being utterly ruthless on the exact words for the actions then potentially some smart arse will try to argue that point. "No, your npc EK can't cast shield because I didn't make an attack action I used an object." - and it all goes downhill from there.
I also agree that it makes no sense that if you can get out a healing potion and throw it to an ally as a fast hands bonus action then logic dictates that you should be able to throw an acid vial at an enemy target. So yes, it could easily be taken both ways. I just don't think it was supposed to work that way. I think it is just due to really bad wording. It should just have been left at pick locks and disable traps. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way of making an extra attack because that is not what the idea of the thief subclass is. Now if it were the assassin subclass then I would be more inclined to allow it, but a thief isn't meant to be more of a stabby stabby kill kill than a fighter. It just 'feels wrong'.
Absolutely anyone can chose to make a second attack with their bonus action as part of two weapon fighting. I left it out of my point because it is so damn obvious that it was stupid to mention it.
You seemed to be concerned that being able to attack with your bonus action at level 3 unbalanced the action economy, but I guess it obviously doesn't and would be stupid to say otherwise so I'll drop it.
But again, as in many other threads, there is no point debating with you, because your view is that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, no matter what. If a person refuses to accept that there is even the slightest possibility that they are wrong then debate is pointless.
Of course I think I'm correct. Why else does anyone argue? Do you not think you are correct? I am not very opinionated, I think whatever evidence supports is correct. In other threads when my ruling is a matter of personal preference and not directly supported by RAW, I say as much and don't push it.
In this case, I think that an item that requires an action to use (like vial of acid) matches the rule: "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action."
So far, I have only been countered with "but attacking makes it an attack action." Which is not only not a rule, but there are examples against it.
It isn't that I refuse to admit I'm wrong, so far no evidence (rules) has even been presented let alone proving me wrong.
I may be getting a bit snippitty because my head is pounding, but I still don't agree. To use your example that using an object to make an attack is not the same as using the attack action purely because it is an object - a Knife is an object. If I use fast hands to interact with a knife (which would be valid as it is an object), a valid way of using said knife is that I could throw it at an enemy and make an attack roll, but it doesn't count as making an attack because I am interacting with an object. Same could then be extended to any weapon. I am not taking an attack action, I am taking an interact with object bonus action to fire a crossbow, or hit them with a scimitar etc because they are objects that I am interacting with. It makes no sense logically.
None of that is the effect of those objects though. When you use your action to activate the effect of an object, that is the use an object action. Weapons, don't have the effect of making an attack, so use an object doesn't work.
From there could you potentially then end up arguing that certain defences that are triggered when being attacked wouldn't work because the other guy is taking an interact with an object action and not taking the attack action. Yes I realise that is far fetched, but if people are being utterly ruthless on the exact words for the actions then potentially some smart arse will try to argue that point. "No, your npc EK can't cast shield because I didn't make an attack action I used an object." - and it all goes downhill from there.
That would be an invalid argument anyway. Attacking is still attacking even if it isn't the attack action. You can shield an acid vial thrown with the use an object action.
I also agree that it makes no sense that if you can get out a healing potion and throw it to an ally as a fast hands bonus action then logic dictates that you should be able to throw an acid vial at an enemy target. So yes, it could easily be taken both ways. I just don't think it was supposed to work that way. I think it is just due to really bad wording. It should just have been left at pick locks and disable traps. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way of making an extra attack because that is not what the idea of the thief subclass is. Now if it were the assassin subclass then I would be more inclined to allow it, but a thief isn't meant to be more of a stabby stabby kill kill than a fighter. It just 'feels wrong'.
I may be getting a bit snippitty because my head is pounding, but I still don't agree. To use your example that using an object to make an attack is not the same as using the attack action purely because it is an object - a Knife is an object. If I use fast hands to interact with a knife (which would be valid as it is an object), a valid way of using said knife is that I could throw it at an enemy and make an attack roll, but it doesn't count as making an attack because I am interacting with an object. Same could then be extended to any weapon. I am not taking an attack action, I am taking an interact with object bonus action to fire a crossbow, or hit them with a scimitar etc because they are objects that I am interacting with. It makes no sense logically. From there could you potentially then end up arguing that certain defences that are triggered when being attacked wouldn't work because the other guy is taking an interact with an object action and not taking the attack action. Yes I realise that is far fetched, but if people are being utterly ruthless on the exact words for the actions then potentially some smart arse will try to argue that point. "No, your npc EK can't cast shield because I didn't make an attack action I used an object." - and it all goes downhill from there.
I also agree that it makes no sense that if you can get out a healing potion and throw it to an ally as a fast hands bonus action then logic dictates that you should be able to throw an acid vial at an enemy target. So yes, it could easily be taken both ways. I just don't think it was supposed to work that way. I think it is just due to really bad wording. It should just have been left at pick locks and disable traps. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way of making an extra attack because that is not what the idea of the thief subclass is. Now if it were the assassin subclass then I would be more inclined to allow it, but a thief isn't meant to be more of a stabby stabby kill kill than a fighter. It just 'feels wrong'.
I'm with you on this.
I think that RAW, the acid is thrown with use an object, and (probably) cannot be thrown with the Attack action. However, as Bearsinger points out, this just feels wrong, for several reasons.
Firstly, as I mentioned above, it creates the pretty stupid situation where you can throw an empty vial with your attack action but not with a Use An Object action, but the situation is reversed as soon as you put acid in that vial. I can see the arguments made by Tonio, but I don't consider them remotely strong enough to explain or justify this inconsistency.
Secondly, as Beardsinger points out, Fast Hands is a trait which doesn't seem like it was intended to be used to attack. It's more about doing something: Picking a lock, disarming a trap, pulling a lever, even drawing a second weapon. If they were allowed to attack with it, the rule would include making an attack. This feels like exploitation of a loophole, to me, rather than an intentional option. It's like using Mage Hand to lift the vial/flask and drop/pour it on an opponent: It may not technically be an attack, but it really is.
There are more reasons, but it generally just feels completely wrong to me. Given the state of RAW, I would probably allow it as wrong as it feels, but I could not justify being unable to use the Attack action to throw it. That's just pushing it too far into the realms of the absurd, for me.
I just don't agree that it should be used as a way of making an extra attack because that is not what the idea of the thief subclass is. Now if it were the assassin subclass then I would be more inclined to allow it, but a thief isn't meant to be more of a stabby stabby kill kill than a fighter. It just 'feels wrong'.
The Rogue in general is an intelligent, resourceful character who doesn't draw on brute force to fight, who doesn't draw on his divine fervor or his connection to magic to get out of uncomfortable situations. ( Inspired by the 1st and 2nd edition )
Even if archetypes like "Arcane Trickster" & "Assassin" exist and these archetypes (to mention only them) give the possibility to cuztomize your character and borrow flavor from other classes, I see (personally) the "thief" archetype as being the archetype closest to the traditional rogue in the 5th edition
Astute, intelligent, full of resources, it seems to me quite adequate that the Thieft with Fast Hands draws from another category of action to have the upper hand in amigues situations, namely here ''Use object Action''. He is the only to have this aditionnal string to his bow.
And RAI, I see the different kind of action as categories, all define by the ressources used to resolve the related action.
Finally, I understand from the RAW that ''Use of object action'' -> Player can use any object from the official object list as an action -> Description of the object state how to use it. This hierarchy is crystal clear for me. (even if this is not what my group and I concluded to do .... democracy U know)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So we ignore that the vial says
and instead only look at is as:
So we ignore that is says it takes an action and now instead count it as an improvised weapon meaning that if I have the extra attack feature I can throw two, which goes against the first line of the items description saying that it takes an action.... wait if we says it is an improvised weapon then we contradict it's own text.
So why does it call it an improvised weapon? Well then if it is not because it is an attack action, since it is an object, and states it takes an action to thrown, then the improvised weapon sentence must be to tell us who to roll it, because the object itself does not confer what bonuses to add to the roll. Really Jounichi, there is devils advocate, but you are just being silly by taking two words and claims rules around them.
And as stated many times already: you can make an attack outside of the attack action. In this case, you are making an attack with the use an object action, because that is the effect of using the item.
The cause and effect is very simple:
Bit, of a bad argument there Beard -refusing to "argue: with someone because they think they are always right when YOU are literally doing that through this entire thread. Hell you even quoted a question thrown at you and ignored it (something you apparently blocked HeironymusZot for). You have not been friendly nor have you been accepting of conversation. Instead you have belittled or ignored those you disagree with instead of even hearing their words. Please take a moment to read your posts and reflect on them. Because if anyone in this thread is being unproductive, it is the person who has now stated they refuse to argue with someone over non or made up isses.
Vials of acid TAKE AND ACTION, just that they take an action, they DO NOT TAKE the attack action because the gd item description (that you even quoted) says it takes an action. So you use the "Use an item" action and then the vial tells you what you can do. the vial does not say "using the attack action." plenty of things say "as an action make an attack roll" that do not then fall under the "attack action" category.
There are many ways to go with this.
I think, under the strictest reading of the rules, Fast Hands would not allow throwing a flask of oil etc. My reasoning is that it says "as an action you may...". It does not say "with the Use An Object Action you may". Fast hands only covers Use An Object, Dex(Sleight of Hand) checks, disarming a trap or picking a lock. Hence, by the very strictest reading, I would say you must use your action.
That said, I would probably allow it to count as Use An Object, or as an Attack. You are using the flask, and you are making an attack with the flask as an improvised weapon. I would probably count it as light and thrown, too, allowing it to be thrown using TWF rules as a bonus action, as long as an attack had been made using a light single handed weapon using the attack action first.
the fact that the vial says it takes an action to use is covered in the "use an object" rules:
So vial of acid (an object by game definition) says it requires an action therefore as with the above rule in the PHB the player would take the Use an OBject action.
SO fast hands allows (specific beats general) that a thief can use a BA to "use an object" which is normally an action. That means that in order for something to qualify for Fast Hands it must fit the above quoted rule. Vial of acid does - therefore allowed under Fast Hands.
I would argue that, strictly, it doesn't say it takes an action to use it, nor does it say you throw it with the Use An Object action. If you are going to be strict and bar it from being thrown using the Attack Action, then that same logic stops it from being thrown with the Use An Object Action.
All it says is "As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet". As an action, nothing more. As "specific beats general", it's strictly a completely different, specific action to splash or throw, not the Use An Object action or the Attack action.
If you are going to enhance that to say "It's an Object, you are Using it, so it is the Use An Object Action", then I will throw back, "You are Attacking with it (as an Improvised Weapon), so it is the Attack Action". Both work logically, and I would allow either at my table. Anyone arguing it was one and not the other at my table would get the response that it was either both or neither.
Did you not even read the rule I quoted? "When an object requires your action for its use." So vial of acid as per it's description requires an action to use. It as per the RAW rule of how Use an Object action is written falls into the Use an Object action. I am not "buffing" anything
Vial says to use it takes an action - Use object action says objects that take an action to use fall under "Use an Object" action - So a vial of acid being used by a PC is done under the Use an Object action. Fast hands states that PC can use their BA to do certain things, one of them is Use an Object.
the attack action argument works if you decide ALL things that say attack are therefore attack actions, spells, BA attacks, etc.
So per the rules this action is actually a separate thing that when you take, you get to make one melee or ranged attack. This rule does not say "if something says make an attack roll is is considered the attack action." Argument for this falls under the premise that you choose this action and then say I am attacking with my acid of vial. But the vial states it takes an action to use, meaning it cannot be selected for the attack action as you can only make a single attack. This action does not allow you to chose anything that says make a attack, but instead you are allowed to make one attack.
Rule wording is very important. obviously the next comment is "Why is Use an Object" written the way it is? Simple they wrote it to allow for certain objects to have certain activation times. If an object says it takes 1 minute to activate, then it cannot be done in one action and therefore is not governed by the use an object action. Use an object action again states that if an object requires you action to USE it is then governed by this action.
Your table can rule as you see fit but it seems the common consensus is that a thief is meant to use certain items that mention they typically require an Action (not Attack Action) to use:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/72270/what-items-can-a-thief-use-as-a-bonus-action-with-his-fast-hands
Basically I do not think there is a hard and fast answer but to not allow them to use stuff like alchemist fire and acid flask seems needlessly prohibitive as the list of what they can use with the feature is already really really low and bad.
There seems to be no hard and fast answer only because people needlessly confuse this rule.
Urth, you're wrong on this one. The vial of acid is an object and it requires an action to use. The Use an Object Action is what you call any action used to "activate" an object. There are no special exceptions because there is an attack roll involved. You're making up a rule by saying it's its own special action. It is an object. It takes an action. Therefore it is the Use an Object Action. It's that simple.
It does seem clear to me as well....but the way 5e uses "natural language" has been more of a problem than a solution IMO.
Its created more issues than just codifying certain things. The way they write things forces a DM to make a ruling in the moment or potentially discuss ahead of time if the forethought is there.
Either way every time you force the DM to make a call that is not clearly delineated in the rules it causes potential strife. In this case I think its more clear...but obviously several others disagree and JC just decided to ignore the actual question as usual.
OK, hollowtpm, yes I misread that. Apologies. That's what happens when you skim read stuff lol.
However, house rule or not, I would definitely allow it to done as an attack, too. It would be ridiculous if you could pull a rock or an empty vial/flask out and throw it as one of your attacks, but not be able to do the same with a vial which contained acid or a flask which contained oil.
Yeah I agree, natural language has definitely muddied certain things up more than necessary.
I just don't think this is one of those times. We're dealing with a bunch of codified terms. Action, Use an Object Action, Attack Roll, Attack Action. Those are all specific game terms that are used very purposely throughout the books. As far as a can tell all of the confusion stems from conflating attack rolls with the attack action, or in Urth's case, coming to the conclusion that it is its own special action despite having no game text to prove as such.
JC refusing to answer is annoying, but maybe he didn't think it was necessary. It certainly doesn't mean that there is no correct reading. There is one. As long as you match up the game terms used in the abilities you know what to do. It's when people start inserting confused ideas about what an attack roll means that muddles everything up.
He is a pretty big hypocrite IMO....
There are so many examples of poor wording in 5e but then he feels justifed in calling people out on Twitter who don't "pay attention to detail"
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1063248155527892992?lang=en
Honestly I think they would be better off bringing in some fresh blood for the rules position and let him do something else for a bit.
Oh I'm certainly not defending JC. I agree, it would be great to get some fresh blood in that position. I find his general tone to be...unsavory.
I disagree, I don't think it's ridiculous. I think it's perfectly logical for a Fighter to be more skilled in using weapons more effectively, and therefore be able to make multiple attacks in a turn with them, but not as skilled in throwing flasks/vials in the "proper" way (so as to have them break the right way to properly have their listed effects), so that they could only throw one in a turn. They can still throw multiples, using them as improvised weapons (same way they could, with mugs and other random objects), but they might not necessarily break where, when, and how they should to have their effects. They might just bounce off their target's torso and smash on the ground harmlessly, or glance off their head, doing damage but not breaking on them. That is, they'd be using them as weapons, with the intent of having them hit their targets and damage them through that impact, and not as objects, with the intent of having them break and spill their contents on the target. (To use a real-world analogy, which doesn't translate to D&D, but I think does support my point: just because someone's really practiced at darts, and can throw them faster and more accurately, doesn't mean they'll be able to do the same with throwing axes. It's a different skill, even if they both involve throwing and hitting something. It doesn't translate to D&D, because the only difference between throwing darts and throwing hand axes is that one uses Dexterity, the other Strength, but the number of attacks you can do with either doesn't change.)
Which is not to say I think your proposed house rule is bad. I think it also works, fine. I just don't think it's a logical necessity.
I may be getting a bit snippitty because my head is pounding, but I still don't agree. To use your example that using an object to make an attack is not the same as using the attack action purely because it is an object - a Knife is an object. If I use fast hands to interact with a knife (which would be valid as it is an object), a valid way of using said knife is that I could throw it at an enemy and make an attack roll, but it doesn't count as making an attack because I am interacting with an object. Same could then be extended to any weapon. I am not taking an attack action, I am taking an interact with object bonus action to fire a crossbow, or hit them with a scimitar etc because they are objects that I am interacting with. It makes no sense logically. From there could you potentially then end up arguing that certain defences that are triggered when being attacked wouldn't work because the other guy is taking an interact with an object action and not taking the attack action. Yes I realise that is far fetched, but if people are being utterly ruthless on the exact words for the actions then potentially some smart arse will try to argue that point. "No, your npc EK can't cast shield because I didn't make an attack action I used an object." - and it all goes downhill from there.
I also agree that it makes no sense that if you can get out a healing potion and throw it to an ally as a fast hands bonus action then logic dictates that you should be able to throw an acid vial at an enemy target. So yes, it could easily be taken both ways. I just don't think it was supposed to work that way. I think it is just due to really bad wording. It should just have been left at pick locks and disable traps. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way of making an extra attack because that is not what the idea of the thief subclass is. Now if it were the assassin subclass then I would be more inclined to allow it, but a thief isn't meant to be more of a stabby stabby kill kill than a fighter. It just 'feels wrong'.
You seemed to be concerned that being able to attack with your bonus action at level 3 unbalanced the action economy, but I guess it obviously doesn't and would be stupid to say otherwise so I'll drop it.
Of course I think I'm correct. Why else does anyone argue? Do you not think you are correct? I am not very opinionated, I think whatever evidence supports is correct. In other threads when my ruling is a matter of personal preference and not directly supported by RAW, I say as much and don't push it.
In this case, I think that an item that requires an action to use (like vial of acid) matches the rule: "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action."
So far, I have only been countered with "but attacking makes it an attack action." Which is not only not a rule, but there are examples against it.
It isn't that I refuse to admit I'm wrong, so far no evidence (rules) has even been presented let alone proving me wrong.
None of that is the effect of those objects though. When you use your action to activate the effect of an object, that is the use an object action. Weapons, don't have the effect of making an attack, so use an object doesn't work.
That would be an invalid argument anyway. Attacking is still attacking even if it isn't the attack action. You can shield an acid vial thrown with the use an object action.
It is just how game mechanics worked out.
I'm with you on this.
I think that RAW, the acid is thrown with use an object, and (probably) cannot be thrown with the Attack action. However, as Bearsinger points out, this just feels wrong, for several reasons.
Firstly, as I mentioned above, it creates the pretty stupid situation where you can throw an empty vial with your attack action but not with a Use An Object action, but the situation is reversed as soon as you put acid in that vial. I can see the arguments made by Tonio, but I don't consider them remotely strong enough to explain or justify this inconsistency.
Secondly, as Beardsinger points out, Fast Hands is a trait which doesn't seem like it was intended to be used to attack. It's more about doing something: Picking a lock, disarming a trap, pulling a lever, even drawing a second weapon. If they were allowed to attack with it, the rule would include making an attack. This feels like exploitation of a loophole, to me, rather than an intentional option. It's like using Mage Hand to lift the vial/flask and drop/pour it on an opponent: It may not technically be an attack, but it really is.
There are more reasons, but it generally just feels completely wrong to me. Given the state of RAW, I would probably allow it as wrong as it feels, but I could not justify being unable to use the Attack action to throw it. That's just pushing it too far into the realms of the absurd, for me.
The Rogue in general is an intelligent, resourceful character who doesn't draw on brute force to fight, who doesn't draw on his divine fervor or his connection to magic to get out of uncomfortable situations. ( Inspired by the 1st and 2nd edition )
Even if archetypes like "Arcane Trickster" & "Assassin" exist and these archetypes (to mention only them) give the possibility to cuztomize your character and borrow flavor from other classes, I see (personally) the "thief" archetype as being the archetype closest to the traditional rogue in the 5th edition
Astute, intelligent, full of resources, it seems to me quite adequate that the Thieft with Fast Hands draws from another category of action to have the upper hand in amigues situations, namely here ''Use object Action''. He is the only to have this aditionnal string to his bow.
And RAI, I see the different kind of action as categories, all define by the ressources used to resolve the related action.
Finally, I understand from the RAW that ''Use of object action'' -> Player can use any object from the official object list as an action -> Description of the object state how to use it. This hierarchy is crystal clear for me. (even if this is not what my group and I concluded to do .... democracy U know)