Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
True Strike: Yes, lets beat the dead horse
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7586678" data-attributes="member: 59848"><p>[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] - Not trying to start an argument or come off disrespectfully. But I honestly don't see the thing that you are seeing. It would be helpful if you provide some concrete examples.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So to my knowledge, most fighters only have access to Second Wind as a normal bonus action, which is only once per rest. Two-Weapon fighters will use their bonus action for an additional attack, but once you get access to Extra Attack it seems it would be more beneficial to use a bonus action for your version of True Strike. The same applies to the bonus action attack from Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master. Especially since your primary weapon is likely to deal more damage on a hit than your secondary weapon. Those with the Shield Master feat would lose out on using shove as a bonus action, but I most often see such players using the shove action to knock their opponent prone specifically to get advantage on their melee attacks. Why would a player chose to attempt a shove with a possibility of failure, when True Strike would net them the advantage they seek?</p><p></p><p>As for rogues, those that prefer ranged attacks would be able to guarantee sneak attack whenever they hit, since they would be always able to have advantage. This releases them from the normal requirement of having an ally within 5' of the target. Such rogues are unlikely to be using their Cunning Action. They are usually far enough away not to need to use the additional dash to keep out of melee. They won't be using disengage for the same reason. And based on the way that Hide works, unless there is a persistent concealment effect like darkness or fog to provide obscurement, they wouldn't be able to attempt to hide once they have given their position away by attacking.</p><p></p><p>And with paladins, the only bonus action they consistently have access to is from their smite spells. But since they often have an extended duration, a paladin could still benefit from your version of True Strike after casting their smite spell and benefit from advantage.</p><p></p><p>Monks also only get one addition attack with a bonus action unless they use Flurry, meaning it is more beneficial to use your version of True Strike unless they choose to use Flurry. They do have the dodge action available with their Ki abilities as a bonus action, which as far as I can contemplate, would be the only tough call to make if a monk has your version of True Strike and Ki points left.</p><p></p><p>Barbarians have rage and can't cast spells while raging. I can't think of any barbarian bonus actions that would compete with your version of True Strike, and your version would be more favorable than their Reckless Attack because it would not come with the normal penalty Reckless attack provides. Of course, their is the bonus action attack from Berserker Barbarian's, but once again you can't cast spells while raging anyways. Your True Strike is better than their Reckless Attack and there isn't much competition for bonus actions that would cause a barbarian much pause.</p><p></p><p>Other classes that have access to a number of bonus action options are bards, clerics, druids, and wizards might have reasonable competition for their bonus action. However, once again, because your version of True Strike only works on weapon attacks, such classes are unlikely to use it. Valor Bards might, but they might instead go with their bardic inspiration options.</p><p></p><p>So truly, I am having trouble seeing how the feat cost (for non-specllcasters) and the opportunity cost of the loss of a bonus action is more significant than the feat cost (for non-spellcasters) and the opportunity cost of the loss of a standard action.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Once again, not meaning disrespect, but I don't see what you are seeing. So please help me by providing concrete examples. For example, you mention behind cover. How does my version, which requires an action to cast and applies to your next attack, make attacking from cover any more potent than casting from cover and having advantage on all your attacks made from behind cover? </p><p></p><p>Yes, the point of the cantrip is ideally to make the next attack hit more reliably, and to help improve the damage of that attack since you lost a potential attack (or number of attacks) by forgoing your attacks in the previous round. So far as I can see, a character using my proposed version of True Strike would have a full round in which they were not benefiting from Smite, Sneak Attack, or multiple attacks. This would provide a slight boost to their next attack if it hits. It would not apply to every attack made the next round. Yet in your version, for the cost of a bonus action you double your chances of successfully hitting each round, you double your chances each round of scoring a critical hit, and you still are able to benefit from Smite, Sneak Attack, or multiple attacks each round. </p><p></p><p>So genuinely, I can't see: </p><p></p><p>1) how your version is balanced for a cantrip (of which only Shillelagh and Magic Stone come to mind as requiring a bonus action to cast)</p><p></p><p>2) how your version is meant for casters, of which 9/10 will prefer to use spells and cantrips over weapon attacks</p><p></p><p>3) how your version is less powerful or less problematic than the version I proposed.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps if you provide examples that demonstrate that I am "balancing for [True Strike's] worst kind of use."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7586678, member: 59848"] [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] - Not trying to start an argument or come off disrespectfully. But I honestly don't see the thing that you are seeing. It would be helpful if you provide some concrete examples. So to my knowledge, most fighters only have access to Second Wind as a normal bonus action, which is only once per rest. Two-Weapon fighters will use their bonus action for an additional attack, but once you get access to Extra Attack it seems it would be more beneficial to use a bonus action for your version of True Strike. The same applies to the bonus action attack from Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master. Especially since your primary weapon is likely to deal more damage on a hit than your secondary weapon. Those with the Shield Master feat would lose out on using shove as a bonus action, but I most often see such players using the shove action to knock their opponent prone specifically to get advantage on their melee attacks. Why would a player chose to attempt a shove with a possibility of failure, when True Strike would net them the advantage they seek? As for rogues, those that prefer ranged attacks would be able to guarantee sneak attack whenever they hit, since they would be always able to have advantage. This releases them from the normal requirement of having an ally within 5' of the target. Such rogues are unlikely to be using their Cunning Action. They are usually far enough away not to need to use the additional dash to keep out of melee. They won't be using disengage for the same reason. And based on the way that Hide works, unless there is a persistent concealment effect like darkness or fog to provide obscurement, they wouldn't be able to attempt to hide once they have given their position away by attacking. And with paladins, the only bonus action they consistently have access to is from their smite spells. But since they often have an extended duration, a paladin could still benefit from your version of True Strike after casting their smite spell and benefit from advantage. Monks also only get one addition attack with a bonus action unless they use Flurry, meaning it is more beneficial to use your version of True Strike unless they choose to use Flurry. They do have the dodge action available with their Ki abilities as a bonus action, which as far as I can contemplate, would be the only tough call to make if a monk has your version of True Strike and Ki points left. Barbarians have rage and can't cast spells while raging. I can't think of any barbarian bonus actions that would compete with your version of True Strike, and your version would be more favorable than their Reckless Attack because it would not come with the normal penalty Reckless attack provides. Of course, their is the bonus action attack from Berserker Barbarian's, but once again you can't cast spells while raging anyways. Your True Strike is better than their Reckless Attack and there isn't much competition for bonus actions that would cause a barbarian much pause. Other classes that have access to a number of bonus action options are bards, clerics, druids, and wizards might have reasonable competition for their bonus action. However, once again, because your version of True Strike only works on weapon attacks, such classes are unlikely to use it. Valor Bards might, but they might instead go with their bardic inspiration options. So truly, I am having trouble seeing how the feat cost (for non-specllcasters) and the opportunity cost of the loss of a bonus action is more significant than the feat cost (for non-spellcasters) and the opportunity cost of the loss of a standard action. Once again, not meaning disrespect, but I don't see what you are seeing. So please help me by providing concrete examples. For example, you mention behind cover. How does my version, which requires an action to cast and applies to your next attack, make attacking from cover any more potent than casting from cover and having advantage on all your attacks made from behind cover? Yes, the point of the cantrip is ideally to make the next attack hit more reliably, and to help improve the damage of that attack since you lost a potential attack (or number of attacks) by forgoing your attacks in the previous round. So far as I can see, a character using my proposed version of True Strike would have a full round in which they were not benefiting from Smite, Sneak Attack, or multiple attacks. This would provide a slight boost to their next attack if it hits. It would not apply to every attack made the next round. Yet in your version, for the cost of a bonus action you double your chances of successfully hitting each round, you double your chances each round of scoring a critical hit, and you still are able to benefit from Smite, Sneak Attack, or multiple attacks each round. So genuinely, I can't see: 1) how your version is balanced for a cantrip (of which only Shillelagh and Magic Stone come to mind as requiring a bonus action to cast) 2) how your version is meant for casters, of which 9/10 will prefer to use spells and cantrips over weapon attacks 3) how your version is less powerful or less problematic than the version I proposed. Perhaps if you provide examples that demonstrate that I am "balancing for [True Strike's] worst kind of use." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
True Strike: Yes, lets beat the dead horse
Top