What's the point of True Strike?

[Amaranthine]

Essentially, you give up one action (with the potential of at least one attack roll), and you will likely get to roll two rolls on your next attack.

Won't it almost always be a better idea to just take the single roll on two separate attack rolls? You have the same odds of getting a single hit, and you might even get a second hit, which you will not get with the True Strike.

[Gastronomie]

As far as I know, the conclusion the forum has made is that, yes, there's no point in True Strike. Unless you can use it as a bonus action or something.

[Millstone85]

You might want better odds for a specific attack, like from a really powerful spell.

That being said, I am not a fan of True Strike either.

[JoeJ]

If you can't get close enough to attack with your regular movement this round, it might be better to cast True Strike than to Dash and end up standing next to an enemy who might then attack you before your next turn. I wouldn't expect that to happen very often, though.

[SharkForce]

there are a few super-niche scenarios where it is at least mediocre. basically, any time you have a "dead round" before a fight, you could use true strike.

i wouldn't say any of those scenarios happen often enough to justify knowing the cantrip unless maybe your other options are spare the dying and... honestly, i think that might be the only cantrip that's actually worse than true strike, even the cantrips generally considered to be awful or at best highly situational are better. you gotta dig pretty deep to find something worse than true strike.

[hymer]

I agree with what's been said above. It being a Concentration spell just makes it worse.

[EscherEnigma]

In addition to the mentioned "dead round" scenario, there's also if...
You're a 14+ valor bard and for some reason can only attack once (using a crossbow maybe?)
You're a 7+ eldritch knight and for some reason can only attack once (crossbow again)
You're an arcane trickster and getting sneak attack every other round is better then attacking every round.
You're any other kind of rogue with the magic initiate feat and getting sneak attack every other round is more important then attacking every round.

That's about all I got. So yeah, highly circumstantial.

[Sigreid]

Primarily it would let you cancel out a disadvantage which would likely lead to both of your attacks missing.

[Tanarii]

About the only time it's useful is in an ambush scenario where you're not hidden, or if you have a round before fighting begins.

Most likely to happen in a social situation, Mexican standoff, or right before a duel begins.

Remember it only takes an S-component. You might be able to get away with it in a social situation in a crowd of people. Of course, you're likely to get surprise in that kind of situation if you're trying a social ambush/assassination and pull of a Deception vs Intuition.


You might want better odds for a specific attack, like from a really powerful spell.Thatd be great, except there aren't really any really powerful spells in the PHB that require an attack roll. I mean, unless you want to cast a Chromatic Orb from your level 9 spell slot.

[JakOfAllTirades]

You might want better odds for a specific attack, like from a really powerful spell.

That being said, I am not a fan of True Strike either.


Bolded text above; if you have a very limited number of powerful attacks, True Strike is a good way to avoid wasting one of them.

[MaxWilson]

Essentially, you give up one action (with the potential of at least one attack roll), and you will likely get to roll two rolls on your next attack.

Won't it almost always be a better idea to just take the single roll on two separate attack rolls? You have the same odds of getting a single hit, and you might even get a second hit, which you will not get with the True Strike.

The only time it might be worth it to use True Strike on a regular attack (not Contagion) is when you are using it to cancel disadvantage on a high AC (e.g. trying to hit an invisible AC 22 dragon or a Bladesinger wearing Blur or to entangle a Pit Fiend in a net). In that case, one attack without disadvantage has a higher expected damage than two attacks at disadvantage.

They sure did a good job with that spell of adding enough restrictions to make it nigh-useless in every scenario you'd want to use it in. If it were a bonus action spell, it would be great; if it were not a bonus action but concentration-free, it would be decent; if it were regular action and cost concentration but didn't have a ridiculously short range, it would be interesting for snipers.

And to add insult to injury, you have to choose the target in advance, so if someone else kills the target first, you can't even switch the advantage to a new target.

As it is, True Strike is completely dominated by the Help action you get from Find Familiar. It's a terrible cantrip.

As a DM, I'd say the minimal fix that you can make to this spell is to increase the range to "line of sight." That gives it a niche as a virtual sniper scope without seriously impacting game balance at close range.

[DeAnno]

By the RAW of the spell, using it as a bonus action doesn't even help much, since it only affects an attack you make on your next turn. They really turned it to garbage this edition :smallannoyed:

[Sigreid]

By the RAW of the spell, using it as a bonus action doesn't even help much, since it only affects an attack you make on your next turn. They really turned it to garbage this edition :smallannoyed:

It's just very niche. Could be a good cantrip for a rogue, particularly a rogue assassin with the magic initiate feat to make sure that first bolt out of the darkness is a nasty one. Really is no use at all to a wizard, sorcerer or eldritch knight though.

[hymer]

that first bolt out of the darkness is a nasty one

But you already get advantage for attacking an unaware foe.

[MaxWilson]

By the RAW of the spell, using it as a bonus action doesn't even help much, since it only affects an attack you make on your next turn.

If it were a bonus action, then every time you hit someone with Greenflame Blade, you'd immediately follow up with a True Strike for next turn. Would be quite decent, especially for a sorc who has no familiar to grant advantage via Help.

But it isn't a bonus action.

[Malifice]

If it were a bonus action, then every time you hit someone with Greenflame Blade, you'd immediately follow up with a True Strike for next turn. Would be quite decent, especially for a sorc who has no familiar to grant advantage via Help.

But it isn't a bonus action.

It is if youre a sorcerer and want to burn SP on it.

And familiars using the Help action is a bit silly. Firstly im not sure your familiar really wants to kamikaze fly into a dragons face (or remains entirely friendly to you after you order it to do so), im not convinced its a particularly good thing to do (sending your pet to its certain death) and im not sure that a familiar can distract more than a few creatures all that reliably. Oozes arent going to care one iota that a familiar is nearby buzzing around its (head?).

[Daishain]

Aside from sorcerers being willing to spend points making it usable, it is useful for alpha strikes. You're setting up an ambush or perhaps attempting to snipe someone from a great distance. Any case where you really want to land your first hit and have at least one turn beforehand where you can prepare.

Of course, such chances tend to range from rare to nonexistent in most campaigns, and most characters who could pick it up don't have strong alpha strike ability with a targeted attack.

So yeah, in most cases, there isn't a point.

[Corran]

Aside from sorcerers being willing to spend points making it usable, it is useful for alpha strikes. You're setting up an ambush or perhaps attempting to snipe someone from a great distance. Any case where you really want to land your first hit and have at least one turn beforehand where you can prepare.

Of course, such chances tend to range from rare to nonexistent in most campaigns, and most characters who could pick it up don't have strong alpha strike ability with a targeted attack.

So yeah, in most cases, there isn't a point.
I would mostly say nonexistant rather than rare. As previously mentioned, if you have the drop (and hence the time to precast true strike), you already have advantage. And it does not work for canceling the disadvantage for long range snipe shots (assuming lack of sharpshooter feat, which is a stretch), as it is limited by its small range.

In-combat uses have their own problems, in the rare cases when you can bypass the problem of action economy (that comes with a cost), the concentration issue comes to bite you in the butt.

Personally, I can see this cantrip possibly only having some uses for a rogue, who for some reason cannot be benefited by another source of advantage (situational) and who is also under some condition that imposes disadvantage on his rolls. An AT can pick this cantrip up for this very reason, but.... considering the plethora of ways via which a rogue can gain advantage, and considering the limited selection of cantrips, even in this case it isn't worth it imo.

[charlesk]

As others have said, an AT could use this to set up a sneak attack since it has no verbal component. But if you are hiding you will have advantage on the attack anyway, most likely.

I came close to making an odd build where it had potential use, though I'm still not sure I would have used it.

Character was to have Polearm Master and Warcaster. RAW (though I don't believe RAI) you could cast it as a reaction when an enemy enters your reach. (My DM (correctly IMO) decided this wasn't any more OP than the usual Polearm+Sentinel silliness.) Then you have advantage on your first attack on your next turn. The question still is whether this would be worth giving up just casting a damaging spell at them, and usually the answer would probably be no.

Maybe if you had a rogue with Polearm Master or something ridiculous like that. :) Or something with a hugely awful AC, or something that gave you disadvantage on attacks for another reason (blindness or obscurement?)

[Tanarii]

And familiars using the Help action is a bit silly.It also has a resource cost. You're effectively buying 1 instance of advantage and 1 absorbed counter attack (assuming no AoE attacks) at the price of 10gp and 1 hour 10 minutes of down time. Assuming it's cast as a ritual. 10 go, one hour, and a spell slot if not.

[coredump]

True Strike is useful if your attacks are a limited resource.

This isn't usually true, since most fights don't last very long, and because its usually better to kill something really fast.

But, for example. I want to hit something with Chromatic Orb using my only 5th level slot so I can Max its damage..... then it might be worth taking 2 rounds to do it.

But yeah, its really hard to justify taking it. I *almost* took it on a sorcerer, figuring I could cast it, then cast a quickened spell. But TS works on you "next turn".... blech....



In general, Rogues don't really want it. They are better off attacking for two rounds, rather than getting advantage once.

[Kane0]

Some easy fixes:
- Change target and range to self (include creature you can see as range)
- Make it a bonus action
- Take away concentration requirement
- Allow it to work on an attack of your choice before the end of your next turn

Choose 2.

[MaxWilson]

It is if youre a sorcerer and want to burn SP on it.

The sorcerer could just quicken Greenflame Blade in that case. No, we're discussing the implications of changing True Strike to be a bonus action on its own, non-quickened.


And familiars using the Help action is a bit silly.

Tell that to Loiosh.

[Tanarii]

In general, Rogues don't really want it. They are better off attacking for two rounds, rather than getting advantage once.
I agree with your "in general", but note that Rogues can sneak attack if they have advantage. If a Rogue can't hide and their target doesn't have an enemy within 5ft, they will be better off using True Stike with enough SA damage.

Of course, if that's their situation they may want to not be in this particular fight for long. ;)

[Cybren]

I think true strike is an example of advantage being a good mechanic but not a universal one. If advantage weren't so common, and this was one of the only concrete game mechanical ways to get it, maybe it would be more useful. If it granted a non-advantage bonus, like a large +n to attack, it might be more useful. As is, you're taking an action, and concentration, and waiting a turn, to get advantage on a single attack.

[Waffle_Iron]

They sure did a good job with that spell of adding enough restrictions to make it nigh-useless in every scenario you'd want to use it in. If it were a bonus action spell, it would be great; if it were not a bonus action but concentration-free, it would be decent; if it were regular action and cost concentration but didn't have a ridiculously short range, it would be interesting for snipers.


I also DM, and in line with other combat cantrips increasing in power at higher levels, I allow the player to choose "line of sight" "bonus action" or "no concentration" at each of the same tier levels that the damaging cantrips do.

My EK player chose bonus action first, and concentration second, and it's been a decent choice, depending on circumstances, but never a "must hit" button.

[XmonkTad]

Generally useless. However, I could see using it with guiding bolt to hit a particularly evasive target so that someone else on your team could take a good swing at it. Maybe if ray spells become a thing again, a rogue/wizard (spellwarp sniper?) might make use of it. Sneak attack just doesn't work that way anymore though.
Really, its purpose is to have the same name as a good spell from previous editions.