D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[Asisreo]

True strike just isn't meant to be stronger than firebolt. It's like comparing a 3rd level burning hands with fireball. They should, technically, be the same but the only reason you'd ever use 3rd level burning hands is if you're in a very tight space or you didn't prepare fireball.

I think the broken balance is part of the balance, basically. Firebolt is meant to reign as the supreme combat cantrip with ray of frost a close second so wizards and sorcerers can constantly fling balls of fire and blasts of ice. Of course, warlocks have Eldritch Blast.

The true use of True Strike is to be thematic, however you think to do it. Maybe you want to true strike-chromatic orb a Salamander or you just want the nerdy wizard to constantly analyze their opponent. From a pure damage perspective, it's rare for true strike to be as useful as firebolt but the option's there for anyone who wants to sacrifice 5 damage for their roleplay build.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, it's 5 points closer to death and maybe the 5 points were the deciding factor between a victory and defeat but...it just doesn't seem significant.

It is though, it's hugely significant. You acknowledge "per round", but it adds up rapidly as fights go on. And True Strike isn't 5 DPR behind, not above level 5, it's usually a heck of a lot more than that. In short fights, where you can say "Well over three rounds, 5 DPR isn't much", then True Strike is even worse, because it's an entire round of doing nothing, out of perhaps only 2-3 rounds of combat.

It doesn't need to be "more powerful than a Firebolt" (no cantrip does), but it needs to be not worse than literally every other damaging cantrip in the game.

I mean you know what's really, really terrible about it? You can give Advantage to other characters in combat really easily. Just use the Help Action - 5e SRD:Help Action - D&D Wiki

You don't need to concentrate, it can't be broken, and it doesn't take up one of your very few cantrip slots. Basically you're spending a cantrip so you can you can use a worse version of the Help Action on yourself. An ability everyone gets for free. It's truly abysmal.

 

[Asisreo]

It is though, it's hugely significant. You acknowledge "per round", but it adds up rapidly as fights go on. And True Strike isn't 5 DPR behind, not above level 5, it's usually a heck of a lot more than that. In short fights, where you can say "Well over three rounds, 5 DPR isn't much", then True Strike is even worse, because it's an entire round of doing nothing, out of perhaps only 2-3 rounds of combat.

It doesn't need to be "more powerful than a Firebolt" (no cantrip does), but it needs to be not worse than literally every other damaging cantrip in the game.

I mean you know what's really, really terrible about it? You can give Advantage to other characters in combat really easily. Just use the Help Action - 5e SRD:Help Action - D&D Wiki

You don't need to concentrate, it can't be broken, and it doesn't take up one of your very few cantrip slots. Basically you're spending a cantrip so you can you can use a worse version of the Help Action on yourself. An ability everyone gets for free. It's truly abysmal.

But why does it need to be better than any damaging cantrip? As I said, a wizard should be incentivized to cast damaging spells, it's in their nature.

Now, a question I have is that spells do what they say. This might be a stretch, but wouldn't that mean that a spell like true strike would inform the caster of minor bits of info of the monster's defense.

"NO, ASISREO! YOU'RE READING THAT WRONG! If there was a mechanical benefit, it would say what it is." Yeah, but...what if the info isn't mechanical. That is to say, it does exactly as it says. For instance, you can identify that a goblin is sneaky or that a hobgoblin warlord can parry? These are brief insights, so it aligns with the spell. You could argue the second one is a bit too much since it kinda references a feature but would you think this qualifies as "a brief insight of a target's defenses?"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But why does it need to be better than any damaging cantrip? As I said, a wizard should be incentivized to cast damaging spells, it's in their nature.

It's not better than the WORST damaging cantrip, I mean, in most cases, and it offers no utility. At that point, it's objectively stupid to cast it.

As for a "brief insight on the target's defences", well, clearly it has no mechanic to do that, and doesn't explain what is meant by it. Normally we'd assume that was fluff. If you want to play it as a JRPG-style target analysis spell though, go ahead - that would actually give it some value.

I mean maybe that's all it needs - if could choose two things from the following list as well as getting Advantage, that'd probably fix it:

• The target's resistances/immunities
• The target's vulnerabilities
• The target's current HP
• The target's AC
• The target's worst saving throw
• The target's best saving throw
• A special defensive action the target possesses

At least it would have a valid role that fits with the fluff. Say it can only be get info 1/target to prevent spamming from stealth.

Even one of those would probably be worthwhile/interesting, rather than two, and might force some hard choices as to which you discovered.

 

[Asisreo]

It's not better than the WORST damaging cantrip, I mean, in most cases, and it offers no utility. At that point, it's objectively stupid to cast it.

As for a "brief insight on the target's defences", well, clearly it has no mechanic to do that, and doesn't explain what is meant by it. Normally we'd assume that was fluff. If you want to play it as a JRPG-style target analysis spell though, go ahead - that would actually give it some value.

I mean maybe that's all it needs - if could choose two things from the following list as well as getting Advantage, that'd probably fix it:

• The target's resistances/immunities
• The target's vulnerabilities
• The target's current HP
• The target's AC
• The target's worst saving throw
• The target's best saving throw
• A special defensive action the target possesses

At least it would have a valid role that fits with the fluff. Say it can only be get info 1/target to prevent spamming from stealth.

Even one of those would probably be worthwhile/interesting, rather than two, and might force some hard choices as to which you discovered.

I'd say that would be a bit excessive as a wizard would get a fighter's 7th level feature for free as an action rather than a minute.

I mean. How much fluff is their in spells that tell you what they do. They seem to be pretty explicit about what they do.

Also, why does it need to be better than the least damaging cantrip? All damaging cantrips either have high damage but easily resisted (poison spray/firebolt) or it has low damage and a rider (ray of frost/shocking grasp).

I don't think it's feasible to buff true strike, especially to your standards, without it being broken. I'd rather true strike be worthless than mandatory. Granting some boost that makes it actually efficient can break the game easily since all casters would take it since all casters would be incentivized to true strike, then cantrip rather than do as they are and cast.

At first, I believed they made true strike first and didn't know how their system would be incompatible but I'm starting to think true strike was actually very strong until one of the designers pointed out it would've been too powerful through playtesting and they'd nerf it to oblivion and back.

There's still the niche of casting before a fight that probably gave it a use to justify it. Then again, I doubt they'd want to have to completely remove something as iconic as true strike.

 

[Todd Roybark]

But why does it need to be better than any damaging cantrip? As I said, a wizard should be incentivized to cast damaging spells, it's in their nature.

1) It is not about “being more damaging”, that is the wrong perspective. It is, however, about being worth the cost of the action.

Minor Illusion will do no damage, typically. Yet a clever illusion, can be worth spending your action and concentration for a round or two, in combat.

If True Strike also gave Disadvantage to the target of your next spell that requires a saving throw, the cantrip, would be worth an action.

2) That is a rather narrow view of the wizard class. So anything that is not a damaging spell, should be worthless? There is more in D&D, than is dreamt of in your in philosophy.

 

[Asisreo]

1) It is not about “being more damaging”, that is the wrong perspective. It is, however, about being worth the cost of the action.

Minor Illusion will do no damage, typically. Yet a clever illusion, can be worth spending your action and concentration for a round or two, in combat.

If True Strike also gave Disadvantage to the target of your next spell that requires a saving throw, the cantrip, would be worth an action.

2) That is a rather narrow view of the wizard class. So anything that is not a damaging spell, should be worthless? There is more in D&D, than is dreamt of in your in philosophy.

Actions are extremely valuable. You only get one of them in a round and they're actively competing with other action choices. That being said, I don't think it should be worth an action. I mean, again, it would be prone to being spammed. A rogue casting this spell is pretty thematic and it comes with being useful depending on the scenario. However, a wizard, sorcerer, warlock, or bard taking it would be a bit out of character. The only real thematic use of true strike would be the divination wizard which brings me to my next point.

I think rather than buffing true strike directly, they should've given the divination wizard some feature that can synergize well with true strike. Perhaps something like, you can cast a spell as a bonus action provided that you have casted a divination spell as an action.

 

[jmartkdr2]

A rogue casting this spell is pretty thematic and it comes with being useful depending on the scenario.

Just pulling this part out to note that for theme, EKs should really love this spell - it should be a top pick for them, not a trap choice.

I'm not sure how to do that.

 

[Asisreo]

Just pulling this part out to note that for theme, EKs should really love this spell - it should be a top pick for them, not a trap choice.

I'm not sure how to do that.

Just spitballing: When you concentrate on a spell, you add your intelligence modifier to your attack rolls and damage

Edit: damage, not saving throws.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Just spitballing: When you concentrate on a spell, you add your intelligence modifier to your attack rolls and damage

Edit: damage, not saving throws.

That would make EKs more powerful but it would make True Strike a terrible choice, because it only lasts one round. Literally any Concentration spell which lasts more than one round would be better. And that would in turn make True Strike even worse, because you'd be using Concentration, so you'd never want to use True Strike, which would require you to drop that Concentration.

It's like you came up with a design specifically to disincentivize True Strike. I mean, I know you're spitballing, but at least think it through. I didn't have to think about this - my mind saw the problem immediately. You keep making these wild and sweeping assertions about True Strike (like that any buff at all will break it - no - we've already seen that), but then you do stuff like this and it undermines your credibility pretty severely.