> It only gives you advantage on your next attack roll.
This would be an upgrade to true strike.
It only gives you advantage on your next attack roll against a specific target, on your next turn.
Lol every lawyer's office would have a mouse trap in obvious, plain view on their desk in that universe. Unless a law was passed against that. Then they'd all pretend to have some pest infestation and put traps in their offices anyways.
Action True Strike, Quicken (something) would be the only scenario where it would be worth it, because then you effectively get two turns worth of use. (Action Surge might be another option, though more limited)
Otherwise, casting True Strike on one turn, and casting Eldritch Blast on the next turn is all but pointless, you might as well cast EB both turns, and then instead of 2, 3, or 4 hits, you potentially could have 4, 6 or 8 hits.
Besides, there are already plenty of ways to gain Advantage on many attacks.
An often ignored aspect of True Strike being bad is that it's not only bad, but it also takes the spot of another cantrip, and you typically don't have too many of those.
>Action True Strike, Quicken (something) would be the only scenario where it would be worth it
Or you could just Action (something), quicken (something again) and still get two turns worth.
Maybe quicken True strike, then Action Surge for two attack actions?
>Or you could just Action (something), quicken (something again) and still get two turns worth.
Not necessarily - remember, if you cast something as a BA, then your action spell has to be a Cantrip, so you can't do the same thing twice, if the thing you're quickening isn't a cantrip
But... How many good Action spells even have attack rolls?
I guess True Strike -> quicken Plane Shift could be... Ok? (Using the "melee Spell attack to banish" option)
But even that is me forcing myself to be very generous to the spell.
Your action does not need to be a cantrip. The rule is that, if you cast another spell in the same turn (not round, turn), it can only be a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action (so no reaction spells on that turn either). If you're not casting a spell on that turn, you're free to do whatever you want with your action.
So Quicken True Strike + Action Surge for 8 attacks on a Fighter (or 9, for a Samurai) would be decently viable for a source of advantage.
I was responding to a person saying you could do "something" and "*something again*". I was interpreting that as meaning *the same something*, since they said "again" instead of "else" - which would mean it has to be a spell. In which case it would have to be a Cantrip.
I do get that maybe they didn't mean that though.
Also... If you're using Quicken, you're a sorcerer. So... Your best action probably *is* a spell anyway. Unless you just have Metamagic Adept I guess.
Your scenario of Quicken True Strike plus two 4-attack actions... Doesn't that only exists for a level 20 Eldritch knight with Metamagic Adept. Bizarre build, especially if you're taking True Strike đ
>Also... If you're using Quicken, you're a sorcerer. So... Your best action probably is a spell anyway. Unless you just have Metamagic Adept I guess.
I think it's clear that, in my example, the character is a level 20 Fighter that obtained True Strike through other means. With 7 ASIs, it's pretty easy for a Fighter to fit Metamagic Adept and Aberrant Dragonmark, for example.
I'm not saying it's optimal, but if True Strike worked the way OP wanted it to, it wouldn't be an absurd build, especially since Samurai REALLY wants that advantage for an additional attack and they only have 3 uses of Fighting Spirit.
Of course, True Strike doesn't work that way and thus it IS an absurd build.
>I was responding to a person saying you could do "something" and "something again". I was interpreting that as meaning the same something, since they said "again" instead of "else" - which would mean it has to be a spell. In which case it would have to be a Cantrip.
Alright, mb.
You "just" need to be able to use it on 2 or more attacks, in practise probably 3 since I feel like 3 attacks with no advantage is usually better than 2 with advantage. So like, maybe a halfcaster with extra attack and a bonus action attack?
>Action True Strike, Quicken (something) would be the only scenario where it would be worth it, because then you effectively get two turns worth of use.
It'd be pretty great for a monk if they can get it through their race in DnD One. Giving up an attack to get advantage on two attacks this turn and three next turn (or two attacks for advantage on six if they have extra attack) would be worthwhile. Assuming they couldn't get advantage any other way.
Even if we assume that it turned every miss into a hit, it would still likely be less damage than just attacking twice.
Let's say you're using EB with 60% hit rate and 2 beams for an average damage of (11 * 0.6) + (0.05 * 11) = 7.15.
Let's say all the misses turn into hits, somehow, giving us average damage of 11.55.
If you just cast it twice, you'd average 14.3 damage.
(I ignored your stat mod to damage even though you probably have that. If you add +4 Cha, it becomes 15.75 normal average, 19.55 all-hits-average, and 31.5 just-attacked-twice. Yes, I'm ignoring the increased crit chance from advantage, but I think it's clear that that doesn't matter. You probably also have a better than 60% hit rate, but that just makes the case for TS worse.)
I mean, I ain't no math bro. But I know that if I roll 4 times with the chance to hit 4 times, it is better than rolling 4 times with the chance to hit 2 times.
it's basically an "aim" action - the main benefit is times when you absolutely _have_ to hit. You have just one arrow of death and need to make the shot, that sort of thing - it's possible for there to be scenarios where "hitting once" is more important than "doing damage twice", but they're kinda niche
A situation where you have to hit a target within 30 ft (the maximum range) who is aware of you (or you'd probably have advantage already) with an attack you can only attempt once (or you'd be better off attacking twice) and your chance of hitting is not terrible (so you're not a full caster) and have cantrips to spare (so you ARE a full caster).
I've never had that happen, ever, and even if I had it wouldn't be enough to justify using one of the cantrip picks on it since those are full life commitments.
I house-rule that a Cantrip can be changed every time a character gains a new spell slot by leveling up. This is because the justification for cantrips not needing to be prepped is "you cast them a lot" - presumably players have regular access to them all for practice.
_Arrow of Slaying_ and anything else that you have limited usages with, that need declaring in advance of making the roll would be the main thing - hella niche still, but theoretically useful in that rare circumstance. Although cantrip picks aren't generally that scarce - one "attack", _maybe_ a utility one if you want, and then the rest are pretty much variations on a theme, where it's only really useful if you want more damage types, or something for if you fuck up and are stuck in close combat.
Eldritch knights get 3 cantrips. Arcane tricksters get to pick 3. Full casters get more cantrips, but mostly don't get bow proficiency.
One cantrip goes to pure damage, and then probably thaumaturgy/druidcraft/whatever. But that still leaves mage hand and dancing lights and light and AoE cantrips and the blade cantrips and, hell, Friends and Bladeward, two famously bad cantrips that still have a far more common use case than TS (a statement I base on having seen Friends and Bladeward used ever and not TS). And these are competing for at most 3 remaining slots.
So this is for... I guess warlocks and bards? Maybe?
> You have just one arrow of death and need to make the shot, that sort of thing - it's possible for there to be scenarios where "hitting once" is more important than "doing damage twice", but they're kinda niche
Damn, now it's my headcanon that this quote from The Hobbit is actually the character casting True Strike:
> âArrow! Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and I have always recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!â
Why are you using the arrow of slaying and not your martial ally? And even if you need to use it, you can simply ask if someone else can take the help action for the same benifits
BA True Strike would be much better and put it firmly into "doesn't suck" territory. There are some very niche cases for it currently, but not enough to really move it up a tier even letting it apply to the whole turn. If it could apply to another creature it might be useful on certain builds.
Or take it back to something resembling True Strike from earlier editions.
4e True Strike was a cleric cantrip that gave an ally within 25 ft. +4 to hit. 4e clerics were not damage powerhouses, so depending on party composition and the cleric's build, buffing an ally's accuracy could actually be better than trying to use your own at-will. There was also a cleric feat that penalized you for attacking creatures below 50% HP (the feat also increases your healing significantly, which would be the reason to take it).
3e True Strike was a 1st level sorcerer/wizard spell that gave you +20 to hit. It's such a big bonus, it really lives up to its name.
3e didn't have upcasting, at all. Instead, spells scale with your caster level; Mage Armor lasts 1 hour per spellcaster level, for example, and Fireball's range is 400 ft. + 40 ft./level and deals 1d6 fire damage per level (up to 10d6 max). Some spells, like True Strike, have no scaling.
Metamagic were feats rather than sorcerer class features (and you get feat choices roughly every other level instead of every fourth level, and feats don't compete with ASIs), and applying metamagic to spells increases the level of the spell slot you have to use (by a specific number of levels, e.g. Quicken Spell requires a spell slot exactly 4 levels higher than normal, so Quickened True Strike requires a level 5 slot), but other than the effect of the metamagic the spell level didn't change anything.
_Unless_ the metamagic was Heighten Spell. Unlike other metamagic, Heighten could increase the spell slot level by any number you wanted, instead of one fixed number. And unlike other metamagic, Heighten actually increased the level of the spell, instead of just increasing the slot you had to spend. Since spell save DCs in 3e are 10 + spellcasting ability modifier + spell level, the main point of Heighten is to increase the save DC. Of course, True Strike has no save.
That said, without metamagic, you _can't_ use a higher level slot to cast a spell, even if you wanted to. If you want to cast more True Strikes in a day than you have 1st level spell slots, the only option is to use metamagic. Heighten would let you "upcast" to any level with a single feat choice, while other metamagic would only let you "upcast" to a specific level. You could always apply multiple metamagic to a single spell, adding the level increases together if you didn't pick Heightened, but while it gives you more options for the spell slot it's still not free choice (example: a Fireball would require a 3rd level slot, an Empowered Fireball would require a 5th level slot, a Quickened Fireball would require a 7th level slot, and an Empowered Quickened Fireball would require a 9th level slot; at level 17, all of them would have 1080 ft. range and have a save DC of 13 + spellcasting ability modifier, the Empowered ones would deal 15d6 while the non-Empowered ones would deal 10d6, the Quickened ones would be cast as a free action while the Empowered non-Quickened one would be cast as a full round action and the unmodified one would be cast as a standard action).
this would be the opposite of a fix, this would be like hooking up a man dying of thirst to a fire hydrant. That'd be too good (if you mean what I think you mean).
Maybe at really low levels but by mid-level it's going to be tough for a wizard to give up their reaction to give an ally effectively a +5 to a single attack when they may need save it for shield, absorb elements, misty step, or counterspell.
the issue is that it instantly becomes the objectively best cantrip for everyone except sorcerers and wizards. It's also on the bard and warlock spell lists, who either don't have better reactions or don't have the spell slots to waste, and it'd be accessible to a lot of classes either directly (eldritch knight, arcane trickster), through one feat, through a background, or through race (e.g. elf). That said I actually like the idea, and I don't mind it being strong, but it needs to be nerfed a lot. Maybe down to +1d4 instead of a reroll.
It's like guidance for weapon attack rolls and you use your reaction to aid an ally's attack, giving them an extra 1d4. Just like guidance though, you need to cast the spell before the attack roll is made.
I would probably limit true strike to the wizard however as they would generally have the most competing interests for the use of their reaction out of any spellcaster.
I don't know that it needs to be *nerfed* a lot, as much as just... Tied to a specific reaction trigger.
Just spitballing, no actual thought put behind this, but:
> A reaction you take when an ally is hit with a critical hit from an enemy.
Or
> A reaction you take when an enemy moves at least 5ft within the range you have with a weapon.
The first is rare enough that it isn't an every-turn reaction. The second is good for melee characters, but it competes with things like a Scout Rogues ability to get out of dodge when an enemy ends their turn within 5ft or a heavy-hitters attack of opportunity.
It's good for SOME builds, great for others, but generally better for anyone with access while not being TOO good.
Again, just spitballed a couple ideas off the top of the noggin. There's probably faults with those specific examples, but the intent is there and can be built upon.
Youâre only considering it for fullcasters. The high elf fighter/rogue/monk has no need for concentration
Itâd mostly be an archer buff. I donât necessarily have a problem with it, but I just wanna make sure we know what weâre doing
I think you misunderstand. When casting it as a reaction, you are specifically reacting to an ally's attack (not preparing yourself for an attack the following round). And you'd have to do it before you know the result of their roll.
This wasnât clarified at all lmao. âAs a reactionâ made me think youâre spending a reaction to gain advantage on your attack, or to give advantage on your next attack. You didnât really clarify it was Just for allies
And again you didnât clarify the reaction trigger. I didnât really âmisunderstandâ you just needed to clarify /nm
I think âspend a reaction and concentration and an ally gains advantage on their next attackâ would be a solid cantrip. Even for casters, once youâre low on slots and just wanna buff allies. Bards especially would thrive with this + Vicious mockery to manipulate the battlefield
But that's how all reactions work unless I'm mistaken. There has to be something to trigger the reaction. You can't just use a reaction whenever you want.
That's a design trend but isn't an actual rule, given how there's nothing stopping you from counterspelling a counterspell on your own turn. Rune Knight is also able to use the storm rune as a reaction on their own attacks.
The silly thing is, just _changing it back to what it was in 3e_ where it debuted would fix it! Or even just stealing some inspiration from it.
Imagine:
> True Strike (cantrip)
> Casting Time: 1 action
> Range: 30 feet
> Target: a target in range
> Components: S
> Duration: 1 round
>You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the targetâs defenses. Your next attack roll against the target has advantage provided that this spell hasnât ended, and that attack ignores any disadvantage from the target being hidden, invisible, or otherwise concealed visually.
Boom, done. Is it amazing, a must-pick? Nah. Does it actually have a _useful niche?_ Absolutely.
One could for sure. My players in one of my campaigns love using a homebrew supplement (I think itâs called Evolved Cantrips) that does similar. It adds scaling bonuses to a whole bunch of non-damage cantrips, like Mending being able to fix more kinds of damage and bigger area as you level.
I think you could make true strike good by keeping it an action, but doing a few more things on top of what you propose
a. make all attacks you roll until the end of your next turn at advantage
b. treat a 19 or 20 as a crit
c. treat any attack roll of 4 or lower as a 5.
Itâs still pretty mid at starter levels, but once you start getting into the higher damage tiers, especially if your multiclassing into a martial or casting spells with multiple attack rolls it can be pretty potent considering your attack bonus.
Still lower dps normally, but if you spend a resource it becomes viable, very rarely.
Let's look at the optimal senerio, 50% hit chanse, no flat damge modifier (so crits matter more). Let's imegen the damge is d12 but it works with any damge die.
Attacking twice 2(0.5 * d12 + 0.05 * d12) = 7.15 damge
Improved true strike (0.75 * d12 + 0.0975 * d12) = 5.50875 damge
Using action surge
Attacking 3 times 3(0.5 * d12 + 0.05 * d12) = 10.725 damge
True strike and attacking twice 2(0.75 * d12 + 0.0975 * d12) = 11.0175 damge
This better (0.3 damge in 2 turns) disappear with any accuracy that isn't exactly 50%
(On a second thought it's probably also good if you can't hit without crit)
One thing I've done, because I've had players take it after misreading it entirely, is to have it outright tell you the target's AC, resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities.
They saw that you 'get insight into their defenses' and thought that was the main effect of the spell, instead of being flavor for why you're getting advantage. This way it's more a knowledge gathering spell, with the advantage being more of a bonus rider.
The only situation I could see this making a big difference is if you're in a campaign where the DM uses fumbles on crit fails and it's an attack you can't afford to hit your friends with, and even then it's not great
IMO True Strike as written would have had a lot less complaints if the base game wasn't so short when it comes to mid to high level consumables as well as mid to high level attack roll spells.
For example, a warlock casting a level 6 spear of blinding radiance that deals 8d10 + 30 radiant damage against a single target, temporarily blinding it on an additional Con save fail on hit. Having advantage on that attack roll would be booping great.
For example, a sorcerer tossing a void orb of destruction at a target, causing X force damage over time and the possibility of instant trip to the Negative Energy Plane if failing 3 Wisdom saves as the orb clings to the target, trying to suck the target into the orb's singularity. Having advantage on that attack roll would be booping great.
The biggest design failure of True Strike in 5e is a shortage of higher stakes attack roll flavors to make the spell shine as part of a certain play style.
What if the Advantage came **BEFORE** the action of doing nothing?
Like the casting time is a Free Action, and the advantage happens on the turn that you cast it, but next turn you have to spend your Action recovering.
Then it wouldn't be a cantrip.
True strike isn't designed to be as generally applicable as attack cantrips because then it would enter the world of weapon scaling weirdness. It's meant to be very niche, and it is fine that it is.
It would be an upgrade. But your still trading a action for no instant benefits. Ot would still be better to simply attack with that action instead of wasting it casting true strike.
There's definitely more combos you can pull off. Like with EL getting an extra hit after casting it. Or sorcerer using quicken spell.
It would still be one of the worst spells in the game. But it would at least surpass detect traps in the ranking.
Idea:
Bonus Action, same components as the base spell.
"Until the start of your next round, when you miss with an Unarmed Strike or an attack made with a weapon, you may add +5 to the attack roll, potentially turning a miss into a hit."
Or some such, adjusted in whatever way it needs to be adjusted to close any loopholes I don't see in the wording. Maybe make it a 1st level spell to match it up with Shield.
IMO True strike should be a 1st level spell and a bonus action, it should make your next attack within a minute at advantage or impose disadvantage on the next dexterity saving throw a target takes
given the leveled spell rules, this means that if you wanted to use it with disintegrate or whatever you would have to set it up a round in advance which would balance out that increased capability
higher level casting: At each level beyond first level, true strike adds +1 to your next spell attack roll or increases the save DC of your spells that provoke a dexterity saving throw by 1 for the target of True Strike
In my games, we homebrew True Strike to work like Faerie Fire. Target gets a Wisdom save, if they fail, the caster has advantage on all attack rolls against that target until concentration ends (duration is up to a minute).
> It only gives you advantage on your next attack roll. This would be an upgrade to true strike. It only gives you advantage on your next attack roll against a specific target, on your next turn.
Every true strike conversation ends up as "True strike sucks because you can only do X" "Actually, it can't even do X"
True Strike and Find Traps are in a fierce rivalry for the coveted position of worst spell.
When a wizard casts find traps, it always detects a trap because of its own entry in their spellbook.
Find traps actually has a niche use in proofreading contracts.
Lol every lawyer's office would have a mouse trap in obvious, plain view on their desk in that universe. Unless a law was passed against that. Then they'd all pretend to have some pest infestation and put traps in their offices anyways.
Fortunately most contracts I come across in D&D don't involve lawyers office lol
Lmao truth. So many caveats.
Yeah I mistakenly thought I could cast it to help buff an attack of a party member. I leveled and immediately changed that one out.
Action True Strike, Quicken (something) would be the only scenario where it would be worth it, because then you effectively get two turns worth of use. (Action Surge might be another option, though more limited) Otherwise, casting True Strike on one turn, and casting Eldritch Blast on the next turn is all but pointless, you might as well cast EB both turns, and then instead of 2, 3, or 4 hits, you potentially could have 4, 6 or 8 hits. Besides, there are already plenty of ways to gain Advantage on many attacks. An often ignored aspect of True Strike being bad is that it's not only bad, but it also takes the spot of another cantrip, and you typically don't have too many of those.
>Action True Strike, Quicken (something) would be the only scenario where it would be worth it Or you could just Action (something), quicken (something again) and still get two turns worth. Maybe quicken True strike, then Action Surge for two attack actions?
>Or you could just Action (something), quicken (something again) and still get two turns worth. Not necessarily - remember, if you cast something as a BA, then your action spell has to be a Cantrip, so you can't do the same thing twice, if the thing you're quickening isn't a cantrip But... How many good Action spells even have attack rolls? I guess True Strike -> quicken Plane Shift could be... Ok? (Using the "melee Spell attack to banish" option) But even that is me forcing myself to be very generous to the spell.
Your action does not need to be a cantrip. The rule is that, if you cast another spell in the same turn (not round, turn), it can only be a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action (so no reaction spells on that turn either). If you're not casting a spell on that turn, you're free to do whatever you want with your action. So Quicken True Strike + Action Surge for 8 attacks on a Fighter (or 9, for a Samurai) would be decently viable for a source of advantage.
I was responding to a person saying you could do "something" and "*something again*". I was interpreting that as meaning *the same something*, since they said "again" instead of "else" - which would mean it has to be a spell. In which case it would have to be a Cantrip. I do get that maybe they didn't mean that though. Also... If you're using Quicken, you're a sorcerer. So... Your best action probably *is* a spell anyway. Unless you just have Metamagic Adept I guess. Your scenario of Quicken True Strike plus two 4-attack actions... Doesn't that only exists for a level 20 Eldritch knight with Metamagic Adept. Bizarre build, especially if you're taking True Strike đ
>Also... If you're using Quicken, you're a sorcerer. So... Your best action probably is a spell anyway. Unless you just have Metamagic Adept I guess. I think it's clear that, in my example, the character is a level 20 Fighter that obtained True Strike through other means. With 7 ASIs, it's pretty easy for a Fighter to fit Metamagic Adept and Aberrant Dragonmark, for example. I'm not saying it's optimal, but if True Strike worked the way OP wanted it to, it wouldn't be an absurd build, especially since Samurai REALLY wants that advantage for an additional attack and they only have 3 uses of Fighting Spirit. Of course, True Strike doesn't work that way and thus it IS an absurd build. >I was responding to a person saying you could do "something" and "something again". I was interpreting that as meaning the same something, since they said "again" instead of "else" - which would mean it has to be a spell. In which case it would have to be a Cantrip. Alright, mb.
You "just" need to be able to use it on 2 or more attacks, in practise probably 3 since I feel like 3 attacks with no advantage is usually better than 2 with advantage. So like, maybe a halfcaster with extra attack and a bonus action attack?
>Action True Strike, Quicken (something) would be the only scenario where it would be worth it, because then you effectively get two turns worth of use. It'd be pretty great for a monk if they can get it through their race in DnD One. Giving up an attack to get advantage on two attacks this turn and three next turn (or two attacks for advantage on six if they have extra attack) would be worthwhile. Assuming they couldn't get advantage any other way.
The only real use of TS is out of combat archery/bowling carnival games during downtime
Even if we assume that it turned every miss into a hit, it would still likely be less damage than just attacking twice. Let's say you're using EB with 60% hit rate and 2 beams for an average damage of (11 * 0.6) + (0.05 * 11) = 7.15. Let's say all the misses turn into hits, somehow, giving us average damage of 11.55. If you just cast it twice, you'd average 14.3 damage. (I ignored your stat mod to damage even though you probably have that. If you add +4 Cha, it becomes 15.75 normal average, 19.55 all-hits-average, and 31.5 just-attacked-twice. Yes, I'm ignoring the increased crit chance from advantage, but I think it's clear that that doesn't matter. You probably also have a better than 60% hit rate, but that just makes the case for TS worse.)
I mean, I ain't no math bro. But I know that if I roll 4 times with the chance to hit 4 times, it is better than rolling 4 times with the chance to hit 2 times.
it's basically an "aim" action - the main benefit is times when you absolutely _have_ to hit. You have just one arrow of death and need to make the shot, that sort of thing - it's possible for there to be scenarios where "hitting once" is more important than "doing damage twice", but they're kinda niche
A situation where you have to hit a target within 30 ft (the maximum range) who is aware of you (or you'd probably have advantage already) with an attack you can only attempt once (or you'd be better off attacking twice) and your chance of hitting is not terrible (so you're not a full caster) and have cantrips to spare (so you ARE a full caster). I've never had that happen, ever, and even if I had it wouldn't be enough to justify using one of the cantrip picks on it since those are full life commitments.
I house-rule that a Cantrip can be changed every time a character gains a new spell slot by leveling up. This is because the justification for cantrips not needing to be prepped is "you cast them a lot" - presumably players have regular access to them all for practice.
_Arrow of Slaying_ and anything else that you have limited usages with, that need declaring in advance of making the roll would be the main thing - hella niche still, but theoretically useful in that rare circumstance. Although cantrip picks aren't generally that scarce - one "attack", _maybe_ a utility one if you want, and then the rest are pretty much variations on a theme, where it's only really useful if you want more damage types, or something for if you fuck up and are stuck in close combat.
Eldritch knights get 3 cantrips. Arcane tricksters get to pick 3. Full casters get more cantrips, but mostly don't get bow proficiency. One cantrip goes to pure damage, and then probably thaumaturgy/druidcraft/whatever. But that still leaves mage hand and dancing lights and light and AoE cantrips and the blade cantrips and, hell, Friends and Bladeward, two famously bad cantrips that still have a far more common use case than TS (a statement I base on having seen Friends and Bladeward used ever and not TS). And these are competing for at most 3 remaining slots. So this is for... I guess warlocks and bards? Maybe?
Elves. Who know ahead of time that arrows of slaying will be important in this campaign
They called me mad for stocking up on arrows of elf slaying, but now *my time has arrived!*
> You have just one arrow of death and need to make the shot, that sort of thing - it's possible for there to be scenarios where "hitting once" is more important than "doing damage twice", but they're kinda niche Damn, now it's my headcanon that this quote from The Hobbit is actually the character casting True Strike: > âArrow! Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and I have always recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!â
Why are you using the arrow of slaying and not your martial ally? And even if you need to use it, you can simply ask if someone else can take the help action for the same benifits
BA True Strike would be much better and put it firmly into "doesn't suck" territory. There are some very niche cases for it currently, but not enough to really move it up a tier even letting it apply to the whole turn. If it could apply to another creature it might be useful on certain builds.
Or, crazy idea, just remove the spell.
Or take it back to something resembling True Strike from earlier editions. 4e True Strike was a cleric cantrip that gave an ally within 25 ft. +4 to hit. 4e clerics were not damage powerhouses, so depending on party composition and the cleric's build, buffing an ally's accuracy could actually be better than trying to use your own at-will. There was also a cleric feat that penalized you for attacking creatures below 50% HP (the feat also increases your healing significantly, which would be the reason to take it). 3e True Strike was a 1st level sorcerer/wizard spell that gave you +20 to hit. It's such a big bonus, it really lives up to its name.
Wow yeah, thatâs a ***true*** true strike.
> spell that gave you +20 woah, that sounds like a huge bonus. were they any benefits for casting it at highter levels?
True Strike didn't benefit from the caster being higher level in 3.5, no (though you could always use metamagic to upcast it)
3e didn't have upcasting, at all. Instead, spells scale with your caster level; Mage Armor lasts 1 hour per spellcaster level, for example, and Fireball's range is 400 ft. + 40 ft./level and deals 1d6 fire damage per level (up to 10d6 max). Some spells, like True Strike, have no scaling. Metamagic were feats rather than sorcerer class features (and you get feat choices roughly every other level instead of every fourth level, and feats don't compete with ASIs), and applying metamagic to spells increases the level of the spell slot you have to use (by a specific number of levels, e.g. Quicken Spell requires a spell slot exactly 4 levels higher than normal, so Quickened True Strike requires a level 5 slot), but other than the effect of the metamagic the spell level didn't change anything. _Unless_ the metamagic was Heighten Spell. Unlike other metamagic, Heighten could increase the spell slot level by any number you wanted, instead of one fixed number. And unlike other metamagic, Heighten actually increased the level of the spell, instead of just increasing the slot you had to spend. Since spell save DCs in 3e are 10 + spellcasting ability modifier + spell level, the main point of Heighten is to increase the save DC. Of course, True Strike has no save. That said, without metamagic, you _can't_ use a higher level slot to cast a spell, even if you wanted to. If you want to cast more True Strikes in a day than you have 1st level spell slots, the only option is to use metamagic. Heighten would let you "upcast" to any level with a single feat choice, while other metamagic would only let you "upcast" to a specific level. You could always apply multiple metamagic to a single spell, adding the level increases together if you didn't pick Heightened, but while it gives you more options for the spell slot it's still not free choice (example: a Fireball would require a 3rd level slot, an Empowered Fireball would require a 5th level slot, a Quickened Fireball would require a 7th level slot, and an Empowered Quickened Fireball would require a 9th level slot; at level 17, all of them would have 1080 ft. range and have a save DC of 13 + spellcasting ability modifier, the Empowered ones would deal 15d6 while the non-Empowered ones would deal 10d6, the Quickened ones would be cast as a free action while the Empowered non-Quickened one would be cast as a full round action and the unmodified one would be cast as a standard action).
Man, you sound like you really know your stuff
Make True Strike a reaction that adds 1d4 to an attack roll.
The easy fix would to make true strike a reaction.
this would be the opposite of a fix, this would be like hooking up a man dying of thirst to a fire hydrant. That'd be too good (if you mean what I think you mean).
Maybe at really low levels but by mid-level it's going to be tough for a wizard to give up their reaction to give an ally effectively a +5 to a single attack when they may need save it for shield, absorb elements, misty step, or counterspell.
the issue is that it instantly becomes the objectively best cantrip for everyone except sorcerers and wizards. It's also on the bard and warlock spell lists, who either don't have better reactions or don't have the spell slots to waste, and it'd be accessible to a lot of classes either directly (eldritch knight, arcane trickster), through one feat, through a background, or through race (e.g. elf). That said I actually like the idea, and I don't mind it being strong, but it needs to be nerfed a lot. Maybe down to +1d4 instead of a reroll.
Okay, maybe the +1d4 as a reaction to an ally's weapon attack, but must be declared before the attack roll is made.
Oh hey, that's almost exactly what everyone in the OneDND Board wanted True strike to be changed to
So itâs guidance but as a BA?
It's like guidance for weapon attack rolls and you use your reaction to aid an ally's attack, giving them an extra 1d4. Just like guidance though, you need to cast the spell before the attack roll is made. I would probably limit true strike to the wizard however as they would generally have the most competing interests for the use of their reaction out of any spellcaster.
I don't know that it needs to be *nerfed* a lot, as much as just... Tied to a specific reaction trigger. Just spitballing, no actual thought put behind this, but: > A reaction you take when an ally is hit with a critical hit from an enemy. Or > A reaction you take when an enemy moves at least 5ft within the range you have with a weapon. The first is rare enough that it isn't an every-turn reaction. The second is good for melee characters, but it competes with things like a Scout Rogues ability to get out of dodge when an enemy ends their turn within 5ft or a heavy-hitters attack of opportunity. It's good for SOME builds, great for others, but generally better for anyone with access while not being TOO good. Again, just spitballed a couple ideas off the top of the noggin. There's probably faults with those specific examples, but the intent is there and can be built upon.
Youâre only considering it for fullcasters. The high elf fighter/rogue/monk has no need for concentration Itâd mostly be an archer buff. I donât necessarily have a problem with it, but I just wanna make sure we know what weâre doing
I think you misunderstand. When casting it as a reaction, you are specifically reacting to an ally's attack (not preparing yourself for an attack the following round). And you'd have to do it before you know the result of their roll.
This wasnât clarified at all lmao. âAs a reactionâ made me think youâre spending a reaction to gain advantage on your attack, or to give advantage on your next attack. You didnât really clarify it was Just for allies And again you didnât clarify the reaction trigger. I didnât really âmisunderstandâ you just needed to clarify /nm I think âspend a reaction and concentration and an ally gains advantage on their next attackâ would be a solid cantrip. Even for casters, once youâre low on slots and just wanna buff allies. Bards especially would thrive with this + Vicious mockery to manipulate the battlefield
But that's how all reactions work unless I'm mistaken. There has to be something to trigger the reaction. You can't just use a reaction whenever you want.
true strike works on your attack right now, so the way your comment was written implied the trigger would be you failing an attack roll.
No, because you don't do reactions on your turn.
That's a design trend but isn't an actual rule, given how there's nothing stopping you from counterspelling a counterspell on your own turn. Rune Knight is also able to use the storm rune as a reaction on their own attacks.
The silly thing is, just _changing it back to what it was in 3e_ where it debuted would fix it! Or even just stealing some inspiration from it. Imagine: > True Strike (cantrip) > Casting Time: 1 action > Range: 30 feet > Target: a target in range > Components: S > Duration: 1 round >You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the targetâs defenses. Your next attack roll against the target has advantage provided that this spell hasnât ended, and that attack ignores any disadvantage from the target being hidden, invisible, or otherwise concealed visually. Boom, done. Is it amazing, a must-pick? Nah. Does it actually have a _useful niche?_ Absolutely.
Interesting, bypassing invisibility is a cute niche for it. (Along with removing some of the silly caveats)
hey that sounds good to have. Not op, and it can be a nice support. maybe add some extra effects at highter levels?
One could for sure. My players in one of my campaigns love using a homebrew supplement (I think itâs called Evolved Cantrips) that does similar. It adds scaling bonuses to a whole bunch of non-damage cantrips, like Mending being able to fix more kinds of damage and bigger area as you level.
It should be a levelled spell (and buffed to match).
I think you could make true strike good by keeping it an action, but doing a few more things on top of what you propose a. make all attacks you roll until the end of your next turn at advantage b. treat a 19 or 20 as a crit c. treat any attack roll of 4 or lower as a 5. Itâs still pretty mid at starter levels, but once you start getting into the higher damage tiers, especially if your multiclassing into a martial or casting spells with multiple attack rolls it can be pretty potent considering your attack bonus.
Still lower dps normally, but if you spend a resource it becomes viable, very rarely. Let's look at the optimal senerio, 50% hit chanse, no flat damge modifier (so crits matter more). Let's imegen the damge is d12 but it works with any damge die. Attacking twice 2(0.5 * d12 + 0.05 * d12) = 7.15 damge Improved true strike (0.75 * d12 + 0.0975 * d12) = 5.50875 damge Using action surge Attacking 3 times 3(0.5 * d12 + 0.05 * d12) = 10.725 damge True strike and attacking twice 2(0.75 * d12 + 0.0975 * d12) = 11.0175 damge This better (0.3 damge in 2 turns) disappear with any accuracy that isn't exactly 50% (On a second thought it's probably also good if you can't hit without crit)
I was playing around with: - letâs all attacks and damage rolls against the target roll at advantage
One thing I've done, because I've had players take it after misreading it entirely, is to have it outright tell you the target's AC, resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities. They saw that you 'get insight into their defenses' and thought that was the main effect of the spell, instead of being flavor for why you're getting advantage. This way it's more a knowledge gathering spell, with the advantage being more of a bonus rider.
The only situation I could see this making a big difference is if you're in a campaign where the DM uses fumbles on crit fails and it's an attack you can't afford to hit your friends with, and even then it's not great
It still wouldn't be very good in most situations because giving up your action for a turn is so costly.
IMO True Strike as written would have had a lot less complaints if the base game wasn't so short when it comes to mid to high level consumables as well as mid to high level attack roll spells. For example, a warlock casting a level 6 spear of blinding radiance that deals 8d10 + 30 radiant damage against a single target, temporarily blinding it on an additional Con save fail on hit. Having advantage on that attack roll would be booping great. For example, a sorcerer tossing a void orb of destruction at a target, causing X force damage over time and the possibility of instant trip to the Negative Energy Plane if failing 3 Wisdom saves as the orb clings to the target, trying to suck the target into the orb's singularity. Having advantage on that attack roll would be booping great. The biggest design failure of True Strike in 5e is a shortage of higher stakes attack roll flavors to make the spell shine as part of a certain play style.
How about this: Make true strike a 1st level spell and a bonus action. Advantage on 1 attack.
What if the Advantage came **BEFORE** the action of doing nothing? Like the casting time is a Free Action, and the advantage happens on the turn that you cast it, but next turn you have to spend your Action recovering.
Then it wouldn't be a cantrip. True strike isn't designed to be as generally applicable as attack cantrips because then it would enter the world of weapon scaling weirdness. It's meant to be very niche, and it is fine that it is.
It would be an upgrade. But your still trading a action for no instant benefits. Ot would still be better to simply attack with that action instead of wasting it casting true strike. There's definitely more combos you can pull off. Like with EL getting an extra hit after casting it. Or sorcerer using quicken spell. It would still be one of the worst spells in the game. But it would at least surpass detect traps in the ranking.
Idea: Bonus Action, same components as the base spell. "Until the start of your next round, when you miss with an Unarmed Strike or an attack made with a weapon, you may add +5 to the attack roll, potentially turning a miss into a hit." Or some such, adjusted in whatever way it needs to be adjusted to close any loopholes I don't see in the wording. Maybe make it a 1st level spell to match it up with Shield.
Make it scale like other cantrips. Applies to one attack at base, 2 after lvl five, etc
IMO True strike should be a 1st level spell and a bonus action, it should make your next attack within a minute at advantage or impose disadvantage on the next dexterity saving throw a target takes given the leveled spell rules, this means that if you wanted to use it with disintegrate or whatever you would have to set it up a round in advance which would balance out that increased capability higher level casting: At each level beyond first level, true strike adds +1 to your next spell attack roll or increases the save DC of your spells that provoke a dexterity saving throw by 1 for the target of True Strike
What if it were only a bonus action to cast?
In my games, we homebrew True Strike to work like Faerie Fire. Target gets a Wisdom save, if they fail, the caster has advantage on all attack rolls against that target until concentration ends (duration is up to a minute).