D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[Asisreo]

Interesting. But isn't that the non-official sage advice rulings? Aren't the only official rulings now the ones that make it into the actual sage advice document? Or did this do that?

The ruling is in the Official Sage Advice. Sage Advice Compendium | Dungeons & Dragons

 

[FrogReaver]

The ruling is in the Official Sage Advice. Sage Advice Compendium | Dungeons & Dragons

Here's what that actually says:

I think there's a lot of room between the 3 official bullet points and the additional design intent section that was posted for curiosity.

 

[FrogReaver]

No need for the patronizing tone.

Apologies.

 

[Asisreo]

Here's what that actually says:

View attachment 121198

I think there's a lot of room between the 3 official bullet points and the additional design intent section that was posted for curiosity.

So you're arguing against their RAI? It doesn't really matter to me but they are explicitly saying their intent is that firebolt shouldn't be allowed to be twinned. Even the first bullet of the first section says "Targets only a creature." Firebolt is disqualified since it doesn't just targer creatures.

 

[FrogReaver]

We can call this setup a mulligan since we both had something wrong.

That's fair

(Sage advice ruling and questioning calculations). I'm also making aware of the fact that, again, these types of calculations breakdown outside of averages since there's a very large gradient because of the amount of dice being rolled.

Actually - the more dice rolled the more average you will tend to find your roll. The bigger impact is going to come from the chance to hit or miss, but again the more attacks the make the more average you will find your results.

Another niche could work with a higher level chromatic orb. Depending on your build, the chromatic orb might also have a bonus as your charisma modifier from draconic resilience (at least 6th level).

Actually chromatic orb is a great call out. Using it to target a vulnerability could really push the limits of what you can accomplish with true strike and it.

 

[FrogReaver]

So you're arguing against their RAI? It doesn't really matter to me but they are explicitly saying their intent is that firebolt shouldn't be allowed to be twinned. Even the first bullet of the first section says "Targets only a creature." Firebolt is disqualified since it doesn't just targer creatures.

I'm just saying they made a point to call out the official rule and then to make the point that the rest is up to your DM and then only mention how they would rule based on intentions after that. I think it's obvious they meant that section not to carry the same weight as the rest - or maybe you think differently?

 

[Asisreo]

I'm just saying they made a point to call out the official rule and then to make the point that the rest is up to your DM and then only mention how they would rule based on intentions after that. I think it's obvious they meant that section not to carry the same weight as the rest - or maybe you think differently?

I agree it's confusing. Personally, I wouldn't rule that way but I guess I can understand a DM that would.

 

[Asisreo]

Another strong attack roll spell is Melf's Acid Arrow. It might be pretty good for that kind of spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree it's confusing. Personally, I wouldn't rule that way but I guess I can understand a DM that would.

Yea. I couldn't fault a DM for ruling with their stated RAI. It's just I think they have left enough leeway there that even a DM in the most RAW only environment could rule that firebolt and twin work together.

 

[Mistwell]

Interesting. But isn't that the non-official sage advice rulings? Aren't the only official rulings now the ones that make it into the actual sage advice document? Or did this do that?

That IS the actual sage advice document in the second link.