D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[jmartkdr2]

That is a nice idea, too! It would be really situational to even allow something crazy like "you can ignore total cover provided you can still see your target."

I think that might not work out - most total cover you can see through is invisible barriers like a wall of force. A cantrip should supersede that.

Ignoring 1/2 and 3/4 seems cool but not enough. I do like the idea of switching form advantage to a flat bonus to hit (+10 in 5e terms) - not quite guaranteed but close, and it stacks with advantage.

I'd still either make it the next attack roll you make and/or remove concentration form it, because those really kill it in so many cases.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think that might not work out - most total cover you can see through is invisible barriers like a wall of force. A cantrip should supersede that.

Ignoring 1/2 and 3/4 seems cool but not enough. I do like the idea of switching form advantage to a flat bonus to hit (+10 in 5e terms) - not quite guaranteed but close, and it stacks with advantage.

I'd still either make it the next attack roll you make and/or remove concentration form it, because those really kill it in so many cases.

I was thinking more total cover like a glass window (LAME that such a thing should stop a spell like Fire Bolt...)

I think a combination of things would make it worthwhile in certain cases, but not OP:

1. Remove Concentration. It is only 1 round anyway so making it concentration seems silly IMO.
2. Remove advantage (there are other ways to get it) and make it auto-crit on a hit.
3. Allow the attacker to ignore half- and 3/4-cover.

Anyway, in a game with feats, it works fine but you have to build for it. Elves and half-elves with Elven Accuracy can really crit-fish! Imagine a Hexlock/Rogue using CHA and getting 3d20 via advantage on SA with Hex, etc.? Then turn around and Agonizing Eldritch Blasts with 3d20 again?

Adjust it for the rules above and it is almost OP in those optimal builds.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

That is a nice idea, too! It would be really situational to even allow something crazy like "you can ignore total cover provided you can still see your target."

I think that might not work out - most total cover you can see through is invisible barriers like a wall of force. A cantrip should supersede that.

Ignoring 1/2 and 3/4 seems cool but not enough. I do like the idea of switching form advantage to a flat bonus to hit (+10 in 5e terms) - not quite guaranteed but close, and it stacks with advantage.

I'd still either make it the next attack roll you make and/or remove concentration form it, because those really kill it in so many cases.

In 3.5, invisibility gave 50% chance to miss, if you chose the correct square to shoot a target. True strike ignored miss chance and added +20 to hit, so you were likely to hit an invisible target.

5e doesn't have miss chance and invisibility only gives disadvantage which means True Strike only turns the attack into a normal hit. It would be good if it gave 'double-advantage' so that it gave advantage even if the target was at disadvantage to begin with. A static bonus would make it very nice.

 

[NotAYakk]

Auto-crit actually anti-optimzies with crit fishing builds.

If you expended resources to roll 3d20 pick best and 19-20 crit range, you already have a 27% chance to crit per swing, and almost 50% per 2 attacks.

It optimizes with things to deliver on a crit, but against the rest of the package.

...

Note that all smites are melee range; so concentration is a great mechanic, as can be lost easily. It reduces the benefit of an auto-crit if you can lose it (or have to invest in not losing it).

...

Suppose you are fighting 5 monsters with 5 players, and the combat lasts 10 rounds.

Each round there is a 50/50 chance a monster drops. So you either have to not focus fire with your ability (or the party cannot), or you risk losing it regularly.

If everyone used it, and it did no extra damage, you'd be fighting an extra 0.5 to 1.0 monsters per round as you attempted to avoid "blowthrough" and delayed damage. That is 20% to 40% more damage over the entire fight (really; 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5 over 10 is 2.5, adding 0.5 to 1.0 monsters for every round is gonna hurt).

Against a single big monster that lasts ~5 rounds, you just have to know not to use it towards the end of the fight.

...

My point is you want it to be a tough question to use it or not. And I think it should be as useful as other cantrips.

Take Toll the Dead and Fire Bolt. Having Toll gives you a 18% damage boost on wounded targets, having FB gives you a 22% damage boost on unhurt targets. Most people wouldn't take both cantrips; they'd pick one of them (usually Toll). If 1/4 attacks are on full health targets, toll adds 9% damage over FB. Taking both is another +4% damage (and opening with FB, then using Toll later).

That isn't generally considered worth it.

True Strike (with crit and advantage) + FB on 60% hit chance is 5.5*.65*2=7.15 vs 11*.81=8.91, or 25% damage increase.

...

Another approach. True Strike grants advantage, and if the lower attack die would hit the attack is upgraded to a critical hit.

This Strike + FB with 60% hit chance is .81 hit 0.4 crit. 5.5 * 1.2 = 6.6, less than just casting FB twice.

"Your first attack on the target has advantage, ignores disadvantage, and ignores 1/4 cover and 3/4 cover. If the lower of the two attack dice hit, the attack becomes a critical hit."

Still probably not good enough. Very niche.

...

Or:

"You have advantage, and the attack deals 2 extra damage dice from the weapon or spell. At level 5 you deal 3 extra damage dice, 11 4, and 17 5."

This is an attempt to have it scale in a crit-like manner, but not actually be a crit. So smite-fishing doesn't work.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"You have advantage, and the attack deals 2 extra damage dice from the weapon or spell. At level 5 you deal 3 extra damage dice, 11 4, and 17 5."

This is an attempt to have it scale in a crit-like manner, but not actually be a crit. So smite-fishing doesn't work.

That's an interesting one. Let's say a character has two attacks with a 75% chance to hit, and does 1d8+6 damage, and is level 5. They get 3 extra damage dice on the first attack, and their chance to hit goes up to say 87%.

Let's look at two rounds:

Without True Strike - 1d8+6x2 x0.75 = avg 15.75 first round, same second round. DPR is thus 15.75, total damage over two rounds is 31.5

With True Strike - First round damage is 0, casting True Strike, Second round first hit is three extra dice so first attack is 4d8+6 x 0.87 = avg 21.7, second attack is 1d8+6 x 0.75 = avg 7.8, so 21.7 + 7.9 = 29.6.

So True Strike is still worse there, than no True Strike.

Maybe with d12s?

No True Strike Total Damage with d12+6 = 37.5

True Strike Total Damage with d12+6 = 37.2

Nope. Even with the biggest die you can have, True Strike is still behind in this model.

And on paper is looks pretty nasty too. I didn't factor in Crits. Maybe they take TS just slightly ahead? It's going to be by a pretty small margin I reckon though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, I was going to write a post a while back about if both dice hit, it would be a crit, but that is not really any good either.

IMO, auto-crit and advantage is just too good, but neither alone really is good enough under normal circumstances.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What about if True Strike also allowed you to ignore resistance for the next turn (with either advantage as RAW or auto-crit, either works but not both)?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What about if True Strike also allowed you to ignore resistance for the next turn (with either advantage as RAW or auto-crit, either works but not both)?

Is that going to actually help you mathematically though? Would it work on things that don't have a to-hit roll? That is the big question there. Most of the "big damage" spells which face issues with resistance don't have to-hit rolls. For the next turn is also different from and a lot bigger than "for the next attack", which is what it currently does.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is that going to actually help you mathematically though? Would it work on things that don't have a to-hit roll? That is the big question there. Most of the "big damage" spells which face issues with resistance don't have to-hit rolls. For the next turn is also different from and a lot bigger than "for the next attack", which is what it currently does.

I think so. At least IME enough casters fall back on cantrips for damage, and if you combine auto-crit with ignore resistance it would make such spells effective. OTOH, casters often might have two cantrips and if resistance affects one, it probably won't affect the other... So, maybe it won't be a big help? I am not sure I guess it depends on what you plan for?

I am basically just tossing out ideas for improving True Strike so it has a purpose without making it OP.

 

[Asisreo]

Is that going to actually help you mathematically though? Would it work on things that don't have a to-hit roll? That is the big question there. Most of the "big damage" spells which face issues with resistance don't have to-hit rolls. For the next turn is also different from and a lot bigger than "for the next attack", which is what it currently does.

To be honest, I don't necessarily want true strike to outcompete firebolt. If you're going purely for damage, it would be more thematic as a typical wizard to hurl a ball of fire than constantly...looking at an opponent every other 6 seconds.

Firebolt is a very commonly resisted damage type and, most of all, the DPR differences are kinda just small. Like, 5 points of damage possibly spread across up to 5 targets just isn't that significant in the long term of combat, even per round. It's very possible that the equivalence of 5 damage just disappears in terms of overkill than it being useful in a fight. Yeah, it's 5 points closer to death and maybe the 5 points were the deciding factor between a victory and defeat but...it just doesn't seem significant.