D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[Ristamar]

True strike has one good purpose over any other imho:

If you really need an attack to hit, e.g. a hostage situation, or everybody on their last leg and the next attack from the mob which is also 1 hit away from defeat might kill of a PC.

This.

True Strike seems to be more of narrative driven spell in 5e. It's useful in situations when DPR is moot because you simply, absolutely need to hit/can't afford to miss. It's for those story moments when you're outmatched or out maneuvered and you only have one arrow slaying, one application of a highly lethal poison, one tiny window of opportunity to make the critical shot.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Technically speaking, by RAW, I don't think that the OP's idea would even work. True strike grants advantage on the first attack roll made against the target on your next turn. Hence, both twinned True Strikes would apply to the first attack roll (which wouldn't be beneficial since you can only have advantage once).

That said, I'd allow it given that True Strike is far from overpowered.

I don't think True Strike is useless but it is a corner-case. If you can't attack this turn but plan to attack next turn it's useful. Or, as others have stated, if you can't afford to miss. It certainly isn't a spell that you should be using with any frequency however. IMO, it's similar to spells like Mending. Useless in the majority of situations, but nice to have when you actually need it.

 

[Asisreo]

Technically speaking, by RAW, I don't think that the OP's idea would even work. True strike grants advantage on the first attack roll made against the target on your next turn. Hence, both twinned True Strikes would apply to the first attack roll (which wouldn't be beneficial since you can only have advantage once).

That said, I'd allow it given that True Strike is far from overpowered.

I don't think True Strike is useless but it is a corner-case. If you can't attack this turn but plan to attack next turn it's useful. Or, as others have stated, if you can't afford to miss. It certainly isn't a spell that you should be using with any frequency however. IMO, it's similar to spells like Mending. Useless in the majority of situations, but nice to have when you actually need it.

Okay, so the thing is that it's the first attack roll on the target. Twinning true strike gives two targets and the first time you hit either on your turn, you get advantage. So two rays would have advantage.

 

[jaelis]

IMO the only good use for true strike that actually comes up enough to matter is to cast it before rolling initiative, like in an ambush situation. Does that come up enough to be worthwhile? I'm not so sure.

 

[Asisreo]

True Strike is a trap spell.

Simple as that. It's created by someone not proficient in math, bluntly speaking - someone that didn't realize that instead of casting this spell, simply attack twice.

Think about it - in both cases you roll two d20s.

So the overall probabilities are identical. Except in the latter case, you could luck out and have both attacks hit. While when rolling a single attack with advantage, if both dice hits, there is no added effect. So, actually, the overall probabilities are worse when using this spell.

The spell should simply be stricken from the record and never spoken of again. Each time you use it, you're bound to doing it wrong.

(There are corner cases, but that's so marginal generally the best advice is to simply drop it. If you keep it on your spell list you are more likely to use it when you shouldn't than successfully eke out extra DPR from its corner cases)

PS. Witchbolt is another trap option you should never use. DS

This is more of a logic puzzle than an analysis of a spell. I do generally believe both true strike and Witch Bolt shouldn't be equipped on an optimized build. Surprisingly, there's very few things that a character can do that has a limited uses over an attack roll. Paladin's smite is one but you can always choose to wait until after the attack connects.

Rogues can obviously use it for sneak attack but I wouldn't build for that.

If you had a 5th level chromatic orb spellscroll or a 1/dawn magic item, it would be useful maybe.

Like, the point is to look for uses as a thought experiment. I actually think both Witch Bolt and True Strike are great DM spells. You can glyph of warding a Witch Bolt in a 30 diameter pit and watch them struggle trying to leave. For true strike, it's a great "Telegraphed" attack from a very strong opponent. They might hit hard and has a chance to OHKO using melee but he has a pattern where he won't melee unless he true strikes and only if it's still applied next turn so characters can either weave out of range or try to "interrupt" his attack. Almost like a dark souls boss when you're underleveled.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Incorrect.

Fire Bolt: "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range"

Crawford: "Twinned Spell is intended to work with a spell that can normally target only one creature"

And from the sage advice compendium:

Crawford: "If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us...The spell can target an object."

Silly ruling? Yes.

A ruling which does disallow twinning Fire Bolt? Yes.

That's Sage Advice though, getting the rules wrong and making bad suggestions the very first issue of Dragon I bought. I can't remember what it was but little eleven-year-old me was reading Dragon and basically got a "?!" above my head as I read Sage Advice and was like "What the heck, this grown-up doesn't know the rules!".

Crawford is easy the best, or to put it another way, "least worst" Sage but ooof he sure does mess it up from time to time Also none of it is binding unless you're playing AL. It's just suggestions. I get a little annoyed when he joking-not-joking accuses people of "ignoring the rules" in ignoring his suggestions, because mate, those aren't the rules. They're your opinion, which is not always well-considered, and is highly inconsistent when it comes to literal-ness. Like, in this case he's being literal to the point of being dense, but for other stuff he often has a very non-literal interpretation.

Also, RAW, I think the OP knows this, but you have to hit two different targets for this to even be of benefit, as True Strike only works on the first attack against a target. Which just makes the whole thing incredibly corner-case. Even with non-twinned Fire Bolt vs twinned True Strike, you're barely getting ahead in this corner-case scenario. It's basically a draw, but you used more resources with True Strike because you paid to twin it.

Is there really no scenario in which True Strike doesn't suck? One of the players in my Dragonlords group was trying to tell me that it made sense to cast it before casting a slot-based spell, and I'm like "But it doesn't..." - even the situation he was doing it in, if he'd used a cantrip the round before, on average he'd have done more damage. I guess maybe if you're going up against someone with a very high AC with a ranged spell attack.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For true strike, it's a great "Telegraphed" attack from a very strong opponent. They might hit hard and has a chance to OHKO using melee but he has a pattern where he won't melee unless he true strikes and only if it's still applied next turn so characters can either weave out of range or try to "interrupt" his attack. Almost like a dark souls boss when you're underleveled.

Mate, it's a Concentration spell. Good luck keeping it up against all the damage such an opponent will likely take during a round before he gets to use it. They don't have to "try" to interrupt - just hitting him repeatedly will almost certainly break it (unless he has Advantage on CON saves and a good CON save).

 

[Asisreo]

Mate, it's a Concentration spell. Good luck keeping it up against all the damage such an opponent will likely take during a round before he gets to use it. They don't have to "try" to interrupt - just hitting him repeatedly will almost certainly break it (unless he has Advantage on CON saves and a good CON save).

No no, that's the point. You want their to be an opening to get interrupted. Like I said, this is for an NPC opponent that wants to telegraph his attacks and give an opening to be interrupted or dodged.

 

[Li Shenron]

I haven't seen or remember to have seen True Strike in play, so just based on gut feeling I always thought the cantrip is useful in these situations:

1- for casting a spell, when you're low on spell slots of that level
2- for using a special ability attack with few uses per day
3- for any attack on the first round of combat when ambushing

Points 1 and 2 should be fairly obvious: you give up one action (i.e. one turn) to cast True Strike to increase your chances at a spell or ability you don't really want to waste.

Point 3 is debatable because you would want to cast True Strike before rolling initiative (which is generally possible), but how do you guarantee the perfect timing between casting and the start of combat? Well, if your party is ambushing, ask your DM if the situation is favorable enough... some ambushes might be like "we need to attack exactly when they cross the bridge" but others can certainly be "we can pretty much attack any time we want". So just agree among the party that everybody attacks immediately after the Wizard finishes casting True Strike.

In general I think these are sufficient for the spell to make sense, but I also remember that years ago I was mulling over the spell text, and compared it against the Range section in the spellcasting rules chapter which says "Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self." Well, True Strike doesn't have a range of self, so a possible house rule to extend its usage is to allow it to be cast on an ally.

 

[NotAYakk]

True Strike is bad enough, that if it read "your first attack on the target next turn is at advantage, and if it hits it is a critical" it would start begin useful.

And would fit the theme of the spell.