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: 7592206" data-attributes="member: 59848"><p>I'm not sure I completely agree with this approach. Within the action economy, you are essentially casting a cantrip and a spell (or using some other action type that requires an attack roll and potentially finite resources such as an Arrow of Slaying).</p><p></p><p>As such, I'm not sure that the end result should deal much more than what a cantrip and the subsequent action could do separately. Due to the nature of the cantrip, you are essentially getting two shots to make your finite attack/resource count. If both miss, I can see the argument for allowing damage similar to what a cantrip would deal, but I don't think it should make the secondary effect of the subsequent action automatic, nor deal half the damage of the effect. </p><p></p><p>This does lead to some interesting effects though, as a first level spell slot used in conjunction with Trues Strike at high level could effectively deal more damage on a miss than the spell could do on its own. But the secondary effect would still be wasted.</p><p></p><p>I think I am leaning more towards this adjustment to True Strike:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px">True Strike</span></strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>Divination cantrip</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Casting Time:</strong> 1 action</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Range:</strong> 30 feet</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Components:</strong> S</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Duration:</strong> 1 round</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">You or an ally of your choice that you can see gains advantage on one attack roll before the end of your next turn. If the attack misses, the target of the attack roll takes 1d6 force damage. The target of the attack suffers no effects from the attack on a miss unless the attack specifies such effects in the description.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">This spells damage on a miss increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6)</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p><strong>Changes and my Rationale</strong></p><p></p><p>-Removing Concentration: It is relatively rare for cantrips in general, and attack cantrips in particular, to require concentration. Additionally, this creates undesirable interactions if the subsequent attack roll comes from another spell or effect that requires concentration. For the sake of reducing complexity and increasing ease of use, I would rather just get rid of it.</p><p></p><p>-Increasing range and allowing allies to benefit: If the party has an arrow of slaying and they only have one shot, do you want to but that arrow in the hands of the spellcaster, or a trained archer? This cantrip is already one that requires generally niche situations. Allowing it increased flexibility and giving the caster the power to choose who might benefit allows a style of team play and a support caster style, as well as increasing general utility.</p><p></p><p>-Using force damage: This is a personal choice, and one that may be controversial. However, if you like the rest of the spell and this is your main sticking point, just substitute the damage type to your personal taste. However, when I think of the harm or damage caused by divination magic, that seems to me to be the magic of fate. This is the kind of harm that is hard to reduce or mitigate, and is the most ephemeral of the damage types. For me, only force damage really fits for that. For me, it is also simpler to say force damage than "whatever the normal damage type of the missed attack would have been." Fewer words and reduced complexity is worth its weight in gold for me taste and style.</p><p></p><p>-Providing choice on the attack roll: The wording gives the target of the cantrip a choice on which attack roll gets the benefit. Therefore, accidentally taking an attack of opportunity before you get your intended attack off wouldn't waste the advantage.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7592206, member: 59848"] I'm not sure I completely agree with this approach. Within the action economy, you are essentially casting a cantrip and a spell (or using some other action type that requires an attack roll and potentially finite resources such as an Arrow of Slaying). As such, I'm not sure that the end result should deal much more than what a cantrip and the subsequent action could do separately. Due to the nature of the cantrip, you are essentially getting two shots to make your finite attack/resource count. If both miss, I can see the argument for allowing damage similar to what a cantrip would deal, but I don't think it should make the secondary effect of the subsequent action automatic, nor deal half the damage of the effect. This does lead to some interesting effects though, as a first level spell slot used in conjunction with Trues Strike at high level could effectively deal more damage on a miss than the spell could do on its own. But the secondary effect would still be wasted. I think I am leaning more towards this adjustment to True Strike: [INDENT] [B][SIZE=3]True Strike[/SIZE][/B] [I]Divination cantrip[/I] [B]Casting Time:[/B] 1 action [B]Range:[/B] 30 feet [B]Components:[/B] S [B]Duration:[/B] 1 round You or an ally of your choice that you can see gains advantage on one attack roll before the end of your next turn. If the attack misses, the target of the attack roll takes 1d6 force damage. The target of the attack suffers no effects from the attack on a miss unless the attack specifies such effects in the description. This spells damage on a miss increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6) [/INDENT] [b]Changes and my Rationale[/b] -Removing Concentration: It is relatively rare for cantrips in general, and attack cantrips in particular, to require concentration. Additionally, this creates undesirable interactions if the subsequent attack roll comes from another spell or effect that requires concentration. For the sake of reducing complexity and increasing ease of use, I would rather just get rid of it. -Increasing range and allowing allies to benefit: If the party has an arrow of slaying and they only have one shot, do you want to but that arrow in the hands of the spellcaster, or a trained archer? This cantrip is already one that requires generally niche situations. Allowing it increased flexibility and giving the caster the power to choose who might benefit allows a style of team play and a support caster style, as well as increasing general utility. -Using force damage: This is a personal choice, and one that may be controversial. However, if you like the rest of the spell and this is your main sticking point, just substitute the damage type to your personal taste. However, when I think of the harm or damage caused by divination magic, that seems to me to be the magic of fate. This is the kind of harm that is hard to reduce or mitigate, and is the most ephemeral of the damage types. For me, only force damage really fits for that. For me, it is also simpler to say force damage than "whatever the normal damage type of the missed attack would have been." Fewer words and reduced complexity is worth its weight in gold for me taste and style. -Providing choice on the attack roll: The wording gives the target of the cantrip a choice on which attack roll gets the benefit. Therefore, accidentally taking an attack of opportunity before you get your intended attack off wouldn't waste the advantage. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
True Strike: Yes, lets beat the dead horse
Top