D&D 5E A use for True Strike

[Asisreo]

Negating disadvantage isn't really any more useful than granting advantage.

Getting advantage on the plane shift attack is nice. But if it is worth you casting TS (and hoping to keep your concentration up), then it is also worth getting an ally (or better your familiar) to use the help action. You have to be in melee anyway.

If your chances to hit are 60% and you're at disadvantage, firebolt then casting Chromatic Orb gives you a DPR of (5.5*.36)+(3.5*3*.36) = 5.76. That is less than true strike's (3.5*3*.6) = 6.3 DPR. It only gets worse the lower your chance to hit is. A 50% chance to hit at disadvantage gives a DPR of (5.5*.25) + (3.5*3*.25) = 4 while TS-CO at 50% gives (3.5*3*.5) = 5.25

 

[Asisreo]

This makes alot of sense too. You're magically discovering your target's weakness, so it should be able to bypass ailments or blindness/invisibility. Being blinded yet having your attacks aim true effectively is wonderfully flavorful for a divination cantrip.

 

[Undrave]

True Strike is a waste of ink. Should have just printed 'Toll the Dead' in the PHB and give Cleric and Bards more than one attack cantrip...

 

[FrogReaver]

True Strike is a waste of ink. Should have just printed 'Toll the Dead' in the PHB and give Cleric and Bards more than one attack cantrip...

It has a decent synergy with chromatic orb IMO. Though I've not really delved into the ins and outs of that combo

 

[Undrave]

It has a decent synergy with chromatic orb IMO. Though I've not really delved into the ins and outs of that combo

That's a pretty tiny corner case for a PHB spell on so many lists.

 

[Asisreo]

That's a pretty tiny corner case for a PHB spell on so many lists.

I would like to add that I've been using someone else's to-hit percentage and that lead to some erroneous conclusions. Advantage is not a linear distribution for to-hit. It's actually alot stronger the less likely you are to hit. For example, at 30% chance to hit, firebolt + chromatic orb has a DPR of (5.5*.3) + (3.5*3*.3)= 4.8 while True Strike + chromatic is (3.5*3*.51) = 5.355

So a target with exceptionally high AC is worth doing the true strike combo. So true strike is useful getting a strong hit on an enemy. In fact, twinning true strike, then twinning chromatic orb is quite a bit stronger than doing the same with just a firebolt (it requires more Sorc points, though.)

Twin true strike + twin chromatic orb: 2(3.5*3*.51) = 10.71

Firebolt + twin chromatic orb: 5.5*.3 + 2(3.5*3*.3)= 7.95

 

[Asisreo]

I would like to add that I've been using someone else's to-hit percentage and that lead to some erroneous conclusions. Advantage is not a linear distribution for to-hit. It's actually alot stronger the less likely you are to hit. For example, at 30% chance to hit, firebolt + chromatic orb has a DPR of (5.5*.3) + (3.5*3*.3)= 4.8 while True Strike + chromatic is (3.5*3*.51) = 5.355

So a target with exceptionally high AC is worth doing the true strike combo. So true strike is useful getting a strong hit on an enemy. In fact, twinning true strike, then twinning chromatic orb is quite a bit stronger than doing the same with just a firebolt (it requires more Sorc points, though.)

Twin true strike + twin chromatic orb: 2(3.5*3*.51) = 10.71

Firebolt + twin chromatic orb: 5.5*.3 + 2(3.5*3*.3)= 7.95

And if you were to quicken firebolt (an additional 5.5 *.3), true strike would still outmatch it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would like to add that I've been using someone else's to-hit percentage and that lead to some erroneous conclusions. Advantage is not a linear distribution for to-hit. It's actually alot stronger the less likely you are to hit. For example, at 30% chance to hit, firebolt + chromatic orb has a DPR of (5.5*.3) + (3.5*3*.3)= 4.8 while True Strike + chromatic is (3.5*3*.51) = 5.355

So a target with exceptionally high AC is worth doing the true strike combo. So true strike is useful getting a strong hit on an enemy. In fact, twinning true strike, then twinning chromatic orb is quite a bit stronger than doing the same with just a firebolt (it requires more Sorc points, though.)

Twin true strike + twin chromatic orb: 2(3.5*3*.51) = 10.71

Firebolt + twin chromatic orb: 5.5*.3 + 2(3.5*3*.3)= 7.95

(NOTE: It looks like you were doing 3d6 for CO, it is 3d8, so you should be using 4.5 not 3.5 in your calculations.)

First, I agree with a lower chance to hit, TS begins to look better. Adding in for critical hits:

FB+ CO @ 30% is
FB avg = 5.5 * 0.25 + 11 * 0.05 = 1.925
CO avg = 13.5 * 0.25 + 27 * 0.05 = 4.725
For total 1.925 + 4.725 = 6.65

WIth Advantage from TS you have:
CO avg = 13.5 * 0.4125 + 27 * 0.0975 = 8.20125

Which is a 23% bump over FB+CO.

But a 30% hit probability is really low in 5E. Most casters are +5 at level 1, so you are looking at AC 20. That is not common really at most levels. Based on CR and AC versus PC levels, base AC in Tier 1 for opponents is roughly 13, which with a +5 modifier would give 65% hit probability. Tier 2 is 15-16 for ACs on average, Tier 3 is closer to 18-19, and Tier 4 you finally average AC 20-21 or higher.

Because of the ACs you are most likely to encounter, TS continues to be lack-luster because hit probabilities are closer to 50% or better much of the time.

EDIT: FWIW here is the table showing avg AC by CR and the estimated bonus a PC would have against it.

As you can easily see, the hit probability is often 60% or better, making TS useless in most cases.

 

[Asisreo]

(NOTE: It looks like you were doing 3d6 for CO, it is 3d8, so you should be using 4.5 not 3.5 in your calculations.)

First, I agree with a lower chance to hit, TS begins to look better. Adding in for critical hits:

FB+ CO @ 30% is
FB avg = 5.5 * 0.25 + 11 * 0.05 = 1.925
CO avg = 13.5 * 0.25 + 27 * 0.05 = 4.725
For total 1.925 + 4.725 = 6.65

WIth Advantage from TS you have:
CO avg = 13.5 * 0.4125 + 27 * 0.0975 = 8.20125

Which is a 23% bump over FB+CO.

But a 30% hit probability is really low in 5E. Most casters are +5 at level 1, so you are looking at AC 20. That is not common really at most levels. Based on CR and AC versus PC levels, base AC in Tier 1 for opponents is roughly 13, which with a +5 modifier would give 65% hit probability. Tier 2 is 15-16 for ACs on average, Tier 3 is closer to 18-19, and Tier 4 you finally average AC 20-21 or higher.

Because of the ACs you are most likely to encounter, TS continues to be lack-luster because hit probabilities are closer to 50% or better much of the time.

That's very true. Unless, of course, you have a DM like me. Monsters are going to fight in the most advantageous way possible, meaning they'll try to give you disadvantage while giving them advantage. For goblins, a staple among 1st level fighters, they'll use their bonus action hide to take advantage of being unseen as much as possible. They are designed to be very stealthy ambushers, after all. Now, Goblins already have a 15 AC (surprisingly high for such a token weak enemy) and being unseen gives the party disadvantage. Now, if a 1st level sorcerer casted true strike, then ray of sickness, the outcome would be better.

It's not just goblins that causes disadvantage at low levels, some cause poison upon hit: (Dretch, Quasit, Drow, flumph, etc.)
Some become invisible, like the imp or duergar.
Some restrain, like the vine blight or the constrictor snake.

Disadvantage is something a wizard is likely to face against enemies that take advantage of their abilities. At lower levels, these disadvantage states can be frequent and turn the tides of battle.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's very true. Unless, of course, you have a DM like me. Monsters are going to fight in the most advantageous way possible, meaning they'll try to give you disadvantage while giving them advantage. For goblins, a staple among 1st level fighters, they'll use their bonus action hide to take advantage of being unseen as much as possible. They are designed to be very stealthy ambushers, after all. Now, Goblins already have a 15 AC (surprisingly high for such a token weak enemy) and being unseen gives the party disadvantage. Now, if a 1st level sorcerer casted true strike, then ray of sickness, the damage output would be better.

It's not just goblins that causes disadvantage at low levels, some cause poison upon hit: (Dretch, Quasit, Drow, flumph, etc.)
Some become invisible, like the imp or duergar.
Some restrain, like the vine blight or the constrictor snake.

Disadvantage is something a wizard is likely to face against enemies that take advantage of their abilities. At lower levels, these disadvantage states can be frequent and turn the tides of battle.

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.