D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[TaranTheWanderer]

Just to be clear, no it does not.

It is still the objectively wrong cantrip to have. You should have picked Toll the Dead or something like that if you are facing enemies who inflict Disadvantage and use cover. The DPR of any save-based cantrip, even Acid Splash on a single target, is going to be higher than alternating True Strike and Firebolt against a target in 3/4 cover when you have Disadvantage (turned into a neutral roll by True Strike).

This is exactly why I think true strike should:
1: ignore cover
2: turn a crit fail into a fail; turn a fail into a success; turn a success into a crit success.

This way it still stacks with advantage (allowing a higher chance of a crit) and almost guaranteeing a hit. It also increases your chance to hit invisible target or targets that give your attack disadvantage because, even if you miss with disadvantage, the miss turns into a hit.

To me, this is closer to how it was in the previous edition. I'd still make it an action. In a situation where you have a target that is impossible to hit, it may be worth giving up an action to almost guarantee a hit.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Since you know very few cantrips (unless you're a multiclassing addict), any situational cantrip isn't worth it. If there was a build option that made it so you could force the situation that would be a good answer for OP's question, but no one's even thought of that so far.

As for 'fixing' it: I'm starting to think that in order to make true strike worth casting, you need something a lot more powerful than a cantrip - it needs to do too much all at once. But if it's a leveled spell, the design space really opens up, allowing you to get away with a bonus that's essentially just "your next attack hits' and it not being a problem.

 

[jaelis]

Since you know very few cantrips (unless you're a multiclassing addict), any situational cantrip isn't worth it. If there was a build option that made it so you could force the situation that would be a good answer for OP's question, but no one's even thought of that so far.

You know, cantrip spell scrolls are super cheap

As for 'fixing' it: I'm starting to think that in order to make true strike worth casting, you need something a lot more powerful than a cantrip - it needs to do too much all at once. But if it's a leveled spell, the design space really opens up, allowing you to get away with a bonus that's essentially just "your next attack hits' and it not being a problem.

It was a good level 1 spell in 3e. But keeping it a cantrip, I'm reasonably content with my version: you cast it on an ally, they get advantage on their next attack. That's useful when anyone in the party has a more powerful attack option than you, and it doesn't require the enemy to be present when cast. It's not amazing, but I think it is a solid enough choice.

 

[Asisreo]

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.

That's fine. I'm kinda satisfied with that. Maybe it's my fault for putting "useful" in the title as I'm not looking to call the cantrip "useful," I'm just in search of situations where it's usable. The best candidate monster candidate where this would work is probably an underdark setting.

Deurgar get the jump on the wizard PC and turns invisble, they then move to maybe some fortifications or wherever they can get three-fourths cover. Then, it's the wizard's turn, he uses true strike where he plans on attacking them and plans on casting ray of enfeeblement next turn.

There's still the use of plane shift, too which might be useful if the other characters can't or won't get within 5 ft of the enemy to grant advantage.

 

[jaelis]

Deurgar get the jump on the wizard PC and turns invisble, they then move to maybe some fortifications or wherever they can get three-fourths cover. Then, it's the wizard's turn, he uses true strike where he plans on attacking them and plans on casting ray of enfeeblement next turn.

OK this is really a separate issue, but ray of enfeeblement is also a terrible spell.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's fine. I'm kinda satisfied with that. Maybe it's my fault for putting "useful" in the title as I'm not looking to call the cantrip "useful," I'm just in search of situations where it's usable. The best candidate monster candidate where this would work is probably an underdark setting.

Deurgar get the jump on the wizard PC and turns invisble, they then move to maybe some fortifications or wherever they can get three-fourths cover. Then, it's the wizard's turn, he uses true strike where he plans on attacking them and plans on casting ray of enfeeblement next turn.

There's still the use of plane shift, too which might be useful if the other characters can't or won't get within 5 ft of the enemy to grant advantage.

Here's one of my major issues with spells in 5E. Invisible, LoS, etc. mess things up. I'll illustrate my point:

Let's say they start out 15 feet apart. In your example, the Deurgar turns invisible and moves to cover. He could now be up to 40 feet away. The wizard most likely has no clue where the Deurgar went. He might know the general direction from sound (maybe), but that is about it. So, the Wizard casts True Strike. Oops! The target is 40 feet away (thus out of range) and he doesn't know that!

* Rant Warning *

What happens? The spell fails and the slot is lost? The DM tells the player the target is out of range (but the character won't know that until the spell is cast so...)? Understanding the risk, the player has the character move in the general direction (assuming this is not an insanely dangerous idea!) and tries to cast the spell then, hoping the target is within range?

Also, although it is not stated concretely that the target "must be seen", how can you point your finger at the target if you can't see it!?! You're guessing really and it might not be there at all!

* End of Rant, Thank You For Reading! ***

True Strike isn't the only spell like this, I've run into others, and as a DM and player it is frustrating.

 

[jaelis]

Here's one of my major issues with spells in 5E. Invisible, LoS, etc. mess things up. I'll illustrate my point:

Let's say they start out 15 feet apart. In your example, the Deurgar turns invisible and moves to cover. He could now be up to 40 feet away. The wizard most likely has no clue where the Deurgar went. He might know the general direction from sound (maybe), but that is about it. So, the Wizard casts True Strike. Oops! The target is 40 feet away (thus out of range) and he doesn't know that!

* Rant Warning *

What happens? The spell fails and the slot is lost? The DM tells the player the target is out of range (but the character won't know that until the spell is cast so...)? Understanding the risk, the player has the character move in the general direction (assuming this is not an insanely dangerous idea!) and tries to cast the spell then, hoping the target is within range?

Also, although it is not stated concretely that the target "must be seen", how can you point your finger at the target if you can't see it!?! You're guessing really and it might not be there at all!

* End of Rant, Thank You For Reading! ***

True Strike isn't the only spell like this, I've run into others, and as a DM and player it is frustrating.

I think stealth rules vary a lot from table to table, but for me, unless the deurgar used its action to hide and beat your perception with its stealth check, then you would know where it was and could target it with an attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think stealth rules vary a lot from table to table, but for me, unless the deurgar used its action to hide and beat your perception with its stealth check, then you would know where it was and could target it with an attack.

Yes, stealth rules do vary a lot, which is unfortunate IMO but meh.

It is one of the pitfalls of 5E, combining hiding and moving silently, because frankly if someone is invisible and 35 feet away, even if they are moving, you could easily think they are 25 or 30 feet and you can reach them with the spell In other words, your hearing would provide the direction at best, but not pinpoint the location by sound without some other factor being involved. I would rule you would have to make a check to determine their location against a "passive stealth," for lack of a better term.

I know 5E favors rulings over rules, but they dropped the ball IMO on the whole thing.

 

[jaelis]

For the most part I think it is OK, the disadvantage rule for opponents you can't see is good enough for me. True Strike in particular is weird, because you need to know pretty well where the target is (so you can point to them and distinguish them from other nearby creatures), but you don't have to see them or make an attack roll. I can't think of any other spells with that weird combination.

I mean, overall TS is kind of a fail.

 

[FrogReaver]

For the most part I think it is OK, the disadvantage rule for opponents you can't see is good enough for me. True Strike in particular is weird, because you need to know pretty well where the target is (so you can point to them and distinguish them from other nearby creatures), but you don't have to see them or make an attack roll. I can't think of any other spells with that weird combination.

I mean, overall TS is kind of a fail.

I just did a comparison between TS, Firebolt, Chromatic and Magic Missile and their combos. Magic Missile + Firebolt was the clear winner there.

So with that out of the way, I'd say TS has no purpose.