True Strike

[clash]

Would it be balanced for true strike to be revised as follows:

True Strike
Level: 1
Casting Time: Special
Range: self.
Duration: Instantaneous

When you miss with an attack role, you can gain supernatural insight on the roll. As a reaction you gain +5 on the attack roll.

[Kryx]

No.

Ensuring hits is incredibly powerful, especially since it works on spells. Making it only work on weapon attacks would be better, but is still too much imo.

[Tanarii]

I'm pretty sure True Strike is balanced right now, for a certain set of assumptions:
1) that you're going to make an attack next round that will do more total damage with advantage than casting the spell without advantage plus making an attack this round would.
2) That you're going to make an attack next round that will cause some special effect to apply, and you want to ensure

One problem is, these are almost never true for physical attacks. And for some reason that's what people since to assume the spell is meant to be used with.

The second problem is the number of spells that are attacks are incredibly limited. It's expensive to burn one of your available cantrips for True Strike just to be sure you land Chromatic Orb, Scorching Ray, and Vampiric Touch.

[Xetheral]

I'm pretty sure True Strike is balanced right now, for a certain set of assumptions:
1) that you're going to make an attack next round that will do more total damage with advantage than casting the spell without advantage plus making an attack this round would.
2) That you're going to make an attack next round that will cause some special effect to apply, and you want to ensure

One problem is, these are almost never true for physical attacks. And for some reason that's what people since to assume the spell is meant to be used with.

The second problem is the number of spells that are attacks are incredibly limited. It's expensive to burn one of your available cantrips for True Strike just to be sure you land Chromatic Orb, Scorching Ray, and Vampiric Touch.

Don't forget that:

If any of those spells that require attack rolls also happen to require concentration, they don't work with True Strike. (There may not be any in this category, it's just worth pointing out.) Casting True Strike ends any concentration effects you already have up. You risk losing concentration on True Strike if you're hit between the two turns needed to both cast the spell and use its benefit.

[Tanarii]

Might still be worth it if you're (for some reason) upcasting Chromatic Orb to all your spell slots all the way up to 9th level. :)

(I don't think that's a great build, but still.)

[clash]

Don't forget that:

If any of those spells that require attack rolls also happen to require concentration, they don't work with True Strike. (There may not be any in this category, it's just worth pointing out.) Casting True Strike ends any concentration effects you already have up. You risk losing concentration on True Strike if you're hit between the two turns needed to both cast the spell and use its benefit.

Exactly this. As written with the current spell selection, I would never take this as a cantrip, and I dont know anybody that would. It doesnt even work with the EK's feature that might actually make it useful.

[Xetheral]

Huh... does 5e have a rule about whether spell durations expire at the beginning or ending of the caster's turn? For example, does Hold Person end (assuming the target fails all its saves) at the beginning or the end of the caster's 10th turn after casting it?

I would have thought it would be the former, but that would make True Strike literally do nothing, because it would expire before it can be used. So I guess it has to be the end of the turn?

[clash]

I'm pretty sure True Strike is balanced right now, for a certain set of assumptions:
1) that you're going to make an attack next round that will do more total damage with advantage than casting the spell without advantage plus making an attack this round would.
2) That you're going to make an attack next round that will cause some special effect to apply, and you want to ensure

One problem is, these are almost never true for physical attacks. And for some reason that's what people since to assume the spell is meant to be used with.

The second problem is the number of spells that are attacks are incredibly limited. It's expensive to burn one of your available cantrips for True Strike just to be sure you land Chromatic Orb, Scorching Ray, and Vampiric Touch.

Also Scorching ray gains very little benfit as it only effects one ray. And with vampiric touch you are better off not using and instead attacking twice.


No.

Ensuring hits is incredibly powerful, especially since it works on spells. Making it only work on weapon attacks would be better, but is still too much imo.

Bless is a first level spell that gives an avg of +2,5 to all attack rolls including spells for 3 characters for an entire combat. So giving boosts with spells isnt unheard of.

[Laurefindel]

Would it be balanced for true strike to be revised as follows:

True Strike
Level: 1
Casting Time: Special
Range: 30ft
Duration: Instantaneous

When a creature you can see misses with an attack role, you can grant them supernatural insight on the roll. As a reaction the creature gains +5 on the attack roll.

so basically a reverse shield spell that works on others? I'd keep it to a target of 'self' but otherwise I like it.

[Ruslan]

I can envision a BBEG with a bunch of flunkies casting this for him on every attack roll. Ouch.

[clash]

so basically a reverse shield spell that works on others? I'd keep it to a target of 'self' but otherwise I like it.

Ya I had debated that. The reason I made so you could target others was because this only works on one attack where shield works for the whole round, so I added other targets as a balancing factor. The bonus to attack is probably worth more than the bonus ac, so I think I will change it.


I can envision a BBEG with a bunch of flunkies casting this for him on every attack roll. Ouch.

Good point. Changing to range of self.

[Specter]

Make it affect only yourself, and give +1, increasing to +2, +3 and +4 as you level. I'd take it.

[djreynolds]

I like true strike for EK, especially coupled with 7th level War Magic and a bow/SS or great sword/GWM.

And I like it for Arcane Trickster, cast it in the shadows and then pounce the next round. Now you have swashbuckler, so its a moot point for sneak attacking.

[Xetheral]

I like true strike for EK, especially coupled with 7th level War Magic and a bow/SS or great sword/GWM.

And I like it for Arcane Trickster, cast it in the shadows and then pounce the next round. Now you have swashbuckler, so its a moot point for sneak attacking.

How does it help EK? True Strike doesn't help with an attack on the round you cast it--only the following round.

[MeeposFire]

I like true strike for EK, especially coupled with 7th level War Magic and a bow/SS or great sword/GWM.

And I like it for Arcane Trickster, cast it in the shadows and then pounce the next round. Now you have swashbuckler, so its a moot point for sneak attacking.

I don't see how that would be worth it very often. You cast truestrike so that the next round you get to have advantage on one attack roll? You could just use your attack action and do as well or better except the potential damage is higher. By the time you get war magic you have at least two attacks per attack action so if you use the attack action you get 2 attacks on round one and two attacks on round two for a total of 4 attack rolls and 4 potential damage instances. With truestrike you get 1 attack on round one and then one attack on round two with 2 attack rolls due to advantage (I am going with the idea you are going to continue the chain of casting true strike). That way you get a total of 3 attack rolls and 2 damage instances. Now if you continue the chain then it gets slightly better increasing to 4 attack rolls but you still only get damage twice compared to 4 times just using your attack action and this costs you your bonus action which the attack action fighter could use to do something else potentially.

If you went booming blade you would get the same number of attacks as the attack action and get bonus damage to boot with no wait time for the basic damage. That is a much better option for your bonus action in most cases and I just do not see any time where true strike is worth taking as an EK as you have much more pressing spells to take for your cantrips.

[djreynolds]

Right, cast true strike and hit normal, and next round have advantage on an attack... not bad for an archer needing to hit with sharpshooter or a caster in the back.

And though BB and GFB are good... you can use them next round along with GWM or a sneak attack with advantage from the true strike from the previous round.

In a low magic setting, or coupled with an EK meager spell slots having true strike isn't terrible.

There are time like tonight, we are in the castle in CoS and you are not going to be able to attack that round because you cannot get there... up or down stairs, choke point. Being able to cast a spell to be used next round is huge.

You gotta find the silver lining, yes it could be better, but its better than mending, or message.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No.

Ensuring hits is incredibly powerful, especially since it works on spells. Making it only work on weapon attacks would be better, but is still too much imo.
Yes.

It's a small bonus (~Advantage) as a level 1 spell. It's considerably inferior to the defensive version (Shield) and to Bless. Also, DPR in general and accuracy in particular is perhaps the part of game balance you should be least worried about, particularly as this spell can benefit anyone in the party.

[Specter]

Made a formal version of the adaptation I'll be using in my campaign, if anyone's interested.
_________________________________________________

TRUE STRIKE (Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock)
Divination cantrip
Casting time: 1 reaction
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous

Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses. Whenever you miss an attack, you can use your reaction to add +1 to that attack, potentially causing it to hit.
This bonus increases to +2 at level 5, +3 at level 11 and +4 at level 17.

[clash]

Made a formal version of the adaptation I'll be using in my campaign, if anyone's interested.
_________________________________________________

TRUE STRIKE (Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock)
Divination cantrip
Casting time: 1 reaction
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous

Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses. Whenever you miss an attack, you can use your reaction to add +1 to that attack, potentially causing it to hit.
This bonus increases to +2 at level 5, +3 at level 11 and +4 at level 17.

I feel like the flaw with this as a cantrip is that you have just given the magic user +1/+2... to hit with every spell attack roll. As a cantrip I would as least make it require a bonus action

[Specter]

I feel like the flaw with this as a cantrip is that you have just given the magic user +1/+2... to hit with every spell attack roll. As a cantrip I would as least make it require a bonus action

If the magic user is not using Shield against my mobs or Counterspelling my boss's spells, I'm actually very happy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If the magic user is not using Shield against my mobs or Counterspelling my boss's spells, I'm actually very happy.
You know how one of the tests for overpowered abilities is "if everyone takes it, there's a problem?" There isn't a single build in the game that wouldn't benefit from having this on their sheet. And most would be using it every round. Just... No

[RickAllison]

You know how one of the tests for overpowered abilities is "if everyone takes it, there's a problem?" There isn't a single build in the game that wouldn't benefit from having this on their sheet. And most would be using it every round. Just... No

Any caster who relies on Sacred Flame, Vicious Mockery, or other such cantrips that use saves wouldn't benefit barring spells like Scorching Ray. Still, that is a minority of builds :smallbiggrin:

[Specter]

You know how one of the tests for overpowered abilities is "if everyone takes it, there's a problem?" There isn't a single build in the game that wouldn't benefit from having this on their sheet. And most would be using it every round. Just... No

Assuming you're wrong, they would use it when they miss by 1, and that's a rare scenario that takes your cantrip selection. Even to Eldritch Blast, the end-all of damage cantrips, it would apply to one ray per round, at most, and expending their reaction for that, and a cantrip learned. The majority of spells after 2nd level apply to saves.

Assuming you're right, how can we redo True Strike? Because as is, no build should take it, ever.

[RickAllison]

Assuming you're wrong, they would use it when they miss by 1, and that's a rare scenario that takes your cantrip selection. Even to Eldritch Blast, the end-all of damage cantrips, it would apply to one ray per round, at most, and expending their reaction for that, and a cantrip learned. The majority of spells after 2nd level apply to saves.

Assuming you're right, how can we redo True Strike? Because as is, no build should take it, ever.

On the other hand, that variation is weakest on EB because EB's strength is not being reliant on a single attack roll. A wizard with that and Firebolt, for example, can be rocking the same level of damage (barring the invocation, but that is a higher cost and should have benefits) with a +X to-hit and advantage from a familiar or other source. Or put it on one of the melee cantrips.

[Theodoxus]

IDK, I'm ok with the way you've reworked the cantrip, Specter, but I feel the name is no longer accurate. Heck, it was barely accurate with it granting advantage - I've seen plenty of double 2's and 3's on advantage rolls... At least the 3.P version was +20 to hit - pretty much guaranteeing a hit against anything but the most ludicrous of ACs - sure, given the nature of Bounded Accuracy, +20 is far too over the top... but, perhaps Expertise in hitting? Doubling the Proficiency Bonus on your attacks. That's easy enough to do, makes the ability a little less swingy...

I think it might require an added addendum... perhaps a limitation. "Once an attack is successful through use of this divination magic, you can't grasp the threads of fate for a minute."

So, you're not using it every round, but you can keep on trying until you succeed... Seems like a decent compromise between the two factions.

[MeeposFire]

Right, cast true strike and hit normal, and next round have advantage on an attack... not bad for an archer needing to hit with sharpshooter or a caster in the back.

And though BB and GFB are good... you can use them next round along with GWM or a sneak attack with advantage from the true strike from the previous round.

In a low magic setting, or coupled with an EK meager spell slots having true strike isn't terrible.

There are time like tonight, we are in the castle in CoS and you are not going to be able to attack that round because you cannot get there... up or down stairs, choke point. Being able to cast a spell to be used next round is huge.

You gotta find the silver lining, yes it could be better, but its better than mending, or message.

See I don't see the advantage in your first example. You attack once in your first round and then the second round you get to roll twice to hit once. I get two attacks in the first round and then on the second round I roll to attack twice like you do but if I roll successfully twice I get to do damage twice which you don't get. Otherwise we are the same.

Now on rounds you cannot do anything else true strike offers a slight advantage but I find that extremely niche for an EK type character when I would rather use my cantrips on things like minor illusion and I think you can find something better than true strike for your action even in that situation.

[Hrugner]

I think it would be better to look at the spell as it currently functions and change that. We don't need cantrips that are reactions or bonus actions. Maybe let the spell also ignore one source of disadvantage or cover. It's still not amazing, but it would have a purpose.

[djreynolds]

See I don't see the advantage in your first example. You attack once in your first round and then the second round you get to roll twice to hit once. I get two attacks in the first round and then on the second round I roll to attack twice like you do but if I roll successfully twice I get to do damage twice which you don't get. Otherwise we are the same.

Now on rounds you cannot do anything else true strike offers a slight advantage but I find that extremely niche for an EK type character when I would rather use my cantrips on things like minor illusion and I think you can find something better than true strike for your action even in that situation.

I see your point, you're right.

It might be good for any class to have something to do on a round where the cannot strike, but for an EK he doesn't have enough cantrips to support it.

Yes, you're right.

[NNescio]

IDK, I'm ok with the way you've reworked the cantrip, Specter, but I feel the name is no longer accurate. Heck, it was barely accurate with it granting advantage - I've seen plenty of double 2's and 3's on advantage rolls... At least the 3.P version was +20 to hit - pretty much guaranteeing a hit against anything but the most ludicrous of ACs - sure, given the nature of Bounded Accuracy, +20 is far too over the top... but, perhaps Expertise in hitting? Doubling the Proficiency Bonus on your attacks. That's easy enough to do, makes the ability a little less swingy...

I think it might require an added addendum... perhaps a limitation. "Once an attack is successful through use of this divination magic, you can't grasp the threads of fate for a minute."

So, you're not using it every round, but you can keep on trying until you succeed... Seems like a decent compromise between the two factions.

Plus, anyone with Minor Illusion can replicate True Strike by overlaying an illusion over them and attacking while unseen.

[Lombra]

Huh... does 5e have a rule about whether spell durations expire at the beginning or ending of the caster's turn? For example, does Hold Person end (assuming the target fails all its saves) at the beginning or the end of the caster's 10th turn after casting it?

I would have thought it would be the former, but that would make True Strike literally do nothing, because it would expire before it can be used. So I guess it has to be the end of the turn?

The condition for the spell to expire is specific for each spell: some grant saves at the beginning of the target's turn, others at the end, others have different kinds of conditions, for example true strike takes the next turn of the caster as time limit, or until the caster attacks the target.

[Lombra]

Advantage is very useful simply because it negates disadvantage, which is way more valueable than a flat bonus to hit. I think it's a perfectly viable cantrip, especially at low levels. It does become very less effective later on.

[Malifice]

Would it be balanced for true strike to be revised as follows:

True Strike
Level: 1
Casting Time: Special
Range: self.
Duration: Instantaneous

When you miss with an attack role, you can gain supernatural insight on the roll. As a reaction you gain +5 on the attack roll.

Delete bolded and insert: When you miss with a melee or ranged weapon attack...

And make it a 1st level spell and not a cantrip, and its balanced.

[NNescio]

Delete bolded and insert: When you miss with a melee or ranged weapon attack...

And make it a 1st level spell and not a cantrip, and its balanced.

Just keep it simple and call it a weapon attack instead? I don't see any need to specify melee or ranged.

But yeah, this is a good balance change to prevent casters from landing a debilitating spell attack (like Contagion) too easily.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Assuming you're wrong, they would use it when they miss by 1, and that's a rare scenario that takes your cantrip selection. Even to Eldritch Blast, the end-all of damage cantrips, it would apply to one ray per round, at most, and expending their reaction for that, and a cantrip learned. The majority of spells after 2nd level apply to saves.

Assuming you're right, how can we redo True Strike? Because as is, no build should take it, ever.
Clash's version is pretty good, I think. Yours might work with some sort of added limit. Or perhaps something along the lines of "make a weapon attack with double proficiency that ignores cover, concealment, and suchlike; on a hit you do not add an ability score to damage." That makes it occasionally useful, but it's a big enough penalty (especially once things like Extra Attack come into play) that you wouldn't want to spam it even as a rogue.

[Kryx]

Delete bolded and insert: When you miss with a melee or ranged weapon attack...

And make it a 1st level spell and not a cantrip, and its balanced.
Yup, 1st level spell is balanced against shield.

[Malifice]

Just keep it simple and call it a weapon attack instead? I don't see any need to specify melee or ranged.

No can do (then it doesnt apply to natural attacks and unarmed strikes).

Thanks to 5Es tortured nomenclature, its gotta be 'melee or ranged weapon attacks' not 'an attack with a weapon'

[Sir cryosin]

Here's a idea

True Strike
Casing time: bonus action
Duration: concentration for 1 turn
When you miss a attack you can cast this spell as a bonus action. On your next attack you gain advantage on the attack roll.

[Strill]

Yes.

It's a small bonus (~Advantage) as a level 1 spell. It's considerably inferior to the defensive version (Shield) and to Bless. Also, DPR in general and accuracy in particular is perhaps the part of game balance you should be least worried about, particularly as this spell can benefit anyone in the party.

It's not worth the same as advantage. Advantage is only worth +5 if you have a 50% chance to hit. In every other case, it's worth less. This is worth +5 in all cases, and can guarantee a hit, unlike advantage.

Comparing it to 1st-level spells is disingenuous. If it were a 1st-level spell it would be fine, but it's a cantrip.

[NNescio]

No can do (then it doesnt apply to natural attacks and unarmed strikes).

Thanks to 5Es tortured nomenclature, its gotta be 'melee or ranged weapon attacks' not 'an attack with a weapon'

I thought "weapon attack" refers to "melee weapon attack" and/or "ranged weapon attack", and not just an "attack made with a weapon". In the same sense that "ranged weapon attack" and "attack made with a ranged weapon" are distinguished from one another in the rules text for Sharpshooter (throwing a weapon with the thrown property, notably, is a ranged weapon attack made with a melee weapon).

Otherwise, well, Haste wouldn't work with unarmed strikes and natural weapons.