D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[Asisreo]

Even then, it is a borderline case IMO. And although some monsters have means of imposing disadvantage, the vast majority of them don't.

Let's take the AC 15 goblin vs. FB with a +5 spellcasting modifier. This means there is a 55% chance to hit (10 or better) which yields 3.3 DPR.

With disadvantage, this drops to 1.6775 DPR as the probability of hitting drops to just over 30%. But even assuming disadvantage both rounds, this is 3.355, just a hair better than using TS to remove disadvantage and casting FB on round two (3.3).

This is what I mean by marginal. TS+FB is 0.55 points worse than just casting FB twice with disadvantage. Tack on giving the enemy a fear turn to attack and concentration, it is a poor choice.

The vast majority of monsters actually do have creative ways to tack on disadvantage on their targets. It's actually a bit unique finding monsters that don't have riders save for humanoid enemies and obvious brutes.

Another common problem is that alot of creatures are resistant to firebolt. Maybe not at level one but if a campaign isn't a humanoid only campaign, it's likely you'll come across one. And swimming enemies count since they want to fight exclusively underwater unless dragged out.

Ray of sickness still applies the rider. Also, poisons in the DMG give significant combat effects where them hitting is more important than damage as well (having a character paralyzed).

The point isn't that true strike is good. The point is to find applications for it as written.

 

[Asisreo]

Even then, it is a borderline case IMO. And although some monsters have means of imposing disadvantage, the vast majority of them don't.

Let's take the AC 15 goblin vs. FB with a +5 spellcasting modifier. This means there is a 55% chance to hit (10 or better) which yields 3.3 DPR.

With disadvantage, this drops to 1.6775 DPR as the probability of hitting drops to just over 30%. But even assuming disadvantage both rounds, this is 3.355, just a hair better than using TS to remove disadvantage and casting FB on round two (3.3).

This is what I mean by marginal. TS+FB is 0.55 points worse than just casting FB twice with disadvantage. Tack on giving the enemy a fear turn to attack and concentration, it is a poor choice.

EDIT: I will add if the spellcasting modifier is only +4 (low, but acceptable at level 1), then using TS does offer a bump to DPR, but again you have to consider the cost associated with using it.

Another interesting thing is that most creature will attempt to use cover, be behind arrow slits, yadda yadda. In those cases, AC rises by quite alot and it wouldn't be strange to see your chance of hitting them with firebolt less than 50%.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, YMMV, I am not about to go over every single monster and set-up to prove a point. I showed you with the goblin example that even with disadvantage, most casters come out even or ahead not using TS.

As far as resistance goes, that is why a lot of casters have two attack cantrips IME when they are combat-focused. Rarely will a creature have resistance to both types.

Creatures with cover can often be moved around to avoid it IME. Again, YMMV but a lot just depends on the encounter set-up. Also, PCs can use cover, readying actions, etc. and casters who are combat-oriented tend to take Spellsniper so cover isn't a factor then.

My point is you seem to be reaching for ways to make TS meaningful in situations where other actions are just as viable if not more so. I am sure you can probably come up with ones, but for the limited cantrips my characters get, I am more inclined to take other cantrips myself. I figure it is like most situational spells: you miss it when you don't have it, but most of the time you simple aren't going to.

Again, YMMV.

 

[Asisreo]

Well, YMMV, I am not about to go over every single monster and set-up to prove a point. I showed you with the goblin example that even with disadvantage, most casters come out even or ahead not using TS.

As far as resistance goes, that is why a lot of casters have two attack cantrips IME when they are combat-focused. Rarely will a creature have resistance to both types.

Creatures with cover can often be moved around to avoid it IME. Again, YMMV but a lot just depends on the encounter set-up. Also, PCs can use cover, readying actions, etc. and casters who are combat-oriented tend to take Spellsniper so cover isn't a factor then.

My point is you seem to be reaching for ways to make TS meaningful in situations where other actions are just as viable if not more so. I am sure you can probably come up with ones, but for the limited cantrips my characters get, I am more inclined to take other cantrips myself. I figure it is like most situational spells: you miss it when you don't have it, but most of the time you simple aren't going to.

Again, YMMV.

I am reaching. I have to. I'm not sure how many people read my OP, but I think most people read the title, skimmed the OP, and only a few directly responded. My original example missed the mark. Ok. I get that and I'm grateful to be corrected. However, the direct answer to the question was hardly answered. Some people just said "no" while others tried to "fix" it, which I even specified was what I wasn't looking for. I had to come up with some of these situations myself.

In a situation where you're at disadvantage and a monster is using three-fourths cover, true strike becomes efficient. Even moreso than most AOE damage spells. In situations where the enemy has quite a few resistances, like a shadow, it's efficient to cast true strike. In situations before combat begins, casting true strike can give a slight edge. If you have a limited resource, like a poison/spell with rider, it might be efficient for that as well.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Another interesting thing is that most creature will attempt to use cover, be behind arrow slits, yadda yadda. In those cases, AC rises by quite alot and it wouldn't be strange to see your chance of hitting them with firebolt less than 50%.

I get that you're big on this "I'm a smart DM who plays hardball unlike most" (you pretty much literally said that earlier) trip, right, but you really are not coming at this laterally. You seem to think only linearly about True Strike and it's value.

If I was with a DM who was inflicting Disadvantage that often (on my probably-ranged PC, which is much harder to inflict Disadvantage on than a melee), and constantly facing arrow slits and similar cover, well first off I'd re-assess my life as an adventurer, but second off, I'd pick a non-roll-to-hit cantrip. Sometime like Toll the Dead or Acid Splash, or indeed Create Bonfire, which forces enemies out of cover and makes the cover unusable. Those all go off saves so totally ignore cover and Disadvantage. Now, you can't benefit from Advantage with saves, but if you're not getting it anyway, why wouldn't you use save-based cantrips?

Toll the Dead is an extremely effective cantrip too. d8 base damage isn't bad, and scaling to d12 when they've taken any damage at all? Amazing. Even if I just had a DM who favoured high-AC enemies, I'd want to take a save-based cantrip. The reason you pick Firebolt in the first place is largely so you can take advantage of er... Advantage and crits. If you are facing a situation, reliably, where you can't get generic, all-attack Advantage, then Firebolt isn't so great.

So you need to factor save-based cantrips into this. Because they completely negate your point. I mean, if you really wanted to be versatile here, you definitely don't take Firebolt and True Strike, you take Firebolt and Toll the Dead (and yes that is a Wizard spell). You use Firebolt when the enemies aren't able to get to cover, or inflict Disadvantage on you, and you use Toll the Dead at all other times. You have far, far better DPR than a guy with Firebolt and True Strike, who is just trying to lessen how bad his DPR is nerfed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In a situation where you're at disadvantage and a monster is using three-fourths cover, true strike becomes efficient.

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).

Complaining about "math homework" when you specifically asked for situations when the spell was actually useful is insulting to game designers, and to everyone who has made an effort to engage with your point. We're not stupid either. We know perfectly well that to work this stuff out, you need to do math. There's no other way. True Strike is the absolute perfect example of this because it sounds like a good deal, but it never works out.

 

[Asisreo]

Just to be clear, no it does not.

It is still the objective 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).

Complaining about "math homework" when you specifically asked for situations when the spell was actually useful is insulting to game designers, and to everyone who has made an effort to engage with your point. We're not stupid either. We know perfectly well that to work this stuff out, you need to do math. There's no other way. True Strike is the absolute perfect example of this because it sounds like a good deal, but it never works out.

Well, the thing is, if you're using an attack spell, it's probably because your AOE isn't as effective. Maybe the monster has proficiency on Dex and Wis saves or just plain magic resistance.

I will say that I wasn't looking through Xanathar's. I wasn't aware of a wisdom save cantrip outside of Vicious Mockery. However, acid splash is a dexterity save, the monster also gets a +5 bonus to its saving throw.

But I'm not trying to build an effective overall wizard. That wasn't what this was about. This wasn't a question whether the spell is a trap spell. I just wanted the cases where a theoretical wizard has access to all the cantrips in his spell list but in what case would he find true strike to be the most effective?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just wanted the cases where a theoretical wizard has access to all the cantrips in his spell list but in what case would he find true strike to be the most effective?

In none, I think we're still finding. You worked to come up with a scenario that helped hit-based spells, and it also impairs DEX-save cantrips (though not Create Bonfire, I would suggest, because it targets a square, and it makes no sense to give a "cover" bonus in that scenario).

Also, the "access to all cantrips" thing weakens True Strike further.

 

[Asisreo]

In none, I think we're still finding. You worked to come up with a scenario that helped hit-based spells, and it also impairs DEX-save cantrips (though not Create Bonfire, I would suggest, because it targets a square, and it makes no sense to give a "cover" bonus in that scenario).

Also, the "access to all cantrips" thing weakens True Strike further.

For create bonfire, it depends if you can see whether past the cover. An arrow slit, probably not, but a portcullis, maybe.

Being behind cover hurts hit-based spells but True strike can give a significant boost to DPR. Wizards truly don't have much cantrips that don't require dex saves or attack rolls.

Plus toll the dead requires sight, so enemies that peek through cover can't be targeted.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Plus toll the dead requires sight, so enemies that peek through cover can't be targeted.

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.