D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Survey

[Mirrorrorrim]

No it doesn't. There's no increased accuracy at all.

OK. Generally speaking, let's say there is a magic-focused Wizard or a Sorcerer that makes an attack using a weapon they are proficient with. Now have that same Wizard or Sorcerer that makes an attack with the same weapon using the new True Strike. Which is more accurate? Which is more effective with that attack? I'll wait.

I mean, I guess you can build a caster to be focused on Str or Dex rather than their spellcasting ability. I guess.

One could say they want True Strike to do something different, like affect spell attacks, or be an actual auto-hit, or be even more powerful in that it could be a bonus action that gives advantage on the same turn. Those are fine wishes but the design team has to figure out the power/balance level of this as a cantrip. I don't think Concentration should be a part of the spell anymore, and delaying the attack to a later action is not fun.

I'm open to designs that do something different, sure. But that doesn't mean that the current UA version doesn't do something unique and interesting for a magic-focused spellcaster, at the proper power level of a cantrip, while fulfilling a goal of increasing accuracy and effectiveness of a weapon attack for that caster.

 

[Maxperson]

OK. Generally speaking, let's say there is a magic-focused Wizard or a Sorcerer that makes an attack using a weapon they are proficient with. Now have that same Wizard or Sorcerer that makes an attack with the same weapon using the new True Strike. Which is more accurate? Which is more effective with that attack? I'll wait.

Neither is more accurate. At all. And neither strikes true. At all. And greater effectiveness isn't inherently striking more true.

The problem is that when the fluff(spell name) and mechanics don't match. If medusas were known for their charm gazes and one turned you to stone, that's a problem. If wizards were known for being masters of the arcane, but their spells and abilities were divine, that would be a problem. When a spell is known for making you more accurate, but it doesn't, that is a problem.

They should rename it radiant weapon or radiant strike or something. Then it would be a fine cantrip. It would be in the wrong school, but at least the fluff and mechanics would match.

One could say they want True Strike to do something different, like affect spell attacks, or be an actual auto-hit, or be even more powerful in that it could be a bonus action that gives advantage on the same turn. Those are fine wishes but the design team has to figure out the power/balance level of this as a cantrip. I don't think Concentration should be a part of the spell anymore, and delaying the attack to a later action is not fun.

I agree with you that delays and concentration should not be present. And there are so many ways to get advantage in this game that casting it as a bonus action to get advantage on your next attack would not be unbalanced.

I'm open to designs that do something different, sure. But that doesn't mean that the current UA version doesn't do something unique and interesting for a magic-focused spellcaster, at the proper power level of a cantrip,

I agree with this. Sort of. I personally find "do a bit more energy damage" to be a bit boring, but it's definitely something different for a caster and at the proper power level.

while fulfilling a goal of increasing accuracy and effectiveness of a weapon attack for that caster.

Accuracy doesn't change at all. And effectiveness via energy damage isn't striking true in any sense. Now if it expanding the critical range by 1 or 2, that would could be construed as helping to strike true. But as it stands, the fluff and mechanics simply don't line up.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Neither is more accurate. At all. And neither strikes true. At all. And greater effectiveness isn't inherently striking more true.

Accuracy doesn't change at all. And effectiveness via energy damage isn't striking true in any sense. Now if it expanding the critical range by 1 or 2, that would could be construed as helping to strike true. But as it stands, the fluff and mechanics simply don't line up.

A 5th level Wizard with 18 Int and a 10 Str swings their quarterstaff at an enemy. They have a +3 to attack and deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage.

The same Wizard uses the divination magic of the True Strike cantrip to focus their spellcasting might, and they attack at +7 and deal 1d8+1d6+4 bludgeoning or radiant damage, their choice.

That is a +4 difference. That is greater accuracy and it hits harder (1d6+4 more damage).

Even if they used a Ranged or Finesse weapon, they will almost always be more accurate and more damaging using True Strike until such a time when their Int and Dex result in the same modifier. Even then, they'll deal more damage with True Strike, bringing the enemy closer to defeat.

We agree that the names of spells are not always exactly accurate to the effect. But where we disagree is that I assert that this version of True Strike is no less a misnomer than it has ever been. Not in 5E, not in 3E. It cannot be held to that standard that the attack must be unerring. It has never been a "True" strike, just a more accurate one. Which I believe I have proven it is.

 

[Maxperson]

A 5th level Wizard with 18 Int and a 10 Str swings their quarterstaff at an enemy. They have a +3 to attack and deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage.

The same Wizard uses the divination magic of the True Strike cantrip to focus their spellcasting might, and they attack at +7 and deal 1d8+1d6+4 bludgeoning or radiant damage, their choice.

That is a +4 difference. That is greater accuracy and it hits harder (1d6+4 more damage).

You aren't any more accurate with that spell than you are with firebolt and do a hair less damage. The current wizard with true strike as it is in the 5e PHB with the exception of being a bonus action would have advantage on the attack with the firebolt. That gives greater accuracy. And really, wizards aren't going to be swinging weapons unless they are Bladesingers and that subclass isn't going to need truestrike as used in the UA.

They should just keep it at advantage and turn it into a bonus action.

Even if they used a Ranged or Finesse weapon, they will almost always be more accurate and more damaging using True Strike until such a time when their Int and Dex result in the same modifier. Even then, they'll deal more damage with True Strike, bringing the enemy closer to defeat.

They're going to use firebolt or other ranged cantrips unless they are a battle subclass like Bladesinger. The current true strike is only really useful to one subclass a little bit. The others aren't going to use it the vast majority of the time. In general, wizards don't want to be in melee range of pretty much everything.

We agree that the names of spells are not always exactly accurate to the effect. But where we disagree is that I assert that this version of True Strike is no less a misnomer than it has ever been. Not in 5E, not in 3E. It cannot be held to that standard that the attack must be unerring. It has never been a "True" strike, just a more accurate one. Which I believe I have proven it is.

I'm not holding it to unerring. I've said repeatedly that it helps an attack strike true. 3e did it with +20 to hit. 5e did it with advantage. Both screwed the spell up in other ways so it was almost never used. This new incarnation isn't true strike.

Now if it added the int bonus to the wizards regular bonus, THAT would be an increase in accuracy. That way a wizard with a decent dex and a dex weapon would have a higher bonus to hit than he would have with a firebolt. Of course, you still won't really see it used except by non-wizards or Bladesingers due to having to be in melee range, but at least then the name would make sense.

 

[mellored]

Because every incarnation except the current one helps you strike true. In 3e the +20 to hit meant you had to roll a natural 1 to miss just about anything you are aiming at unless you're a 1st level wizard aiming at an ancient red dragon, and even then you could still hit it without rolling a natural 20.

Yes, but it wasn't a cantrip.
It also took a full action. So it would have to happen on your next turn.

Which ends up being closer to the True Strike that we have in 2014.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but it wasn't a cantrip.
It also took a full action. So it would have to happen on your next turn.

Which ends up being closer to the True Strike that we have in 2014.

Sure, but if you really needed to hit something and had a moment, it worked out. It really should have been a swift action and less bonus to hit, but hey. At least the name matched the mechanic.

 

[mellored]

Sure, but if you really needed to hit something and had a moment, it worked out. It really should have been a swift action and less bonus to hit, but hey. At least the name matched the mechanic.

IMO.

True Strike.
Make a weapon attack, but treat the d20 as a 15. The attack deals half the normal damage and can’t be increased in any way, such as sneak attack.
Level 5: the attack deals full damage.
Level 11: the die roll is a 20, making it a critical hit.
Level 17: deal max damage.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO.

True Strike.
Make a weapon attack, but treat the d20 as a 15. The attack deals half the normal damage and can’t be increased in any way, such as sneak attack.
Level 5: the attack deals full damage.
Level 11: the die roll is a 20, making it a critical hit.
Level 17: deal max damage.

I like that.

 

[Mephista]

In general, my review was positive. My major complaints about the bastion was mainly about the free rooms that did nothing. Like... you get two free options... which included choices from a bedroom, a kitchen, a washroom, a lounge. Like, my apartment during college had more space than a Bastion. And this is supposed to represent a Keep? You don't even get the bare necessities to live in!

The cantrips were pretty positive except Blade Ward, which probably passed into the realm of "too good" - you want to pretty much spam it all the time. The only time someone doesn't want it is if they already have consistent access to an equivalent or better reaction - PAM, Uncanny Dodge, etc. I don't like spells that become "necessary picks." Playing a warlock and feeling like I'm forced to take EB and Blade Ward, no other real options, is boring. I don't like True Strike granting Radiant damage, but that's an easy fix.

 

[Mephista]

About the whole poison = necromancy thing...

I was actually thinking in terms of the Spore druid - they're all about mixing poison and necrosis, similar to Zuggtmoy. Demon queen of rot ends up being poisonous. So, if we're dealing with rot = poison instead of creating serpent venom, it'd make sense. Rabies probably counts as a poison too - I'm looking at you, Yeenoghu. But, yeah, disease falls under necromancy, doesn't it? That's poison...

Another reason could be because of blood magic. I read a lot of vampire fiction, and making poison from blood magic is extremely common twist on blood magic when it shows up; it also shows up in the Vampire TTRPGs as an extension of blood magic. And I don't think anyone here would disagree that blood magic should fall under the Necromancy school.