I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Huh! So its definitely a kind of "when I have nothing better to do on my turn" kind of action, or perhaps to negate disadvantage. Situational...
D&D 5E Cost/Benefit Analysis of True Strike
Huh! So its definitely a kind of "when I have nothing better to do on my turn" kind of action, or perhaps to negate disadvantage. Situational...
fuindordm
Adventurer
Well, its main use is that it conserves resources. If you're thinking of a melee attack, then it's nearly always more effective to attack twice than to cast TS, then attack. But for spellcasters, TS can greatly increase the expected damage of a spell at no cost in spell slots (just time). Of course it's more effective to cast Chromatic Orb twice in a row, but TS is good when you don't want to go nova.
I don't take it. I haven't seen any worthwhile use for it that makes me want to use one of my few cantrips slots.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Yeah, a spell that costs an action, requires concentration, only affects a single attack roll, is self-only, and has somatic but not material components (so you have to have a free hand to cast it)...really truly doesn't come across as especially useful. For a spell attack on an attack-roll-based spell of 6th level or higher (if there are any such spells) I suppose I could see it--a matter of hedging one's bets, as it were--but other than that, and especially for melee-based classes that have spells, I find this...difficult to justify. It's labored with so many costs and limitations, while granting a benefit you could almost certainly gain simply through careful positioning or getting assistance from an ally. When coupled with the "damage dealt later is worth proportionally less than damage dealt now" effect, I just don't see how anyone could actually benefit from this.
On the bright side, if it granted advantage on all attacks it would be insane and would make Eldritch Knights OP, so it's probably for the best that it be near-useless...but somehow I feel like it would've been even better to just not have it at all.
On the bright side, if it granted advantage on all attacks it would be insane and would make Eldritch Knights OP, so it's probably for the best that it be near-useless...but somehow I feel like it would've been even better to just not have it at all.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I, personally, would argue that 5e has done a pretty good job of making cantrips that are worth using without being stupidly broken. As an aside, I don't mind "use all the time" myself--the issue is whether a cantrip can, by itself, revolutionize a class or subclass without any extra investment and without the devs planning it to do so. E.g. it's fine that Eldritch Blast is powerful for a cantrip, because (a) it's designed specifically to improve the Warlock, (b) it really needs Invocation investment to fulfill its potential, and (c) it doesn't have any effects that could make the game go pear-shaped if applied to a different class (AFAIK, of course).
Hence why I said what I said. True Strike that applied to all attacks on the next round would be okay-ish for Wizards, but insane for Eldritch Knights, who can conceivably get 6 or even (at the highest levels) 8 attacks in "the next turn."
Probably not? I mean, yes, that's a pretty substantial improvement, especially because it means that True Strike now has a very clear function: helping you hit things you couldn't hit without it. So I guess that's your answer. I might use it more, because it has a clear case where it's (almost unequivocally) worth doing...but I'm not sure, particularly with Bounded Accuracy, that even that is "worth the investment." In the right party, knowing ahead of time that we will be expected to min-max if we want to succeed, I might use it. That said, while I always give some thought to the "effectiveness" of a character I'm going to play, I'm not really sure I'd enjoy a game THAT heavily focused on optimization, so there's still not much chance that I'd use True Strike. Particularly when you can get 85-90% of the effectiveness just by having a single combat cantrip, and then filling all your other (very limited) slots with more "interesting" or "flavorful" or "utility" cantrips.
Twin Strike, even as a pure + to hit, doesn't just have to present some logically valid case for its use. If I'm gonna spend one of my, what, 2-4 total cantrips on it, it has to be worth the opportunity cost of not taking one of the other cantrips.
Also, I'd be inclined to say that a first-level +5 to hit every other round is probably wonky; it wouldn't be such a big deal past level 8ish, when there are multiple attacks in play and proficiency bonuses start to approach similar values (~4). At first level, though, +5 is equivalent to proficiency AND a good stat, and if you already have both it means you're batting (essentially) 16 levels above weight. It'll settle out much like the Moon Druid does, I suspect, e.g. go from wonky to good to sub-par eventually, but for those first 3-4 levels in particular it would make Wizards, every other round, the best meleeists available, and I'm not sure I like that
In general, I agree with a sentiment expressed earlier in the thread. True Strike should've been an actual spell, and thus had enough power to be really worthwhile. Instead, it's a cantrip with highly situational uses either at the very highest levels (which most people won't reach), or only for the first level or two (which won't last long).
houser2112
Explorer
If it even one of its restrictions was relaxed, it would be useful. If the "On your next turn" restriction was changed to "your next attack", like the 3E version, you could at least use it with a Quickened spell or weapon attack this turn.
Similar Threads
