Why do Bards and Warlocks get True Strike?

[Tanarii]

I know, I know, it's a trap option etc etc. With any repeatable attack (physical or cantrip) you are better off attacking twice. In theory it's useful if you want to land a spell slot spell and make sure the resource is well spent, although the math often makes that a sub-par thing to do anyway.

A Warlock player wants to use True Strike in potential combat situations, then open with Witchbolt if combat erupts. Now, I'm not one to tell a player not to do something because I think it's a trap. It's niche, but as far as I'm concerned if a player wants to put their resources into it that's their decision.

Problem is, you can't use it with Witch Bolt, because they're both concentration. So True Strike ends before Witch Bolt takes effect. Obviously that's fixible with a specific house rule for True Strike allowing it to work with the initial attack on a concentration spell cast on the casters next turn.

But it raises the question: why do warlocks and bards even have this cantrip? Bards get Mordenkainens Sword, which is concentration. Warlocks get Hellish Rebuke, Witch Bolt, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Vampiric Touch, all concentration. (Edit: except HB, which isn't on your next turn, so also unusable.) I believe the only spells the True Strike cantrip works with are Chromatic Orb, Ray of Sickness, Guiding Bolt, and Melf's Acid Arrow.

Side issue: Normally casting in a tense situation is stupid and almost certainly going to result in combat starting. Except True strike just requires pointing at the target to cast, no verbal, material, and a DM might rule that is the somatic component. So it might feasibly be a very discrete spell to use even in a tense pre-combat situation without it being obvious. Then when you roll init on round one, win or lose, you do something that requires an attack roll. In that edge case, it would might be worth it with a non-leveled spell, probably a cantrip for most casters. Of course, this smacks a little 'Ready out of combat', so I can see some DMs being unhappy with it.

[Lolzyking]

honestly true strike would be better if you could cast it on allies, it was probably the case in testing, but they probably kneejerked away from it because its like guidance during combat.....

[Deleted]

honestly true strike would be better if you could cast it on allies, it was probably the case in testing, but they probably kneejerked away from it because its like guidance during combat.....

The Rogue gets an option for a Bonus Action Help Action... True Strike needs a buff, however WotC isn't interested in fixing anything they messed up, that would take effort.

[MeeposFire]

honestly true strike would be better if you could cast it on allies, it was probably the case in testing, but they probably kneejerked away from it because its like guidance during combat.....

I doubt it as that would be a major change from the original spells and it would seem that history matters to the designers. Chances are they thought it would be very potent and overcompensated on the restrictions (or did not realize just how potent the restrictions really are which you see often in threads when you se somebody post a niche reason to use the spell and often it runs afoul of true strikes many limitations).


As for why it is on those items why not? Yes it sucks but that really is not how the designers think about that they tend to do cantrips more about theme and history. Both classes have types that use weapons so I am not really surprised that they have the spell. Due ot the quality of a spell I am also not surprised that I have never taken it.

[Sindeloke]

I assume it's there for valor bards and bladelocks.

Yes, true strike is even dumber when applied to a melee attack than a spell, but it's fairly clear that no part of true strike was thought through particularly well, so why would the idea "this is helpful for gishes" be any different?

[Asmotherion]

It used to be sooo good back in 3.5 A net +20 insight bonus to Attack, and insight bonuses were not the usual bonus around either. It could also be Quickened practically for free since it was a level 1 spell (not a cantrip back then).

When I got to see it in this edition, my first thought was that it was either:

A) the mechanics did not support it so well as they used to back then
B) the Wizards wanted to mess with optimisers, forcing them to learn new tricks
C) it was intented to be a bit better than it actually ended up being
D) all of the above

It is still kinda useful on any Rogue (not only the Arcane Trickster, due to Feats), and half decent in boss fights from levels 1-4 (though most campains start at level 3 in my experiance).

[Tanarii]

I assume it's there for valor bards and bladelocks.

Yes, true strike is even dumber when applied to a melee attack than a spell, but it's fairly clear that no part of true strike was thought through particularly well, so why would the idea "this is helpful for gishes" be any different?
Given its on the Wizard and Sorc cantrips list, and not on the Cleric or Druid lists, it seems weird to to assume the intent was ever for it to be used with physical attacks.

I mean, I supposed we can just assume the intent was melee attacks and the spell is completely broken for the intended use. But that seems unlikely. In that case, one would think it wouldn't have made it through play-testing into the book.

Otoh I've always assumed the design intent was to be used with leveled spells to avoid using losing slots, which is why I'm confused by it being on the bard or warlock lists, and why THAT made it through play testing into the book. So maybe you're right. It's just a broken spell that is worthless for its intended use.


It is still kinda useful on any Rogue (not only the Arcane Trickster, due to Feats), and half decent in boss fights from levels 1-4 (though most campains start at level 3 in my experiance).
it's only useful on boss fights if:
A) you know ray of sickness or chromatic orb (50gp component), or are multi-classed Cleric/Something or took Magic Initiate and know guiding bolt.
B) prior to combat you are within 30ft and can cast the spell, and even then it's only for the first round of combat.

A rogue that cannot get advantage every other round in a fight has other problems. I mean, I suppose you can blow a cantrip as an emergency backup. But yeah, Rogues can potentially get some mileage out of it, unlike any other physical or cantrip attacker, who are just better off making two attacks in two rounds.

[Deleted]

Given its on the Wizard and Sorc cantrips list, and not on the Cleric or Druid lists, it seems weird to to assume the intent was ever for it to be used with physical attacks.

I mean, I supposed we can just assume the intent was melee attacks and the spell is completely broken for the intended use. But that seems unlikely. In that case, one would think it wouldn't have made it through play-testing into the book.

Otoh I've always assumed the design intent was to be used with leveled spells to avoid using losing slots, which is why I'm confused by it being on the bard or warlock lists, and why THAT made it through play testing into the book. So maybe you're right. It's just a broken spell that is worthless for its intended use.

WotC puts too much stock in at-will abilities, specifically melee attacks. They did this in 3e and now in 5e. They think if you can do something over and over then it must be amazingly powerful.

I like 4e but when they said Mike Mearles (and co) was returning to make 5e more like 3e I knew this would happen (partially because of how parts of 4e Essentials turned out).

[Tanarii]

WotC puts too much stock in at-will abilities, specifically melee attacks. They did this in 3e and now in 5e. They think if you can do something over and over then it must be amazingly powerful.
There's a difference between "weak for its purpose" and "actually worth less / a trap option for its purpose".

The reason I call True Strike a Trap is because many people assume that it's for use with physical attacks or cantrips.

But I arrived at the conclusion that since it doesn't work with physical attacks or cantrips, that can't be its intended purpose.

On the other hand, its entirely possible I put too much faith in the designers and it literally is worthless / a trap option for what they intended it to be used for. I assumed the designers aren't complete morons. OTOH Mearls has proven repeatedly through 4e Essentials and UA he is absolute garbage at designing mechanics, so maybe I shouldn't have that much faith in that, and this is his handiwork. Although he's surprisingly good at big picture concepts, as the core design concepts of 5e shows.

[Deleted]

There's a difference between "weak for its purpose" and "actually worth less / a trap option for its purpose".

The reason I call True Strike a Trap is because many people assume that it's for use with physical attacks or cantrips.

But I arrived at the conclusion that since it doesn't work with physical attacks or cantrips, that can't be its intended purpose.

On the other hand, its entirely possible I put too much faith in the designers and it literally is a worthless / a trap option for what they intended it to be used for. I assumed the designers aren't complete morons. OTOH Mearls has proven repeatedly through 4e Essentials and UA he is absolute garbage at designing mechanics, so maybe I shouldn't have that much faith in that, and this is his handiwork. Although he's surprisingly good at big picture concepts, as the core design concepts of 5e shows.

True Strike is a trap, I'm not disagreeing with you. There is very few reasons to use it and having a Rogue (mastermind?) means that any attack will have advantage (within 30' as a bonus action).

I don't know if I would say Mearls is good at big picture but yeah, mechanics and stuff the dude is straight up weird. 4e has a lot of good stuff but ultimately failed due to his big picture combination of ToB and many ideologies that are present in 5e (simplification).

[Tanarii]

I don't know if I would say Mearls is good at big picture but yeah, mechanics and stuff the dude is straight up weird. 4e has a lot of good stuff but ultimately failed due to his big picture combination of ToB and many ideologies that are present in 5e (simplification).
He killed 4e for with Essentials. Intentionally, in so far as I can tell. In retrospect it was where he started testing ideologies for 5e, such as simplification. But 5e core concepts such as simplification, back to basics, design to play instead of character making pr0n, have all combined to revive D&D and actually expanded the RPG market. On that level, the core concepts and big picture of 5e have been anything but a failure.

[Deleted]

He killed 4e for with Essentials. Intentionally, in so far as I can tell. In retrospect it was where he started testing ideologies for 5e, such as simplification. But 5e core concepts such as simplification, back to basics, design to play instead of character making pr0n, have all combined to revive D&D and actually expanded the RPG market. On that level, the core concepts and big picture of 5e have been anything but a failure.

What shows me that MM isn't any good at his job is that many of the rules in 4e was actually in 3e. Mike just presented them in a weird way and allowed other things to happen that lead 4e to be very different from 3e. You could put all the classes of 4e into a 3e skin and have a balanced game (PC versus game, not PvP).

I originally got this from a friend and there is more but... A lot of 4e can be recreated using 3.5 SRD.

Hybrid Characters (4e) are essentially gestalt characters in 3e: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm

4e Skill System (with some tinkering with the "modifiers"): http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm

Action Points: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm

Fort, Ref, and Will defense: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm#savingThrowsAndSaveScore s (really, the saving throw system in 4we is just "players roll all the dice")

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily Magic: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm

Rituals (more or less the same idea, 4e just widely expanded on it): http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

Mike had all the rules handed to him and he still was able to mess it up by putting in the "powers" system in such a weird way.

Anyways...

To fix True Strike, just have it work as the help action in combat. Make it a bonus action. The rules on bonus action spells are there to help keep this in check.

[Tanarii]

Mike Mearls was not the primary developer, or even top three, for 4e. He cannot be held responsible for the successes or failures of its core concepts or mechanical systems.

He was the guy who drove Essentials, which was basically his test bed for his big picture design concepts. It was only terrible because 5e design concepts don't go with 4e design concepts at all. They're different goals.

[Deleted]

Mike Mearls was not the primary developer, or even top three, for 4e. He cannot be held responsible for the successes or failures of its core concepts or mechanical systems.

He was the guy who drove Essentials, which was basically his test bed for his big picture design concepts. It was only terrible because 5e design concepts don't go with 4e design concepts at all. They're different goals.

He was a key member of the Orcus design team and part of the "Final Development Strike Team" (whatever the hell that is) along with the "Player's Handbook Development" team.

Saying he wasn't a primary developer is a bit of a weird choice.

Also, there is a lot of 4e and 5e design concepts that do go together. The only one that really hurt 4e was the overall look and how class features were "powers". Outside of that there is a lot of similarities between the two systems when you look past the looks of 4e.

1: Simpler system
2: Background/Themes
3: More balanced than 3e
4: Base classes with a variety of ways to play them

I can get more specific but really the biggest difference between 4e and 5e design concepts is that they decided to give everyone "powers" in 4e and use a different measuring system. Part of that is just aesthetics and the other one is just a silly thing to do... If they kept it actually looking like 3e (you know, ToB and Vancian Casting) people wouldn't have been so knee jerk.

[Danielqueue1]

there are cases where True strike is actually useful.

1 casting before combat starts. is it seen as a hostile action? is there any reason for your enemies to see it as a hostile action? is your DM a jerk?

2 Eldrtitch knight with a crossbow when you don't have the crossbow expert feat (or in a campaign without feats.) you only get one attack with it per round anyway. might as well cast true strike as an action and war magic shoot with your crossbow as a bonus action for advantage on every attack after round one on the same number of attacks you were going to be able to take anyway.

3 you can cast it in the area of the silence spell that you will be out of range of next turn. (difficult terrain etc can make things take a while to get out of.

4a limited resources. in a "gritty realism" campaign you need to get all the mileage out of every spell you cast. waiting a round can be worth it on a spell you can only cast once a week at best.
4b limited resources. the rogue targeting flying creatures. the odds of you having an ally within 5 feet are slim, flanking is a no, (and it's an optional rule anyway so you don't always get it even when on the ground.) and sneak attack is worth more than your weapon damage. at anything above level 5
4c limited resources. that dragon slaying arrow REALLY needs to hit. the creature doesn't need to be within 30 feet the whole time, ready action to cast it as it sweeps by then on your turn shoot. (combine b and c for added bonus)
4d limited resources. your DM likes making you drop your weapons any time you roll a nat 1? did it get thrown all the way over there? true strike your next target go pick up your magic weapon then on your next turn you have advantage. (it's not like you had the movement to get your weapon and back without dashing as an action anyway)

5 siege weapons. takes a team of 3 to man and a few rounds to load? better make this shot count.

6 you have disadvantage on your attack rolls against a target and it has a very high AC. (need to roll a 15 or better) (think about eldritch knights with the shield spell)

why do warlocks have it? well, warlock is probably the most multiclassed class out there (other than Sorcadin... there are too many sorcadins.) so don't consider the spell only in its usefulness within the class. I admit that it is rarely the best option. for most campaigns it will never see the light of day, but when you are playing in certain campaign styles and with certain DMs it can get a fair bit of mileage.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm thinking tradition. Through neither class got it in 3.5, I assume they have it now to avoid the issue of casters getting all of the melee goodies.

Through as to your house rule, how are you handling it? I'm curious and in no way intending to steal the idea.

[Breashios]

there are cases where True strike is actually useful.
Good points. I had two players choose it to start the current campaign. One never used it after figuring out it was a trap. The other used it twice.

Once he used it to make sure his one flask of holy water hit the zombie he was targeting.

The second time he actually used it was when the party was ambushed. Caught in a room with a group of knights who knew most of them were spell casting sorts, they found themselves immediately subject to silence. It was all melee then, except True Strike. His main goal was staying out of combat, using disengage as his action when he would find himself in melee range.

Sure he was only attacking less than every other round, but he would make that attack count, then stay out of melee range until he was ready, come back in and make the next attack count. It turned out he only had to disengage a couple of times as after he hit a target it was often out of the battle by the next round. With his much lower hit point total than the druid and other wizard, lower strength for his weapon against well armored targets, and much lower AC than the rogue and the fighter in the party, it seemed a good tactic. A true edge case, but one where he got to contribute without greatly risking his death, by standing in the front line.

I played the enemy as if they did not know he was casting a spell. Attacked him as much as anybody when he was a viable target. He just wasn't such a target as much as the others due to his second line position during most of the battle.

It also might have role-playing possibilities. Imagine wagering over horseshoes. There's also the "I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home" situations.

[Tanarii]

What I'm getting here is people think that it's not designed for general use with a ridiculously small number of leveled spells (realistically 2 1st and 1 2nd), but rather ridiculously unlikely niche situations with physical attacks and cantrips?

Basically a situation where:
A) you can cast right before combat
B) you're a rogue that cannot get off your sneak attack every other round without it
C) you're in a silenced area and won't be next round and want to use cantrips
D) you're a level 7+ EK using a crossbow against a target within 30ft (without the crossbow expert feat)
E) you're in a silenced area and need to make physical attacks and don't have any ranged physical attacks and don't want to stay next to creatures too long, so you're tactic is True Strike, attack, disengage, attacking once every three rounds with a melee attack.

Might as well toss in:
F) you've never selected any magical attack cantrips and don't have any ranged attacks, so same tactic as E, even when you're not in a silenced area. Ie this is your only way of making non-leveled spell attacks.

(I didn't include siege weapons because 30ft range.)

In any other circumstance, you're better off just using your physical attack or cantrip twice. Including if the target is high AC or you have disadvantage.

Guess I'm going to have to stick by my opinion, it's a trap option. And while not literally completely useless for supposed purpose, but in any reasonable game play situation effectively useless for its supposed purpose. And wonder wtf the devs were thinking, and how this cantrip got past play testing.

[samcifer]

If it worked on the next attack instead of an attack you make on your next turn, it would be more actually useful.

[Breashios]

What I'm getting here is people think that it's not designed for general use with a ridiculously small number of leveled spells (realistically 2 1st and 1 2nd), but rather ridiculously unlikely niche situations with physical attacks and cantrips?

Basically a situation where:
A) you can cast right before combat
B) you're a rogue that cannot get off your sneak attack every other round without it
C) you're in a silenced area and won't be next round and want to use cantrips
D) you're a level 7+ EK using a crossbow against a target within 30ft (without the crossbow expert feat)
E) you're in a silenced area and need to make physical attacks and don't have any ranged physical attacks and don't want to stay next to creatures too long, so you're tactic is True Strike, attack, disengage, attacking once every three rounds with a melee attack.

Might as well toss in:
F) you've never selected any magical attack cantrips and don't have any ranged attacks, so same tactic as E, even when you're not in a silenced area. Ie this is your only way of making non-leveled spell attacks.

(I didn't include siege weapons because 30ft range.)

In any other circumstance, you're better off just using your physical attack or cantrip twice. Including if the target is high AC or you have disadvantage.

Guess I'm going to have to stick by my opinion, it's a trap option. And while not literally completely useless for supposed purpose, but in any reasonable game play situation effectively useless for its supposed purpose. And wonder wtf the devs were thinking, and how this cantrip got past play testing.

You forgot countries where horseshoes is the top tier social game among the aristocrats.

But yeah, I agree with your analysis wholeheartedly.

I think there was a good dose of sarcasm implied in my examples. Characters are 14th and never used it and 12th level and used it twice that I can remember. I did also label it a trap spell at the beginning of the example entry.

In general there are several trap spells, some depending on campaign that should be addressed by the DM when he sees a character choosing that particular spell. Or if it was missed before use, then a change should be allowed. On the other hand, a particular player might be taking it intentionally, because it fits their character concept or image.

I might take it if my background was: I used to run a hustle playing horseshoes or shooting targets.:smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

You forgot countries where horseshoes is the top tier social game among the aristocrats.lol


I did also label it a trap spell at the beginning of the example entry.Yeah. The mistake I made is finding a niche use, then assuming that was it's "real" purpose, because it's the only one that really works. It's totally fine if you want to use it with Chromatic Orb, upcast to your highest current casting level. Of course, no one wants to do that except maybe a weird Dragon Sorc build who's only leveled attack spell is Chromatic Orb, with everything else a non-attack spell. And even then at lower levels it's usually better to cantrip one round and Chromatic Orb the next (or vice versa).

Assuming it'll see use with physical attacks or cantrips is a different kind of trap. It's almost always worse than attacking twice, and often people don't even realize they're hurting themselves by using it instead of doing that. For example, trying to use it to cancel disadvantage against a high AC target is always worse than just attacking twice.

I definitely can see it's use as a pre-combat opener. If you regularly find your character in situations where you're within 30ft of a target, and combat is likely impending but not immediate, you can just point at a target and get a bonus on the first round. Of course, checking the spell text, you have to "extend your hand" and point at the target, so it's not going to discrete that most of the time. :smallyuk:

[Quoxis]

The Rogue gets an option for a Bonus Action Help Action... True Strike needs a buff, however WotC isn't interested in fixing anything they messed up, that would take effort.

Just for clarification: that's only for the mastermind subclass. Which according to this forum nobody uses because that feature is almost the only useful thing about it, and not extraordinarily useful at that.

[Deleted]

Just for clarification: that's only for the mastermind subclass. Which according to this forum nobody uses because that feature is almost the only useful thing about it, and not extraordinarily useful at that.

Here's a cookie. :smallsigh:

People on forum don't use that subclass because people on the forum are typically power gamers who don't ever think about the role-playing aspects of D&D.

[Xetheral]

I can get more specific but really the biggest difference between 4e and 5e design concepts is that they decided to give everyone "powers" in 4e and use a different measuring system. Part of that is just aesthetics and the other one is just a silly thing to do... If they kept it actually looking like 3e (you know, ToB and Vancian Casting) people wouldn't have been so knee jerk.

I'm not sure how much it would have been possible to make 4e look like 3e. The wholesale changes to out-of-combat spellcasting and the sharply curtailed encounter (and power) ranges are both enough on their own to give 4e a much more tactical feel over 3e's strategic emphasis, and that's a fundamental difference that's hard to hide.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure how much it would have been possible to make 4e look like 3e. The wholesale changes to out-of-combat spellcasting and the sharply curtailed encounter (and power) ranges are both enough on their own to give 4e a much more tactical feel over 3e's strategic emphasis, and that's a fundamental difference that's hard to hide.

Almost every major rule in 4e comes from 3e. I'm not joking, in some form or another. You can build 4e with the rules found on d20srd.com

Hybrid Characters (4e) are essentially gestalt characters in 3e: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm

4e Skill System (with some tinkering with the "modifiers"): http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm

Action Points: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm

Fort, Ref, and Will defense: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm#savingThrowsAndSaveScore s (really, the saving throw system in 4we is just "players roll all the dice")

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily Magic: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm

Rituals (more or less the same idea, 4e just widely expanded on it): http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

Except for the powers look. And even then, Tome of Battle did the same thing for martial but in a 3e look.

The two things they changed was the class progression/powers look and how to judge distance and area. Wizards really didnt change that much except got brought down to earth. You still have a spell book, a lot of options, and able to choose which options are readied on a specific day. For balance reason they left out adding more to your spellbook (which was always one of the ways to break the wizard). A lot of utility spells became rituals and your spellbook didn't need to have them in it.


Edit: When it comes to role-playing versus roll-playing... Both games have an emphasis on roll playing as a majority of their rules are about killing/not being killed. There is no difference between the two when it comes to role versus roll playing.

[Xetheral]

Almost every major rule in 4e comes from 3e. I'm not joking, in some form or another. You can build 4e with the rules found on d20srd.com

Hybrid Characters (4e) are essentially gestalt characters in 3e: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm

4e Skill System (with some tinkering with the "modifiers"): http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm

Action Points: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm

Fort, Ref, and Will defense: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm#savingThrowsAndSaveScore s (really, the saving throw system in 4we is just "players roll all the dice")

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily Magic: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm

Rituals (more or less the same idea, 4e just widely expanded on it): http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

Except for the powers look. And even then, Tome of Battle did the same thing for martial but in a 3e look.

The two things they changed was the class progression/powers look and how to judge distance and area. Wizards really didnt change that much except got brought down to earth. You still have a spell book, a lot of options, and able to choose which options are readied on a specific day. For balance reason they left out adding more to your spellbook (which was always one of the ways to break the wizard). A lot of utility spells became rituals and your spellbook didn't need to have them in it.


Edit: When it comes to role-playing versus roll-playing... Both games have an emphasis on roll playing as a majority of their rules are about killing/not being killed. There is no difference between the two when it comes to role versus roll playing.

I consider the reduction in encounter distances and the change to out-of-combat spellcasting to be fundamental differences that contributed to an entirely different focus. Apparently we disagree. I'm fine with that and not terribly surprised.

[Deleted]

I consider the reduction in encounter distances and the change to out-of-combat spellcasting to be fundamental differences that contributed to an entirely different focus. Apparently we disagree. I'm fine with that and not terribly surprised.

These aren't any fundamental differences though. Things got moved around, yes, but it is purely a cosmetic change as 4e had a ton of rituals that could be used in different situations just like 3e had spells. Also skills in 4e allowed players to do things that spells used to do in combination with spells, specifically Arcana. Arcana was used in place of detect magic or identify for the most part. This means that the wizard or whomever was no different than before, just didn't have to deal with picking detect magic (useful) over a spell they really wanted that was fun. People used the knowledge skill in 3e this exact same way even if it wasn't meant to be used in such a way (that was Spellcraft via a spell).

It's a skin deep change. You get the same thing, just in a different shell.

3e and 4e are insanely simular games, they just look different. When 3e came out people called it Diablo and when 4e came out people called it WoW... Very similar "insults" (as people call them) for very similar games.


5e actually has a lot of connections to 4e and 4e Essentials and shows what 4e could have looked like if they wanted to keep 3e's skin. However, if they kepted 3e's skin, they probably thought that people would have been like "isn't this just 3e" and it may not have sold as well as it did.

[Breashios]

These aren't any fundamental differences though. ...

It's a skin deep change. You get the same thing, just in a different shell.

3e and 4e are insanely simular games, they just look different. When 3e came out people called it Diablo and when 4e came out people called it WoW... Very similar "insults" (as people call them) for very similar games.

Your analysis may be right on regarding the similarities you are referring to, but I really can't agree based on personal experience.

I played in a 4e campaign when it first came out. It may well be the same mechanics painted over with a different cover but whatever they did change, it created a different game pace, encounter structure and as a result a totally different story. And that makes it different enough to be a truly different version to me.

While both versions (3e and 4e) may have emphasized roll playing over playing a role (1e) and role-playing (no known version), we did about an infinite amount of more role playing when we played 3.0e than we ever saw in 4e. Even after we complained about the lack of role-playing we were getting and the DM said he would fix that, it was lame, lame, lame.

I’m sure a better DM can make great role-playing experience with rock, paper, scissors, but 4e sure did not appear conducive to the concept, at least compared to previous versions of the game.

My other issue with 4e was everyone had essentially the exact same Cleric. It didn’t matter what level. One or two abilities would be at most one or two points different. Powers and skills known were also almost always identical. I think the same proved true for most of the other classes, at least initially. In 3.0 and 3.5 there were many ways to present an effective cleric.

[Deleted]

My other issue with 4e was everyone had essentially the exact same Cleric. It didn’t matter what level. One or two abilities would be at most one or two points different. Powers and skills known were also almost always identical. I think the same proved true for most of the other classes, at least initially. In 3.0 and 3.5 there were many ways to present an effective cleric.

This is no different in 3e when 3e first came out. Everyone was playing a healer or a beat stick, there was very little choice in the matter. Even being a blaster cleric wasn't really an option until later levels (and even then blasting magic sucked).

As 4e went along it got more options, some of those options went into the forms of new classes instead of staying under the mantle of "cleric" (Invoker). But with more options the same thing hapoened in 3e.

Later in 4e you could become a pacisfist Cleric, atraight up awesome in every way. This is something that 3e didn't really have rules for AND if you did take the pacifist feat it would punish your party more so than you specifically.

People like to forget that when 3e (and then 3.5 if using just 3.5 material) first came out that there wasn't a whole lot of options and people complained about different characrers being no different from each other.

Again, same things but different shell. Just because players are very superficial doesn't mean the games are all that different.

[Breashios]

This is no different in 3e when 3e first came out. Everyone was playing a healer or a beat stick, there was very little choice in the matter. Even being a blaster cleric wasn't really an option until later levels (and even then blasting magic sucked).

People like to forget that when 3e (and then 3.5 if using just 3.5 material) first came out that there wasn't a whole lot of options and people complained about different characrers being no different from each other.

Again, same things but different shell. Just because players are very superficial doesn't mean the games are all that different.

Can't speak for 4e after the initial 3 products, but I can absolutely disagree with your representation of early 3.0e options. I encountered multiple cleric concepts at the initial store games, could see multiple builds of my own. There were very open choices for - lets look at a cleric specifically - party face, party leader, melee monster, healer, ranged caster, and even pacifist play without impacting the party negatively. There was a lot of role-playing anticipation with a variety of available skill choices and down the road options available with multi-classing from the beginning.

I can't speak for your personal experience of people complaining that different characters were no different from each other, but that is the opposite of the experience I had when speaking with people that actually played the game back then.

And I am not confusing or miss-remembering anything. The group I played with only used the two core books and some adventures for our long running 3.0 campaign. Just within the PHB itself all of the variations and options necessary to create a never-ending variety of character concepts existed.

[Deleted]

Can't speak for 4e after the initial 3 products, but I can absolutely disagree with your representation of early 3.0e options. I encountered multiple cleric concepts at the initial store games, could see multiple builds of my own. There were very open choices for - lets look at a cleric specifically - party face, party leader, melee monster, healer, ranged caster, and even pacifist play without impacting the party negatively. There was a lot of role-playing anticipation with a variety of available skill choices and down the road options available with multi-classing from the beginning.

I can't speak for your personal experience of people complaining that different characters were no different from each other, but that is the opposite of the experience I had when speaking with people that actually played the game back then.

And I am not confusing or miss-remembering anything. The group I played with only used the two core books and some adventures for our long running 3.0 campaign. Just within the PHB itself all of the variations and options necessary to create a never-ending variety of character concepts existed.

When 3e first came out, you had less options than a 4e Cleric now that I think about it. You could be a ranged blaster and not completely suck in 4e.

Your rose colored glasses are rose colored.

[Breashios]

When 3e first came out, you had less options than a 4e Cleric now that I think about it. You could be a ranged blaster and not completely suck in 4e.

Your rose colored glasses are rose colored.

I don't know. Maybe you played competitively or with people only interested in maximizing their combat effectiveness. We played for the whole experience, did more role-playing, negotiating, bluffing, bargaining, politics, puzzle solving and castle building than combat. We did have plenty of combat though in a no resurrection world where several characters did die - dead and buried. I know I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Never lacked for power or options enough to deal with the challenges we faced.

I just don't know what you are talking about. Right off, book opened the first time, there were tons of options for building a cleric. So many domain choices, skill choices with multi-classing, armor and weapon choices, choices, choices, choices.

If you are saying in player v player there was a build that jumped out as the best, I guess that could be true. I'm just glad no one I played with thought like that. I don't see it though.

Back to the subject. I did take True Strike for a Rogue/Wizard in 3.0 and I only remember one use of it from back then. Might have used it more than that one time, but don't think it ended up being super useful even back then. The time I remember was a shot through an arrow slit to take out a guard so the group could sneak inside a keep. That was absolutely an example of a use right before combat started, though no combat. I hit and did enough damage to take the target out without anyone noticing. So maybe that is the way it is most often supposed to be used in 5e as well. It is no verbal, so useful for a close range take out shot. So for a bard or warlock at least, some kind of silent close range sniper character? ninja-like?

[alchahest]

the problem with out of combat in 4E was that they set the DCs for skill challenges poorly. that's really it. otherwise your out of combat was exactly the same in 4e as it was in 3.x.

[Breashios]

the problem with out of combat in 4E was that they set the DCs for skill challenges poorly. that's really it. otherwise your out of combat was exactly the same in 4e as it was in 3.x.

Maybe. Role-playing is like that. It is best when the dice don't even exist, but for a useable system, I found 3.0 better (except for the lack of bounded accuracy or whatever). Like I said before, a good DM can make flipping a coin work.

My main point was that every Cleric I saw in 4e at ALL the tables looked almost exactly like mine. Same high stats, same low. Same skill strengths with few variations. Same limited split on powers chosen. When my character died, I'd just end up playing the same Cleric with a different name.(Luckily I didn't die, but you get the point.)

Was there a True Strike like power in 4e? Just above I related my 3.0 experience with it. Maybe that will help with understanding the value of it in 5e. I don't think it would be enough to make me pick it, but if that were a character concept, might be worth taking, even if it would rarely get used in play.

[Kane0]

Probably answered a dozen times by now but I reckon True Strike is on their lists because of Valor Bard and Blade Pact respectively.

Edit:

I assume it's there for valor bards and bladelocks.


Yep, there we go. It's there for the gishes, whether it's good or not is another concern.

[Xetheral]

These aren't any fundamental differences though.

I consider them to be so.

[Deleted]

I consider them to be so.

If you, or others, want to put so much emphases on superficial things... Sure there are tons of fundamental differences.

I mean, look at that art!


(like in 5e, some art in 4e was reused from the previous edition)

[Kane0]

Was there a True Strike like power in 4e? Just above I related my 3.0 experience with it. Maybe that will help with understanding the value of it in 5e. I don't think it would be enough to make me pick it, but if that were a character concept, might be worth taking, even if it would rarely get used in play.

Sure Strike, which was a Fighter At-Will attack IIRC. Not the most optimal pick, but not the worst either. Less of a trap as it is in stock 5e.
There were a handful of extra action powers that boosted your (or someone elses) attack bonus, mostly handed out by leader types or used by striker types. Warlord and monk had a few nice ones by memory.