D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[NotAYakk]

True Strike: (S) Divination, 1 Action, Range (100').
As an action you divine the ideal way to attack an target you can see or name within 100'. The first attack you make on that target on your next turn has advantage, and if the attack hits it deals an extra 1d12 damage. At level 5, 11 and 17 the extra damage is increased to 2d12, 3d12 and 4d12.

Thematically identical to existing true strike. Removes concentration. Adds a damage rider. Boosts range to moderate.

Despite all of these improvements, isn't a broken spell. It is just usable.

(The damage budget of the spell is 1d12 per tier, like other cantrips. Its damage is delayed 1 turn and it grants advantage on a weapon attack; so it is only really useful on someone whose weapon damage output is not far below nor far above 1d12 per tier, or who otherwise needs a source of advantage. It is also a good pre-ambush spell.

If your action-weapon damage is far above 1d12 per tier, using this is a waste because you should just have attacked twice.

If your action-weapon damage is far below 1d12 per tier, then a weapon attack and this every 2nd round sucks compared to a simple "toll the dead" or whatever.)

The fact that it is hard to find a way to make this a "power move" really points out how poor True Strike is.

Here is an attempt:

Ok, twinned true strike now clearly works (on two distinct targets). On your next turn you can attack 2 targets (somehow?) and get the damage rider on both. Be an elf with elven accuracy to make the advantage more useful, and get 19-20 crit range.

Sorclock? With EB? At level 6 (sorc 4, warlock 2), twinned true strike round 1, dual AB EB on both targets round 2.

Trip-vantage for 1d10+2d12+cha each on two targets.

Toss hexblade curse on one maybe? And Hex? But splitting your attacks makes them less useful.

 

[Bolares]

I disagree strongly.
I think the game needs more spells that take a round to cast and can be interrupted with an attack.
This is why I opened the thread about casting time 1 round.
A teleport spell would be like that.

A spell that converts death spells into unstoppable death spells by costing an action is nice.
So I would prefer +20 to hit or auto hit or whatever.

I like the idea of spells that take two or more turns to cast. True strike is just not that. True strike is trading one action for advantage on your next attack. that's a pretty big difference from what you are talking about. I'm not saying any aspell that costs more than one action is bad. I'm saying that making a spell that would cost 1 action cost 2, for the benefit on advantage on that spell's attack roll, is really bad.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm saying that making a spell that would cost 1 action cost 2, for the benefit on advantage on that spell's attack roll, is really bad.

And if you read my post, you see that I agree. At least in the context of the rest of 5e.

 

[Bolares]

And if you read my post, you see that I agree.

I know, I'm trying to show you that, because the very first sentence the message I was responding to says "I disagree strongly".

 

[Dausuul]

It used to be +20 on attack rolls back then. So this would be equally useful.

Another idea could be automatically granting a crit on your next hit in addition to advantage. That would be worth it.

That one gets back to the smite-abuse question, though.

I prefer to eliminate the attack roll altogether: You just hit. It's simple, very easy to understand, and it makes the spell feel more unique and cool, even though it's not actually a huge effect.

I think they were not completelly aware of the costs and value of action economy in the early days of 5e. One action is a pretty damned big cost for advantage. I don't think 5e needs a spell like true strike, and it's a pretty messy concept to make work as a cantrip. This is one I think they should've let die...

No, Wizards had a very strong handle on the concept of action economy by the time they were designing 5E. They figured out its importance during the run of 3E, I think; it certainly informed the design of 4E.

I think the explanation for true strike is simpler: It was a mistake, pure and simple. The team that wrote 5E was very small, and the core books came out in a slightly undercooked state--more than slightly in the case of the DMG. My guess is they had a version of true strike that was too strong, they were coming up on a deadline and had no time to fine-tune, so they just nerfed it hard and didn't really think through the implications of the change.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I know, I'm trying to show you that, because the very first sentence the message I was responding to says "I disagree strongly".

read the whole statement. And the post I respondet to.

 

[Oofta]

My favorite thing I've ever done with True Strike:

I banned it with a house rule...no explanation or anything, just a single comment in my campaign notes: "the True Strike cantrip has been removed from the game." Just to mess with my players. Of course they latched onto it like a terrier, and it was all they could think and talk about for the entire Session Zero.

Watching them all trying to discreetly find whatever exploit or broken power combo that caused me to ban the cantrip in the first place, was the most fun I've ever had at a character rolling party. They were digging deep, too..."okay, so if I go with a Tiefling Bladepact SorLock with Green Flame Blade, by 5th level I could...wait, what? It takes a whole action to cast!?"

Them:

Me:

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a leading nominee for the "Evil DM of 2022" right here!

 

[Bolares]

read the whole statement. And the post I respondet to.

.... I think we are talking about two different things. True strike is bad. It could be cool with changes. The topic of two+ round spells is at least interesting, even if hard to balance and make feel worth it. But those are two different topics that I don't get why are mixed up in the same conversation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

.... I think we are talking about two different things. True strike is bad. It could be cool with changes. The topic of two+ round spells is at least interesting, even if hard to balance and make feel worth it. But those are two different topics that I don't get why are mixed up in the same conversation.

Yes, exactly. It is bad, but could either be easily tweaked to be worthwile to borderline broken, or if other things changed, it could be even good in the curent form (harder to get advantage, a variety of limited ressources that actually required an attack roll and are so powerful, you would not want to miss them).

 

[Oofta]

.... I think we are talking about two different things. True strike is bad. It could be cool with changes. The topic of two+ round spells is at least interesting, even if hard to balance and make feel worth it. But those are two different topics that I don't get why are mixed up in the same conversation.

For me it's that it would be too powerful if you could cast it as a bonus action, too open to abuse if the duration was longer but too weak as written.