True Strike: Yes, lets beat the dead horse

MarkB said:

For many dedicated spellcasters, making a weapon attack with advantage will barely average out at a higher chance to hit than making a spell attack without advantage - and will deal less damage than a cantrip.

Click to expand...

5ekyu said:

By 5th level, its definitely out to pasteur.

Click to expand...

True, on all counts. Like I said: this isn't perfect, but it's balanced and useful. A "dedicated caster" who then chooses this modded cantrip would be more likely to use it in tandem with spells like Vampiric Touch, Shadow Blade, Flame Arrow, Mordenkainen's Sword, that sort of thing. Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, not so much. (And in my opinion, those cantrips are good enough already without auto-Advantage.)

CleverNickName said:

I can see a few problems with True Strike. There are a number of ways to fix it, but most either turn it into an overpowered, must-have monstrosity, or render it utterly useless. This is what I would do. (My changes are underlined.)

True Strike
cantrip, divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous
Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses, allowing you to attack with incredible accuracy. When you cast this spell on a target within range, you make one weapon attack against that creature as part of the spell. This attack is made with Advantage.

Is it perfect? Certainly not. But I think it's fairly balanced and useful.

Click to expand...

Thinking about it further, while this version of the spell is of little use to a primary spellcaster, it seems like a no-brainer for rogues to pick up via Magic Initiate or a level dip.

MarkB said:

Thinking about it further, while this version of the spell is of little use to a primary spellcaster, it seems like a no-brainer for rogues to pick up via Magic Initiate or a level dip.

Click to expand...

If it would stop them from asking (again) about using the optional flanking rules in the DMG...sign me up!

MiraMels said:

Granted, I could easily also gain advantage by asking an ally within 5 feet of the target to take the Help action, but that would mean the fighter is giving up an entire round of attacks.

Click to expand...

That is only one of many ways to gain advantage. Your familiar can use the help action to give you advantage, for one.

MiraMels said:

Why couldn't true strike be used with a concentration spell? I don't understand why you think that it couldn't.

Click to expand...

Because they are both concentration spells. As soon as you begin casting a spell that requires concentration, you loose concentration on the current spell. Let's go through this scenario. Here are are the spells that I can think of that require an attack role. If you remove the cantrips, as you contend this True Strike's purpose is to help you preserve spell slots, many of the rest are first level spells.

Bigby's Hand (Concentration, will not work. Besides, this is not a one and done spell, and continues over multiple rounds with various effects, only one of which requires an attack roll)
Contagion
Dispel Evil and Good (Concentration, will not work. Besides, this is not a one and done spell, and continues over multiple rounds with various effects, only one of which requires an attack roll)
Flame Blade (Concentration, will not work. Besides, this is not a one and done spell, and continues with multiple attacks over multiple rounds)
Inflict Wounds
Mordenkainen's Sword (Concentration, will not work. Besides, this is not a one and done spell, and continues with multiple attacks over multiple rounds)
Spiritual Weapon (Not a one and done spell. Multiple attacks over multiple rounds. Typically not on the same spell list as TS)
Vampiric Touch (Not a one and done spell. Multiple attacks over multiple rounds. Also, not a good spell for squishy Wizards types, weak damage, weak healing, may take more damage in return. Not even good for Gish types)
Chromatic Orb (90' range is somewhat limited by TS 30' range, I suppose if the target is fleeing from you?)
Ensnaring Strike (Ranger (and Ancients Paladin) list)
Guiding Bolt (not typically on the same spell list, but possible)
Ice Knife (here there is secondary damage, with a save, even on a miss)
Lightning Arrow (Ranger spell list)
Melf's Acid Arrow (lowish damage spread out over two rounds, so the round set up for TS is even more costly)
Ray of Enfeeblement (Concentration)
Ray of Sickness (requires a ranged spell attack and a save for full effect)
Scorching Ray (120' range is somewhat hampered by TS 30' range, I suppose if the target is fleeing from you?)
Witch Bolt (Concentration. Very Crappy spell anyway)

All of these spells are attack rolls that could benefit from TS, but are usually limited to the Paladin spell list and require concentration, so no go:
Banishing Smite
Blinding Smite
Booming blade
Branding Smite
Green-Flame Blade
Searing Smite
Staggering Smite
Thunderous Smite
Wrathful Smite

There may be a few more (maybe Crown of Stars? Yet again multiple attacks over multiple rounds though), but most of these are either concentration and will not be compatible with TS, or are not typically on the same spell list as TS, or consist of multiple attacks over multiple rounds where the advantage granted by TS would be less decisive anyway. Many of the ones that are left are first level spells, with a couple of second level spells thrown in that are not usually worth the one round set up TS requires, not to mention giving up concentration on an actually useful spell. Not to mention the requirement that the target be within 30 ft. Granted, low level spell casters may not be concentrating on a good spell as often, but as the level rises it becomes much more of an issue.

The caster is already paying the opportunity cost of a round's action for TS, there is little need to add the Concentration requirement, 30ft range, and forcing the attack to the next round even in the fairly narrow case of Battle Magic and quicken spell IMHO. But by all means, if you really need that Contagion spell to land next round, go right ahead.

Whoa I just blew my mind: What if true strike caused your attack to deal damage on a miss?

77IM said:

Whoa I just blew my mind: What if true strike caused your attack to deal damage on a miss?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea. I see this working best when used in conjunction with a 1st level or higher spell that requires an attack roll, since there is usually no effect on a miss. So, with this change, true strike not only makes a spell slot more likely to hit with advantage, but also guarantees at least something if it is a miss. That isn't terrible. Basically delaying your action for a round to guarantee something happens next.

This also maintains utility for magic inclined rogues, since their attack would be at advantage, and even with a miss they could still apply their sneak attack to the damage depending on wording. I don't think it would work very well for an eldritch knight. It would also be incredibly effective for sorcerers with quicken spell.

The only question is the damage. Maybe 1d8 damage equal to the type of the initial attack, increasing as standard for attack cantrips?

I think this would probably put True Strike on par with the best cantrips, but I think still within reason.

I was just gonna say something like "convert miss to hit, but with half damage." In terms of action-economy, that actually works out very well. Compare:

• .5 * 1 this round and .5 * 1 next round = 1
• 0 this round and .75 * 1 and .25 * .5 = .875

This is assuming a 50% chance to hit, which translates into a 75% with advantage, and "1" here represents your normal damage amount.

So in general, true strike causes slightly less damage over two rounds, but it might still be a good move if:
1) you are spending the big spell slot
2) you get extra benefit from advantage (e.g. rogues; or people with Elven Accuracy)
3) your attack does neat things other than damage, like conditions; suddenly the condition becomes unavoidable (which might be overpowered)

Conceptually, the idea is that it is a TRUE strike, i.e., can't miss. That's how it was back in 3E anyway; it was like a +20 bonus to attack, which was exorbitant even in 3E.


Under this formulation I don't think it needs bonus damage because the damage-on-a-miss IS the bonus; this maneuver becomes more about delivering side-effects of the hit.

well just so I can get my kicks in at this dead horse real quick: holy true strike is terrrible in RAW I mean it was pretty bad in past editions too but what the HELL. My fix for it if I were to bother would just be having it be a bonus action, which is the simplest way to make it worth casting (although I guess it hoses some builds?)

How to fix True Strike:

Bonus Action to cast, attack automagically hits, change to first level spell.

???

77IM said:

I was just gonna say something like "convert miss to hit, but with half damage." In terms of action-economy, that actually works out very well. Compare:

• .5 * 1 this round and .5 * 1 next round = 1
• 0 this round and .75 * 1 and .25 * .5 = .875

This is assuming a 50% chance to hit, which translates into a 75% with advantage, and "1" here represents your normal damage amount.

So in general, true strike causes slightly less damage over two rounds, but it might still be a good move if:
1) you are spending the big spell slot
2) you get extra benefit from advantage (e.g. rogues; or people with Elven Accuracy)
3) your attack does neat things other than damage, like conditions; suddenly the condition becomes unavoidable (which might be overpowered)

Conceptually, the idea is that it is a TRUE strike, i.e., can't miss. That's how it was back in 3E anyway; it was like a +20 bonus to attack, which was exorbitant even in 3E.

True Strike
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 round

The you gain advantage on the first attack you make before the spell ends. If the attack misses, it hits instead, but any damage dealt from the attack is halved. After the attack hits, the spell ends early.
​

Under this formulation I don't think it needs bonus damage because the damage-on-a-miss IS the bonus; this maneuver becomes more about delivering side-effects of the hit.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I completely agree with this approach. Within the action economy, you are essentially casting a cantrip and a spell (or using some other action type that requires an attack roll and potentially finite resources such as an Arrow of Slaying).

As such, I'm not sure that the end result should deal much more than what a cantrip and the subsequent action could do separately. Due to the nature of the cantrip, you are essentially getting two shots to make your finite attack/resource count. If both miss, I can see the argument for allowing damage similar to what a cantrip would deal, but I don't think it should make the secondary effect of the subsequent action automatic, nor deal half the damage of the effect.

This does lead to some interesting effects though, as a first level spell slot used in conjunction with Trues Strike at high level could effectively deal more damage on a miss than the spell could do on its own. But the secondary effect would still be wasted.

I think I am leaning more towards this adjustment to True Strike:


Changes and my Rationale

-Removing Concentration: It is relatively rare for cantrips in general, and attack cantrips in particular, to require concentration. Additionally, this creates undesirable interactions if the subsequent attack roll comes from another spell or effect that requires concentration. For the sake of reducing complexity and increasing ease of use, I would rather just get rid of it.

-Increasing range and allowing allies to benefit: If the party has an arrow of slaying and they only have one shot, do you want to but that arrow in the hands of the spellcaster, or a trained archer? This cantrip is already one that requires generally niche situations. Allowing it increased flexibility and giving the caster the power to choose who might benefit allows a style of team play and a support caster style, as well as increasing general utility.

-Using force damage: This is a personal choice, and one that may be controversial. However, if you like the rest of the spell and this is your main sticking point, just substitute the damage type to your personal taste. However, when I think of the harm or damage caused by divination magic, that seems to me to be the magic of fate. This is the kind of harm that is hard to reduce or mitigate, and is the most ephemeral of the damage types. For me, only force damage really fits for that. For me, it is also simpler to say force damage than "whatever the normal damage type of the missed attack would have been." Fewer words and reduced complexity is worth its weight in gold for me taste and style.

-Providing choice on the attack roll: The wording gives the target of the cantrip a choice on which attack roll gets the benefit. Therefore, accidentally taking an attack of opportunity before you get your intended attack off wouldn't waste the advantage.