D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[Asisreo]

What? Yes they can. Anything you can roll to hit with a Firebolt, you can use Toll the Dead on (LOS-wise). You'll need to point me to the page saying the LOS rules are different for save-based and ranged-attack-based spells.

But that's the thing, you can target them with firebolt, it just hits full cover, being effectively useless. In this case, you can instead true strike them while you get into a position where you can peek through their cover.

 

[jaelis]

But that's the thing, you can target them with firebolt, it just hits full cover, being effectively useless. In this case, you can instead true strike them while you get into a position where you can peek through their cover.

If the target is behind full cover, how are you casting true strike on them? "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."

 

[Asisreo]

If the target is behind full cover, how are you casting true strike on them? "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."

You are right. It may just be invisible behind 3/4th cover, then. Or you could be blinded.

 

[jaelis]

And you hope it will be visible again by your next turn? Even so, I think acid splash is a superior option in this case. (It has a save and you don't need to see the target.)

 

[Asisreo]

And you hope it will be visible again by your next turn? Even so, I think acid splash is a superior option in this case. (It has a save and you don't need to see the target.)

It doesn't really need to be visible to be targeted by Ray of Sickness or Ray of Enfeeblement. They still have the benefit of +5 dex saves against acid splash since they have three-fourth cover.

 

[jaelis]

Oh good point about dex saves I forgot. So your argument is:

• TS is helps when your hit chance is terrible, but then you have to compare to a save cantrip
• Invisibility rules out most save cantrips (frostbite, toll the dead, infestation). Cover (lets suppose) rules out bonfire, and gives a big bonus to Dex saves for acid splash.
• That leaves I think poison spray and thunderclap. Of those poison spray seems much superior. To rule these out, I guess you must assume that you can't approach within 10 feet of the target for some reason.

So the proposal is that TS is good to have when fighting an invisible creature behind cover that prevents you from seeing the ground, and you can get with 30 feet but not within 10 feet of it.

I guess I'm willing to give you that. But I'll stand by my claim that what you really want to do is cast it before combat starts. I think that is both more likely and also more beneficial: while I agree that TS might be your best cantrip option in the situation you describe, it is a pretty terrible situation and almost certainly your best bet is to cast a leveled spell that doesn't suffer from these problems.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This thread seemed to have moved farther away from it's purpose. I'm not dumb. I knew True strike was bad. This was a thought experiment, like imagining the uses for prestidigitation. I just wanted to see other niche, creative uses. But I basically just got math homework. Maybe their's a bias and seething hatred for true strike, which I get, but I'm not interested in being told things I already know.

For myself, I had no opinion that you were dumb, etc. I understand you were looking for creative uses. You showed a use, I showed it really isn't beneficial.

The objective point I am making is that TS can be effective, but it must be in cases where you have extreme issues against you (cover, disadvantage, etc., especially a combination of them). If you see such things often, then having TS is valuable, but IME they aren't (one condition, sure, but not multiple) so TS sees no use.

 

[jaelis]

Just to add, the only reason I feel so confident that there aren't clever ways to make TS really useful is that I've read through a dozen or so threads over the past six years where people have looked for one. Eventually you convince yourself its not there to find.

Actually, I remember someone on the wotc forums during the original playtest making the point that they better not offer an action that grants advantage on your next attack, because it would suck. And so it came to pass

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For myself, I had no opinion that you were dumb, etc. I understand you were looking for creative uses. You showed a use, I showed it really isn't beneficial.

The objective point I am making is that TS can be effective, but it must be in cases where you have extreme issues against you (cover, disadvantage, etc., especially a combination of them). If you see such things often, then having TS is valuable, but IME they aren't (one condition, sure, but not multiple) so TS sees no use.

The issue is that even Disadvantage + Cover isn't enough to make TS effective. You need the following:

1) You cannot see the target but you know where they are (this is actually normal for 5E when you can't see a target - if they'd successfully used "Hide", TS could not be used, but otherwise it could if they were just Invisible or you Blinded).

2) The target is behind 3/4 cover.

3) You have Disadvantage that has not been negated by Advantage gained somehow.

If any of these isn't true, then True Strike isn't the right cantrip to use/have. The most common situation would be an invisible attacker attacking at range from behind cover. I would submit that this is an extremely uncommon situation (especially as attacking breaks conventional Invisibility).

It's hard to say, but one guesses this comes in less than 1% of fights in 5E.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the other consideration is that on hard to hit enemies that magic missile exists.