Fixing True Strike? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Man_Over_Game

2019-04-30, 05:52 PM

Actually, considering it costs a full action to use it?

I'd say it'd have to guarantee a crit. The opportunity cost of using it stupid high.

'Treat your next attack as if you'd rolled a natural 20'.

So you can even synergize it with vorpal blades and swords of sharpness.

There's a bit of a concern with that.

Let's say that your attack deals 10 damage, and 6 of that is weapon damage. A crit, in this instance, would make you deal 16 damage (A 60% damage increase).
Also let's say that you're doing this against a creature that you'd have a 65% chance of hitting against.
Your standard attack's average damage is normally 6.5 damage per round against this guy.
Using Critting True Strike, you're now dealing 8 damage per round.
Using a standard Cantrip, you'd be dealing about 3.6 damage per round.

Critting is just far too powerful of a solution. Maybe if there was some clause to make it weaker, like having the spell be nullified if the enemy is ever more than 30 feet away. This is also before including the possibility of really big leveled spells, which deal most of their damage with dice.

It's still questionable in my mind. It's still only one attack and you would do more damage with 2 cantrips most likely.

I'm not a mathematician or anything, but I believe that Advantage effectively cuts the chance of failure in half. With my 65% example, this means that your chance of hitting and dealing full damage becomes 82.5%. The half damage portion means that the chance to miss (17.5%) is half as effective, so that translates to another half. You're looking at 91.25% damage per round where you'd normally have 65%. That's not including any riders that are tacked on to a hit (Divine Smite, Sneak Attack, Hex, Sharpshooter, whatever), or any big spells that you want to guarantee a hit for.

I didn't want to make it a guaranteed pick. Your example is definitely a good one, though, and probably a lot more streamlined with 5e's design.

JNAProductions

2019-04-30, 06:14 PM

Your fix seems decent enough, MOG.

JakOfAllTirades

2019-04-30, 06:20 PM

I just had another idea. I mean, just now, so I haven't had time to analyze it at all.

What if granting advantage, or a guaranteed critical hit, etc is the wrong approach?

What if True Strike made the target Vulnerable to your next attack; would that be a useful fix?

Or should I just scrap that idea?

TripleD

2019-04-30, 06:22 PM

-True Strike-
Concentration
Casting Time: 1 action

Your next attack that would require an attack roll, made before the end of your next turn, instead automatically succeeds if it is possible for it to hit (for example, this would not allow you to throw a weapon beyond its maximum range).

It’s simple, and it represents a real trade off. Do you forgo the possibility of two hits for one guaranteed one? This also has no possibility of a critical, which is also part of the trade off.

Man_Over_Game

2019-04-30, 06:25 PM

Kane0

2019-04-30, 06:33 PM

Bonus action, add +1d4 to your next attack roll within one round. Concentration and target self.

JNAProductions

2019-04-30, 06:39 PM

Bonus action, add +1d4 to your next attack roll within one round. Concentration and target self.

Also not bad.

Goldlizard

2019-04-30, 07:20 PM

my biggest problem is that it's just as effective to make two attacks, and you have a chance of dealing damage on both hits.

opaopajr

2019-05-01, 05:00 AM

The issue is Action Economy. You are trying to raise the temptation value. But still there are so many synergies with an Action that it's too hard to value an adequate temptation across builds.

My best advice is keep result values same, but try to negotiate a worthwhile exchange rate for the opportunity cost. I thought Bonus Action for a bit, but enough builds have no BA to worry about so they are free to spam. Concentration is a bit annoying, but I get why... sorta.

My latest musing is True Strike (& Blade Ward) uses your Reaction. :smallsmile:

Costs less than an Action (and its synergies). Costs more than Bonus Action. Possibly triggers within one's own turn (less Concentration bookkeeping). Prevents usage with Ready. Easily replaced by battle Conditions or Help Action.

It's still Advantage, but there are other ways to get Adv, so it will eventually not always be worth spamming due to opportunity cost. BUT, it will never be utterly useless.

Though yours is a more heroic approach. :smallsmile:

Yunru

2019-05-01, 05:08 AM

Bah!

Take Aim
As an action, you may concentrate on taking aim at a creature you can see. As long as the target is in your line of sight and your maintain concentration, you have advantage on attacks against that target.

Sindeloke

2019-05-01, 05:35 AM

My table uses 1 action, no concentration, +10 to hit on your next roll before the end of your next turn.

Very similar to the guaranteed hit already suggested, but it allows crits and still allows a really bad roll to waste your turn. It's worked well for us and captures the flavor of older editions, but if you want to go in a different direction, I do like the bonus action 1d4 too. If a bard or wizard wants to burn a precious cantrip known slot on what's essentially Archery fighting style with no Sharpshooter to back it up, that seems reasonable to me tbh.

Malifice

2019-05-01, 06:02 AM

Digimike

2019-05-01, 07:16 AM

Bonus Action, Concentration, Level 1 instead of cantrip. 1 minute duration.

Your first attack each round can be made with advantage and all weapon attacks ignore up to half cover while this spell is in effect.

JakOfAllTirades

2019-05-01, 07:56 AM

Bonus action, add +1d4 to your next attack roll within one round. Concentration and target self.

This works at early levels, but I could see it losing its appeal later on. Maybe it should scale up the way other cantrips do: adding a d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th level. That would keep it relevant (but hopefully not OP) in every tier.

Wildarm

2019-05-01, 08:03 AM

For a fix, I would just extend the spell duration to 1 minute to bring it in line with resistance and guidance cantrips.

It's still a niche use but at least you can pre-cast it a bit earlier. There isn't much you can do to this spell that doesn't break balance when it is a cantrip. Making it a bonus action to generate a bonus to hit or advantage would be too strong. Even advantage on the attack but half damage could be problematic.

Other options might be:

- Targetting a foe within 120'. Until the end of your next turn, the next attack(by anyone) against the target has advantage. Makes it become a help action with good range. Not super strong but something you could do with your action to help out the Rogue or Paladin land that big hit. No real issues with spamming it and it becomes a decent tactical option. You can even use it to essentially mark the target yourself for a sniper attack.

- Make it a bonus action and a first level spell: If you missed with an attack this round you may re-roll that attack with advantage.

Tri-vantage on a missed attack at the cost of a 1st level spell slot and your bonus action? Seems like a good spell choice for a gish or AT. Potential GWM/SS combo.

Garfunion

2019-05-01, 11:59 AM

How about this

True Strike
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: S
Duration 1 minute (maybe concentration)

For the duration, the target cannot gain the benefits of half cover and three-quarters cover, and you cannot be subject to disadvantage on any attack roll you make against the target.

With this change the “spirit” of the cantrip remain the same.

Edit: alternate wording

You point your finger at a target within range, for the direction you’re attack rolls ignore half cover and three-quarters cover against the target. Additionally you cannot be subject to disadvantage on any attack roll you make against the target.

JNAProductions

2019-05-01, 12:20 PM

This works at early levels, but I could see it losing its appeal later on. Maybe it should scale up the way other cantrips do: adding a d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th level. That would keep it relevant (but hopefully not OP) in every tier.

Guidance doesn't scale.
Bless doesn't scale.

Both are considered great spells. +1d4 is valuable at every level.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-01, 12:26 PM

Thinking about it, maybe I was going about it all wrong. Maybe the solution is to have it have some kind of non-combat use, and that's what'll make it a good ability.

-----

Range 120 feet.
Concentration 1 minute.

While this spell is cast, you can see the target as long as both of you are on the same plane. You can even see them through physical barriers, but not through a layer of lead.

If you attack the creature, you can opt to end the spell to ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover while also granting yourself Advantage on the attack.

-----

It's no longer a generic "I hit you better" spell, but now it's a "I see you better, so I can now hit you better" spell. It'd have a lot more uses than coming up with some abusable combat loophole. Imagine an Arcane Trickster using this to tail someone, or an Assassin Rogue picking up Magic Initiate to track down their target.

Garfunion

2019-05-01, 12:39 PM

Yunru

2019-05-01, 12:55 PM

Guidance doesn't scale.
Bless doesn't scale.

Both are considered great spells. +1d4 is valuable at every level.

Guidance and Bless both scale with the number of attacks/skill checks you make.
+1d4 to one attack doesn't.

JNAProductions

2019-05-01, 12:59 PM

Guidance and Bless both scale with the number of attacks/skill checks you make.
+1d4 to one attack doesn't.

Guidance only applies to one check.

And Bless is a leveled spell, so I think a cantrip should be worse.

clash

2019-05-01, 01:04 PM

I changed it to bonus action cast time, no concentration, grants advantage on your next attack roll. Lasts until start of your next turn. And made it a first level spell.
My players use it often enough

Waterdeep Merch

2019-05-01, 01:12 PM

If you're already allowing the power creep that is the SCAG cantrips, why not basically do the same thing to true strike?

True Strike
5 foot Range
1 Action
Verbal Component
Choose an enemy you can see within range. Make an attack against them with advantage.

At 5th level, add your spellcasting modifier to the damage dealt. At 11th level, roll one additional weapon die when you hit. At 17th level, roll two additional weapon die when you hit.

It's a no-brainer for AT's, but how often are rogues denied their sneak attacks anyway? And in the long run, it still isn't as powerful as booming blade or green-flame blade. Just more reliable.

EDIT: Gave it some scaling to make it competitive late, and play into it's nature as a crit-fishing tool.

EDIT EDIT: And then reduced that range to be in line with BB and GFB. Prevents certain silly abuses.

Shuruke

2019-05-01, 01:22 PM

If you're already allowing the power creep that is the SCAG cantrips, why not basically do the same thing to true strike?

True Strike
60 foot Range
1 Action
Verbal Component
Choose an enemy you can see within range. Make an attack against them with advantage.

At 5th level, add your spellcasting modifier to the damage dealt. At 11th level, roll one additional weapon die when you hit. At 17th level, roll two additional weapon die when you hit.

It's a no-brainer for AT's, but how often are rogues denied their sneak attacks anyway? And in the long run, it still isn't as powerful as booming blade or green-flame blade. Just more reliable.

EDIT: Gave it some scaling to make it competitive late, and play into it's nature as a crit-fishing tool.

My issue with doing it that way would be it loses its appeal for spells.
Chromatic orb, and other attack oriented spells

Great Dragon

2019-05-01, 01:30 PM

Bonus action, add +1d4 to your next attack roll within one round. Concentration and target self.

Would making this a Reaction, be ok?
So that the Caster can still use a 1 Action leveled spell (and not just another Cantrip limit that a BA has) in the same round?

opaopajr had the same basic idea.

Bonus Action, Concentration, Level 1 instead of cantrip. 1 minute duration.

Your first attack each round can be made with advantage and all weapon attacks ignore up to half cover while this spell is in effect.
Would make Spell Sniper feat a little redundant.

This works at early levels, but I could see it losing its appeal later on. Maybe it should scale up the way other cantrips do: adding a d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th level. That would keep it relevant (but hopefully not OP) in every tier.
I'd need more Playtesting for this.

Waterdeep Merch

2019-05-01, 01:36 PM

My issue with doing it that way would be it loses its appeal for spells.
Chromatic orb, and other attack oriented spells

I feel like that stuff shouldn't really be a common thing. But...

Ensorcelled Focus
1st Level Divination
60 foot range
1 Bonus Action
Verbal, Material Component (cut glass)
Duration: Concentration, until the end of your next turn

Choose a creature within range. You have advantage on spell attacks against that target, and they have disadvantage on saving throws against spells you cast.

Because it's a 1st level spell, even though it's a bonus action you won't be able to just hit them with your most powerful stuff immediately. But because it's a bonus action, you still get to contribute with a cantrip, even a reasonably well-aimed one.

By limiting it to a single target at a time, requiring concentration, and also the spending of a limited resource, I think the power creep is kept to a dull roar. And it's not like bosses at higher levels aren't rocking Legendary Resistance anyway.

Phoenix042

2019-05-01, 01:58 PM

Range increased to 120 feet.

Your next attack before the end of your next turn against the target has Advantage to hit. If the attack misses, it instead hits and deals half damage.

--------------

Would you use it?

I think there are two main use cases people want to see true strike fulfill:

1) Use it as a way to prepare for an important weapon attack next round. Maybe you're about to snipe someone and you've got time to set it up, or you're about to engage in a duel and you want the upper hand.

2) In combat, to make a high level, powerful attack roll spell less likely to miss.

So we might imagine an eldritch knight and professional duelist who always uses True Strike in the round before his duel starts.

We might imagine an arcane trickster who uses true strike to set up her shot before attempting to snipe a target. Or we might imagine an arcane trickster who uses true strike to prepare before slipping forward and stabbing the target, either way.

And finally, we imagine a powerful sorcerer who spends a whole turn seeming to do nothing, while the BBEG is knocking down his friends, but then suddenly a brilliant flash of light issues forth and the BBEG is roasted / vaporized / paralyzed / some other bad thing happens to him.

Here's the problems:

1) In order to use this during a duel with any real effect, the fighter needs to have a round before combat is allowed to start, in which he is within 30ft of his opponent, can see the opponent, and has nothing else more pressing to concentrate on.

2) Our sniper simply can't use true strike in this way because of the range restriction, but more importantly, the benefit of true strike is rendered absolutely worthless by the simple stacking rules for advantage; if our arcane trickster sniper has done his job, he already HAS advantage on the attack, and the same likely goes for the one with the dagger.

3) There are very few spell attacks in the game that have big, expensive resources riding solely and entirely upon a single critical attack roll. Most high level attack roll spells deliver their effects over the course of several rounds or at the very least several separate rolls. Used with scorching ray, for example, true strike helps only one ray.

Disintegrate and similar epic, powerful spells are not attack spells and so do not benefit from true strike.

In fact there are very few spells that have their whole effect ride on a single important roll.

If there were a good, balanced spell added at almost every spell level that worked in this way, or even one or two decent mid-level attack spells with good scaling and decent rider effects, then I'd say true strike wouldn't even really need to change much to see some use at the mid to higher levels.

As it is, I think true strike needs a range buff and some alternative mechanic for improving accuracy.

Honestly, I think adding a die (say, a d8 or d10) to the attack roll instead of advantage would probably about do the trick, but might actually make it too good for snipers and arcane tricksters.

Idk. I don't think it's a simple spell to balance.

JakOfAllTirades

2019-05-01, 06:25 PM

Guidance doesn't scale.
Bless doesn't scale.

Both are considered great spells. +1d4 is valuable at every level.

+1d4 to a skill check (Guidance), or an attack/save (Bless) is valuable at all levels. And yes, Bless scales in terms of number of creatures affected.

+1d4 damage becomes less significant with every level, and most damage cantrips do scale.

JNAProductions

2019-05-01, 06:31 PM

+1d4 to a skill check (Guidance), or an attack/save (Bless) is valuable at all levels. And yes, Bless scales in terms of number of creatures affected.

+1d4 damage becomes less significant with every level, and most damage cantrips do scale.

But Kane0 talked about adding 1d4 to your attack roll. NOT damage roll.

Asmotherion

2019-05-01, 06:48 PM

Still meh. The only true fix is to change casting time to 1 bonus action.

PhantomSoul

2019-05-01, 07:52 PM

Still meh. The only true fix is to change casting time to 1 bonus action.

Kane0 suggested doing that too:

Bonus action, add +1d4 to your next attack roll within one round. Concentration and target self.

opaopajr

2019-05-01, 10:54 PM

Meh, I ended up changing my mind on Bonus Action because people expressed how low of a cost it is for several builds, and hence my switch the Reaction cost.

I think spells and features should never be truly mindless costs, to build for and forget, which is why I feel GWM and SS are poorly designed. It's more of what you are going to do anyway, so build focus is trivial -- you just wait until game circumstances fall into your one-trick pony domain. So a Bonus Action, particularly since there are plenty of classes that are rarely busy with BAs, ends up being mindless in my opinion.

But everyone has at least an OA for their reaction. And everyone can program their reaction with a Ready. And so many people sing long praises about Shield spell and the like. That makes Reaction not a mindless opportunity cost.

That it cleans up bookkeeping by likely resolving within one's turn, still leaves open Action and BA for other spells, and isn't chasing after SCAG design power creep cantrips is all gravy in my book. It's a real cost that has nuance: benefit is accessable elsewhere but still useful in a pinch. Not weak, not too strong, requires some thought, but not too much.

JakOfAllTirades

2019-05-01, 11:13 PM

But Kane0 talked about adding 1d4 to your attack roll. NOT damage roll.

Yeah, I completely misread that.

You're absolutely right, no need to scale a +1d4 attack bonus.

I like either fix works for me.

Aquillion

2019-05-02, 01:00 AM

I considered that, but I scrapped it due to not working well with Arcane Tricksters. I wanted a solution that'd include them in the formula.
Arcane Tricksters already get a way to gain advantage reliably (admittedly, a bit late, but they get it.) So I'm not sure it's worth designing around them.

Still meh. The only true fix is to change casting time to 1 bonus action.
No, there are others. Something like "action, no concentration, last a minute; any time during the duration you can expend the spell to reroll an attack die after the die is rolled."

Not amazing, but definitely has some usage as a pre-combat buff. Maybe also let it allow rerolls for ability checks involving aim (although there aren't very many.)

Vogie

2019-05-02, 09:16 AM

Arcane Tricksters already get a way to gain advantage reliably (admittedly, a bit late, but they get it.) So I'm not sure it's worth designing around them.

They also have the ability to pick up Find Familiar at 3, then the option to swap it out when they get Versatile Trickster at 13.

That's already a true strike variant.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-02, 09:43 AM

opaopajr

2019-05-02, 11:35 AM

Was talking about this on another thread, and it occurred to me: how about making the recipient of the spell within 30', and the benefit is simply advantage on the next attack roll? Part of the balance issues that came up with changing it's action economy was that it would be too strong to remain a Cantrip.

You mean changing it from beyond Self target, to a target within 30'? :smallsmile: Has potential actually. And it's short enough range that the caster is still within close- to mid-range combat threats. Switches the opportunity cost from personal action economy to group cooperation context. Surprisingly clean fix! :smallcool:

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-02, 12:32 PM

You mean changing it from beyond Self target, to a target within 30'? :smallsmile: Has potential actually. And it's short enough range that the caster is still within close- to mid-range combat threats. Switches the opportunity cost from personal action economy to group cooperation context. Surprisingly clean fix! :smallcool:

Yes, exactly!

werescythe

2019-05-02, 01:25 PM

Most of the gms I meet with just make it a bonus action instead of a regular action.

Segev

2019-05-02, 02:05 PM

If you kept everything else the same, you could make it so that, if you miss on your next attack roll before the end of your next turn, you hit anyway. The main reason for keeping the roll is to check for crits.

It might also be worthwhile if it not only gave you Advantage but made the attack ignore Disadvantage. Now, you have Advantage no matter how bad the circumstances are, since Disadvantage can't negate the Advantage. Snipers and sneak attackers would love this.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-02, 05:31 PM

A Bonus Action would enable an AT to SAttack with relative impunity every round starting on the 2nd. While the limitations can mitigate it, adding a SCAG cantrip can become overwhelming. Removing concentration would immediately augment Paladins, Rangers, and users of Hex. As it stands, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Valor Bards are the only ones that can really make use of TS without any tax, however.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-02, 05:36 PM

Avista

2019-05-03, 04:54 AM

Make it a level 1 spell, bonus action, target self, guaranteed hit on a target? Any spellcaster would pick something more useful (like magic missile) but it could work for melee.

Arkhios

2019-05-03, 04:59 AM

How about this: Remove it entirely!

No? Okay, maybe a bit more useful: Instead of being an Action, make it a Bonus Action, but also adjust it so that you have to use it before the start of your next turn.

mrumsey

2019-05-03, 08:33 AM

What about this:

Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 1 Target you can see
Duration: 1 Round

Until the end of your next turn, if you would miss an attack on your target, re-roll that attack.

This would allow for the feel of accuracy while allowing disadvantage to still be meaningful (it is a cantrip).

Although it goes against the design of 5e, I would love it it had a 'kicker' like:
"If you possess the Defensive Fighting Style, this spell may be cast as a Reaction when an ally you can see is hit by a spell or attack that only has one target. If you cast it in this way, you may only target the source of that spell or attack."

Niche use, but EKs or Fighter/Paladins might splurge and pick it up with a feat or whatever.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-03, 08:47 AM

I just got back, just skimmed the replies. Did someone change it to a REACTION!?

...That sounds cool actually...

Zuras

2019-05-03, 09:04 AM

If you look at the costs, the problem is you are paying two actions for a single attack at advantage. In almost every case, unless you are shooting an Arrow of Slaying or something, attacking twice is better, because you have the same odds (two d20 rolls) but more upside (both rolls can hit).

There is the additional tactical cost of doing nothing and “powering up” to attack a specific opponent on your next turn, including needing to obviously point at them.

Given those costs, you should be getting something slightly better than an attack at advantage.

Simplest solution—True Strike adds 1d6 force damage to the attack, scaling as normal for cantrips, 2d6 at 5, 3d6 at 11, 4d6 at 17.

More complex solution - adds 1 scaling damage die of the same type as the attack. True Strike + Greataxe = +4d10 damage at 17th level.

Alternate solution—the fluff of the spell says it gives you insight into your opponent’s defenses (thus the advantage). What if it gave you insight to your opponent’s attacks as well, giving their attacks against you disadvantage.

Yunru

2019-05-03, 09:04 AM

Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 1 Target you can see
Duration: Up to 10 minutes, concentration

[Fluff]. Until the spell ends, when you miss the target with an attack, you may use your reaction to reroll the attack roll.

Alternatively:
Casting Time: 1 Bonus action
Range: 1 Target you can see
Duration: Up to 10 minutes, concentration

[Fluff]. Until the spell ends, when you miss the target with an attack, you may use your reaction to reroll the attack roll. The spell ends if you lose sight of the target.

Vogie

2019-05-03, 09:32 AM

I just got back, just skimmed the replies. Did someone change it to a REACTION!?

...That sounds cool actually...

That's not a terrible idea - Since it's self-only, it'd act like a less-powerful version of the Eagle Spirit totem of the Shepherd Druid.

Actually, if "just a bonus action" would be too powerful, having it cost BOTH a bonus action and a reaction could more balanced. You'd get advantage, but at the cost of both a bonus action, and a potential attack of opportunity, which is a interesting choice for classes like rogues.

Segev

2019-05-03, 10:57 AM

All that could potentially push the spell into slot territory. If that is not a concern, cool, but keep in mind granting an auto-hit like that could cause unavoidable novas.

The first one could. I actually think the idea that it grants advantage and negates disadvantage (but still has its 1 action casting time and needs Concentration) would push its niche utility to a broad enough niche to make it useful for particular builds.

Wildarm

2019-05-03, 11:26 AM

Working off the idea of ignoring disadvantage:

Cantrip
True Strike
1 Bonus Action
Choose a opponent within 30'. Until the end of your turn, on your next weapon attack against the target, they no longer benefit from half or three quarters cover and you cannot have disadvantage on the attack.

Perhaps too strong on an Arcane Trickster or a class that has few uses for it's bonus action. Maybe make it 5' range instead? I just like the idea of a warrior taking a breath in order to strike at just the right moment.

Another idea would be a foe revealing a weakness:

Cantrip
True Strike or Retribution Strike
Reaction
As a reaction when an opponent within 30' makes an attack against you, until the end of your next turn, the opponent no longer gains the benefit of half or three quarters cover and you cannot have disadvantage on attacks against them

Like the idea of a ranged battle where you are waiting until they pop up to make their shot and you catch them before they can get back into cover. Or a fighter having a hard time hitting an elusive opponent but the moment they raise their sword to strike you can get a shot in.

I feel this again might be broken for things like fog cloud or darkness though. Turns into you getting advantage on your attacks if they try and hit you in the fog. Combined with Alert feat this could make a blind fighting interesting. No worse than devil's sight/darkness combo and costs you your reaction each round and the foe needs to keep trying to hit you. Still need to spend a spell slot to get the environmental effect. Cantrip + Feat might be cheaper than a warlock invocation though.

Segev

2019-05-03, 01:40 PM

I'd do it this way, to keep it at Cantrip level:

True Strike
divination cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 30 ft.
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 round.

You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses. On your next turn, you cannot suffer disadvantage on your first attack roll against the target, and also gain advantage on that same roll, provided that this spell hasn’t ended.

Shuruke

2019-05-03, 05:13 PM

Well

Balance wise since bless 1st level is

3 targets gain +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws
What about

True strikes
Cantrip
Range 60
V,S
Concentration 1 minute
Action
You point at an enemy within range gaining insight into their future defenses. Once per turn when you make an attack roll against the declared creature roll a d4 and add it to the total.

-this makes it so it isnt a hex or bless replacement for mutliple attack classes.

- still concentration

- still an action

- However can be rewarding to use in a build.

Avista

2019-05-04, 01:16 AM

opaopajr

2019-05-04, 10:20 AM

I just got back, just skimmed the replies. Did someone change it to a REACTION!?

...That sounds cool actually...

I bring to you the glorious heresies. :smallcool: You know you want to...

Great Dragon

2019-05-04, 10:44 AM

I just got back, just skimmed the replies. Did someone change it to a REACTION!?

...That sounds cool actually...

I did. Maybe another as well? I'd have to check.

While the Reaction does allow for spamming a little, if the Player burns all their Attack Spell slots on it for a Nova, they aren't allowed to whine when they only have an attack with Advantage on Cantrips (for either Attack or BA, not both) for the next few encounters.

Plus, if they get caught in melee, the caster has to decide if they True Strike a Melee attack (or a Melee Cantrip) or Shield that round. So, there is still a cost for this version of TS.
-----
IDK, making TS being able to affect another target at range seems a bit much for a Cantrip.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-04, 11:29 AM

I don't think it's still useful. Unless you're fighting that one big boss, most globs of enemies will be picked off fairly quickly.

I don't see any way to salvage true strike without buffing it up to level 1 spell capability.

If you go the slot route, turning it into a BA and/or removing Concentration would easily fix it, as you would quickly run out of uses. The main power to balance in a Cantrip is the unlimited uses, which makes them the most reliable spells in the game. Changing the recipient of the spell to "self or ally in 30 feet" and simply granting advantage without having to target a specific enemy would make it more useful without overstepping unlimited uses.

opaopajr

2019-05-04, 04:58 PM

I did. Maybe another as well? I'd have to check.

*ahem* :smallcool:

IDK, making TS being able to affect another target at range seems a bit much for a Cantrip.

Yeah, part of me was worried, too. That said, it IS similar to the Help action, just at range. AND it steps very lightly on the already existing wording, which is a big plus for any errata.

There are three ways I could see it going:

a) Targets Self or Ally within range, and one Opponent within range, Self or Ally's next attack vs Opponent is at Adv.
(Req. Party coordination, but it is Help from 25-30' away. Strong, but limited by ally-foe target pairing. Less spamming.)

b) Target Opponent, any next strike against them is at Adv.
(Point out their weakness and hope someone hits them. :smalltongue: Rather appropriate for a caster trying to stay away from melee. Very, very strong... but dependent on others taking advantage of it. Concentration becomes important as you will draw aggro. Spammable.)

c) Shorten the range.
(So it is not Help from 30' away. Weakest, less tactical, spammable, but manageable.)

Overall I like that it is an alternative to worrying about personal action economy. Changes the discussion from "Me" PC to "We" party focus. :smallcool:

LibraryOgre

2019-05-05, 09:30 AM

True Strike
Divination Cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Instant

As part of the action of casting this spell, you must make a melee or ranged attack with a weapon against one creature. That attack is automatically successful, regardless of other affects, as if the target's AC was rolled, circumventing cover and concealment, but not any resistance the target may have to the damage of the attack.

So, at low level, True Strike rocks... you always make a single hit, with no possibility of a critical. But, as levels advance, it falls behind, since you don't get the neat things you might otherwise get... no extra attack, less opportunity for sneak attack (since you don't have advantage or disadvantage on this attack), and so on.

Useful? Yes. But not so useful that you MUST have it.

Great Dragon

2019-05-05, 11:02 AM

*ahem* :smallcool:

Sorry. I didn't get time to go back and look.
😸

Yeah, part of me was worried, too. That said, it IS similar to the Help action, just at range. AND it steps very lightly on the already existing wording, which is a big plus for any errata.

There are three ways I could see it going:

a) Targets Self or Ally within range, and one Opponent within range, Self or Ally's next attack vs Opponent is at Adv.
(Req. Party coordination, but it is Help from 25-30' away. Strong, but limited by ally-foe target pairing. Less spamming.)

b) Target Opponent, any next strike against them is at Adv.
(Point out their weakness and hope someone hits them. :smalltongue: Rather appropriate for a caster trying to stay away from melee. Very, very strong... but dependent on others taking advantage of it. Concentration becomes important as you will draw aggro. Spammable.)

c) Shorten the range.
(So it is not Help from 30' away. Weakest, less tactical, spammable, but manageable.)

Overall I like that it is an alternative to worrying about personal action economy. Changes the discussion from "Me" PC to "We" party focus. :smallcool:
I'd still like to keep it at Reaction.

If I allowed "B", I'd make it a Cha save to negate. Closer to Save or Suck, yes; but makes the "Help Action" more useful, and also makes the Cantrip less spammable.

opaopajr

2019-05-05, 12:21 PM

I'd still like to keep it at Reaction.

If I allowed "B", I'd make it a Cha save to negate. Closer to Save or Suck, yes; but makes the "Help Action" more useful, and also makes the Cantrip less spammable.

I too would keep it at Reaction, for now. That seems usable right out the gate. It is a one word errata and done! :smallcool:

That said, I am intrigued by this other discussion about lending it out as a ranged Help action. Still not fully baked yet, but it takes the discussion into different, party cooperative, places. I also wonder if its design, lending itself out, could benefit Blade Ward (a spell wholly replaced by Dodge).

I dig B) with a CHA save. First, we all need more saves outside the big three (DEX, CON, WIS). Second, it suggests an inscrutible allure about CHA as a stat that it could mask against Divination. Third, it helps explains Concentration beyond mechanical metagame of "casting balance," suggesting those who openly reveal others' weaknesses are rightly seen as threats. :smallsmile:

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-05, 04:49 PM

Original

True Strike
Action 30 feet
On your next turn, your first attack roll on the target has advantage.
Fixes:

MoG #1

Range 120 feet, You have advantage on your next attack against the target. If the attack misses, it deals half damage.
MoG 2

See through walls for the duration. Consume spell to gain advantage or ignore cover on one attack.
AngelAlex

Guaranteed Crit instead of Advantage
Nickl

Advantage on all attacks made until the end of your turn.
JackOfAllTirades

The target is vulnerable to your next attack.
TripleD

The attack automatically hits
Kane0

Bonus Action, +1d4 to hit, lasts one round.
OpaOpaJr

Can be cast using your Reaction
Yunru 1

Lasts until you use line of sight or concentration
Yunru 2

Action and bonus action variants of:
Lasts 10 minutes, concentration. When you miss, use a reaction to re-roll. Spell then ends.
WildArm 1

Increase duration
WildArm 2

Ranged and Melee Variant of:
Bonus Action, ignore cover, ignore disadvantage
WildArm 3

Like #2 but “When an enemy hits you with an attack, as a Reaction, you gain *effect*
Garfunion

Counters cover and disadvantage
Waterdeep Merch

Greenflame blade style cantrip. “Make an attack with advantage”. Bonus damage at later levels.
Aquillion

Action, spell lasts 1 minute. Can re-roll one attack, and the spell ends.
Yuroch Kern

Range: 30, target enemy, next attack against it has advantage
Segev

Gain advantage, even if a specific effect where to negate advantage.
Arakhios

Bonus Action, must use this turn.
Shuruke

Works like hunter's Mark. One target, +1d4 to attack.
Mark Hall

Greenflame Blade style cantrip. Auto hits, but can't crit or have advantage, doesn't trigger extra attack or TWF etc.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-05, 04:54 PM

After looking at all of these, the one that seem to stick with the design intent the best are the Greenflame Blade style cantrips. It's a true strike, well, make it a cantrips that allows you to strike true.

Aquillion

2019-05-06, 12:19 AM

The problem with that is that I think enhancing your spell attacks is a core part of True Strike's concept and identity.

Malifice

2019-05-06, 01:31 AM

Range 30'.

When you cast this cantrip, the next attack roll the target makes before the end of your next turn is made with advantage.

Kane0

2019-05-06, 02:50 AM

Ooh, do a thread on witch bolt next! I wanna see a big post of everyones collated fixes for that

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-06, 03:45 AM

The problem with that is that I think enhancing your spell attacks is a core part of True Strike's concept and identity.

Wait, have we been rambling on for 60+ posts, without:

Answering OPs original question "would you use it?"
Having a clear design goal and use intent

Arkhios

2019-05-06, 05:23 AM

Arakhios

Minor nitpick: There's one letter too much, here :smallamused:

That said, it's a pretty good name for a character (that I'd use, anyway).

Wait, have we been rambling on for 60+ posts, without:

Answering OPs original question "would you use it?"
Having a clear design goal and use intent

As for these two points, I would definitely use the version I pieced together, if only to playtest whether it's fine or too powerful.

That said, Mark Hall's version is rather elegant, to be honest. It's an automatic hit, takes an action, but what's more, it can't be a critical hit, because the part whether you hit or not has already been determined.

Plus, since it's part of an Action to cast a spell, it can't be combined with things like Two-Weapon Fighting, either.

Great Dragon

2019-05-06, 07:02 AM

Wait, have we been rambling on for 60+ posts, without:

Answering OPs original question "would you use it?"
Having a clear design goal and use intent

1) I am planning to try and use the version opaopajr and I thought up in some of the games I'm in. I'll try it with a couple other DMs, as well as the game I DM, and get back to ya.

2) Goal: as per (OP's) Man_Over_Game request: make True Strike usable, yet balanced.

Vogie

2019-05-06, 08:07 AM

Original

Fixes:

As a person who got their game-design chops by studying Magic: the Gathering, this post makes me very happy.

Segev

2019-05-06, 09:41 AM

Segev

Close. My wording was that it negates Disadvantage, and then grants Advantage. This is deliberately chosen, because if something somehow negates Advantage without granting Disadvantage, it still applies. I also feel it important to call out negating Disadvantage first.

The summary you have is an accurate indication of my intent, I just want to be clear that the mechanism is strictly ensuring that Disadvantage is gone from the attack, then Advantage applied, thus ensuring that Advantage is applied regardless. I think this makes it worth spending the action over attacking twice in the cases where you get only one shot, or Advantage does more for you than "merely" let you roll twice and take the better result.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-06, 01:48 PM

Wait, have we been rambling on for 60+ posts, without:

Answering OPs original question "would you use it?"
Having a clear design goal and use intent

I have used my fix. It works quite well without overshadowing other buffs. But then, I play VBards and CFighters. Mid range combat is my specialty.

Dalebert

2019-05-06, 08:14 PM

It should have a range of 30 ft. The duration is one minute. Remains concentration. The target of the spell has advantage on their next attack and that attack ignores up to 3/4 cover, at which point the spell ends. This makes it a viable support spell that a bard can cast on someone else like the rogue, for instance. It also can be cast in preparation when you expect a battle to benefit your first shot.

Toofey

2019-05-06, 09:14 PM

Bonus action, add +1d4 to your next attack roll within one round. Concentration and target self.

Very close to what I use. I make it a bonus action that has to be used to an attack the same round it is used, but no concentration (so you can hold concentration on something else)

Zhorn

2019-05-06, 11:49 PM

Mark Hall
Greenflame Blade style cantrip. Auto hits, but can't crit or have advantage, doesn't trigger extra attack or TWF etc.

I think this is the one I like the most.
It's a little on the overpowered side at lower levels, but having no natural crit chance, and dropping considerably behind in damage potential once extra attack comes onto the scene, I think it's not overly broken.

-------------------
Level: Cantrip
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: -
Components: M (a weapon), (maybe add V also?)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful attack with a weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects.
-------------------

We have a regular attack that strikes true, living up to its name.
Uses weapons own range/reach to avoid convoluted method to make it work for different builds (looking at you Reach weapons + Spell Sniper + Booming Blade)
No attack roll removing the natural crit conditions (still eligible for automatic crits though)
Not an Attack Action, so does not qualify for many abilities that require the Attack Action to function (Extra Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Polearm Master, Shield Master, etc)
Higher expected damage (per attack) is balanced by the lower damage potential over a combat encounter.
While dropping in comparative power from level 5 onward, still has uses for gish type builds (EK's War Magic, Warcaster Feat)
No advantage mechanic prevents it from being mandatory for rogues giving self advantage.

I'm also assuming that the weapon attack would not be considered magical unless the weapon was already magical, like how I understand the weapon component of Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade to function.

Thinking about gish builds, someone wanting to make a sorcerer gish might get some mileage out of this too.

Mordaedil

2019-05-07, 02:49 AM

The problem with that is that I think enhancing your spell attacks is a core part of True Strike's concept and identity.

True Strike originally was a 1st level spell that added +20 to hit for one attack. People were basically tripping over themselves trying to have it apply for 24 hours, or casting it as a martial character.

I think it's easiest and simplest to just make it a bonus action without adding a ton of rules on top.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-07, 04:28 AM

-------------------
Level: Cantrip
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: -
Components: M (a weapon), (maybe add V also?)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful attack with a weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects.
-------------------

We have a regular attack that strikes true, living up to its name.
Uses weapons own range/reach to avoid convoluted method to make it work for different builds (looking at you Reach weapons + Spell Sniper + Booming Blade)
No attack roll removing the natural crit conditions (still eligible for automatic crits though)
Not an Attack Action, so does not qualify for many abilities that require the Attack Action to function (Extra Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Polearm Master, Shield Master, etc)
Higher expected damage (per attack) is balanced by the lower damage potential over a combat encounter.
While dropping in comparative power from level 5 onward, still has uses for gish type builds (EK's War Magic, Warcaster Feat)
No advantage mechanic prevents it from being mandatory for rogues giving self advantage.

This is actually quite perfect. I mean, no one with enough damage to make this OP has access to it at level 1. Perfect for all kinds of would-be Gishes before their main abilities come online.
It doesn't even break the rogue. Think of a Rogue with TWF, he almost always lands at least one attack. This does the same, but removes the option of benefitting from both hits. It's less variance, that nets you +0 damage increase.
I know almost all classes would like to see this scale, just a little. +1d6 at level 5?
Does this go directly against the philosophy of a dice rolling game, having an attack that doesn't require dice to be rolled?
How would this interact with disadvantage?

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-07, 04:50 AM

Yes, we usually don't balance things with Multiclassing in mind. Multiclassing breaks the early game in so many ways, and there's a reason why UA ignores it.

When would I pick this True Strike?

Can we make some level 3-7 builds that might benefit from True Strike as an option? Not optimally, but as a player who might enjoy having it as one of his cantrips?

I can already think of using it for Warmagic, Rogues who love Cunning Action, Low level Sorcs, Bladesingers and Bards , Tanks who have some kind of 'marking'. Makes sense?

Zhorn

2019-05-07, 05:19 AM

This is actually quite perfect. I mean, no one with enough damage to make this OP has access to it at level 1. Perfect for all kinds of would-be Gishes before their main abilities come online.
It doesn't even break the rogue. Think of a Rogue with TWF, he almost always lands at least one attack. This does the same, but removes the option of benefitting from both hits. It's less variance, that nets you +0 damage increase.
I know almost all classes would like to see this scale, just a little. +1d6 at level 5?
Does this go directly against the philosophy of a dice rolling game, having an attack that doesn't require dice to be rolled?
How would this interact with disadvantage?
Please continue. I do enjoy praise.

All kidding aside, I don't think a guaranteed attack hit should have a damage boost baked into it. If we keep adding "this too" and "this too" we get closer to the point where it becomes the mandatory pick for anyone that has access to it. That's going too far.
True Strike RAW is horrible. The goal is to make it a solid pick, which I'd like to believe (all ego aside) that this will do.
AT can use it to get a hit in to land sneak attack when it qualifies without the cantrip GIVING the sneak attack.
EK can pair it with War Magic for both melee AND ranged, something ahead of BB or GFB
Sorcerer's can hammer away with 3 hits (twinned action, quickened bonus action),
Warcaster's can get a guaranteed hit on opportunity attacks
And if you add a decent magic weapon to it, that's gonna reliably up the damage already

All that is without multiclass optimization or using non-PHB resources.
Add scaling damage with levels AND pair it with a multiclass optimized build, you're then in broken territory.

As for interacting with advantage:
Of the two possible outcome, you either hit, or you hit.
It actually makes for an interesting decision when a target has "attacks against this creature have advantage", do you opt to use the cantrip anyway and ignore advantage, or take that rolled attack for the advantage chance at a critical?
Or how about when that next attack CONSUMES the advantage "the NEXT attack against this creature have advantage", do you instead choose a different target so one of you allies can benefit from the advantage and you go with your reliable true strike hit?
I like scenarios like these, even if there's a statistically superior choice, not all players think like computers and giving them options gives them a feeling of ownership over decisions and outcomes.

Morollan

2019-05-07, 06:01 AM

Please continue. I do enjoy praise.

All kidding aside, I don't think a guaranteed attack hit should have a damage boost baked into it. If we keep adding "this too" and "this too" we get closer to the point where it becomes the mandatory pick for anyone that has access to it. That's going too far.
True Strike RAW is horrible. The goal is to make it a solid pick, which I'd like to believe (all ego aside) that this will do.
AT can use it to get a hit in to land sneak attack when it qualifies without the cantrip GIVING the sneak attack.
EK can pair it with War Magic for both melee AND ranged, something ahead of BB or GFB
Sorcerer's can hammer away with 3 hits (twinned action, quickened bonus action),
Warcaster's can get a guaranteed hit on opportunity attacks
And if you add a decent magic weapon to it, that's gonna reliably up the damage already

All that is without multiclass optimization or using non-PHB resources.
Add scaling damage with levels AND pair it with a multiclass optimized build, you're then in broken territory.

I kind of like it but is there a reason you're excluding spell attacks? The current version works on attack rolls, not just weapon attacks. Making it a GFB/BB kind of spell makes it really hard to have it interact with spell attacks.

Theodoxus

2019-05-07, 06:12 AM

Zhorn

2019-05-07, 06:18 AM

I kind of like it but is there a reason you're excluding spell attacks? The current version works on attack rolls, not just weapon attacks. Making it a GFB/BB kind of spell makes it really hard to have it interact with spell attacks.

If it were to guarantee a hit with magic damage, then it should cost a spell slot, which already exists in the form of Magic Missile. This isn't meant as a snarky retort.
Magic damage already overrides a lot of base resistances, where as mundane weapons still have to contend with that. By limiting it down to just focusing on weapon attacks, it further helps curb in that borderline-almost-op aspect at the low levels of play.

This is not an intentional wording on my part, just an oversight as I hadn't originally thought about True trike being paired with spells, but after reading your post and re-checking my book for confirmation, I see that the change does cut spell attacks from the ability. Which I'm ok with.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-07, 09:56 AM

I think this is the one I like the most.
It's a little on the overpowered side at lower levels, but having no natural crit chance, and dropping considerably behind in damage potential once extra attack comes onto the scene, I think it's not overly broken.

-------------------
Level: Cantrip
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: -
Components: M (a weapon), (maybe add V also?)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful attack with a weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects.
-------------------

We have a regular attack that strikes true, living up to its name.
Uses weapons own range/reach to avoid convoluted method to make it work for different builds (looking at you Reach weapons + Spell Sniper + Booming Blade)
No attack roll removing the natural crit conditions (still eligible for automatic crits though)
Not an Attack Action, so does not qualify for many abilities that require the Attack Action to function (Extra Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Polearm Master, Shield Master, etc)
Higher expected damage (per attack) is balanced by the lower damage potential over a combat encounter.
While dropping in comparative power from level 5 onward, still has uses for gish type builds (EK's War Magic, Warcaster Feat)
No advantage mechanic prevents it from being mandatory for rogues giving self advantage.

I'm also assuming that the weapon attack would not be considered magical unless the weapon was already magical, like how I understand the weapon component of Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade to function.

Thinking about gish builds, someone wanting to make a sorcerer gish might get some mileage out of this too.

This wording would make smites over the top. Also, auto-hits are gonna be much better than advantage by and large, since crits are still not guaranteed. Heck, spam this with Tavern Brawler, so okay. There is a lot to consider with an unlimited auto-hit, since the SCAG cantrips have also been combo'ed to death.

Zhorn

2019-05-07, 10:44 AM

This wording would make smites over the top. Also, auto-hits are gonna be much better than advantage by and large, since crits are still not guaranteed. Heck, spam this with Tavern Brawler, so okay. There is a lot to consider with an unlimited auto-hit, since the SCAG cantrips have also been combo'ed to death.
Those are some fair points worth looking at, but I don't think they're deal breakers.

Paladin Smites:
Yes, it is a reliable delivery method for some smiting. Extra Attack should still come out as stronger though with that second attack damage that could also carry a smite, combined with polearm master (or even two weapon fighting) for that additional bonus action attack, paladin's were already crazy strong with going nova in a round.
Smites are also a finite resource, so it's not like they'll be smiting every attack.
Additionally (since paladins don't get cantrips from their own class), outside of getting a level 1 cantrip access, this kind of combo wouldn't come up until level 3 with multiclassing or level 4 with a feat (which polearm master is still the stronger choice), making it only "optimal" for 1 or 3 levels before extra attack comes in an takes over. AND if they do go down the multiclass route, that is delaying access to their level 5 abilities which is usually considered the first true power spike.
So yes, there is synergy with smites, but it's not increasing the power potential of the class.

Tavern Brawler:
Yes again it can synergize, but it wouldn't really be a spam in most applicable situations. And when you are spamming it turn to turn, did you really need that grapple to begin with?
Attack a target then grapple them. Next turn, they should already still be grappled so you unlikely to need to grapple them again.
First target dead now grappling a second target? Was that first grapple necessary or much of a game changer?
Fleeing targets or enemy trying to get past you? Sentinel would be the stronger choice than Tavern Brawler for that situation; damage AND stopping the enemy from moving away.

Combo potential:
Yes, thanks to Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade laying the ground work, there are a good deal of thought out builds for optimising weapon attack cantrips, which is why I said earlier that this cantrip shouldn't have any increased damage added at the level brackets like the other cantrips, as that would be the tipping point of adding too much.

Valid points to bring up for discussion. Just don't see them as making this broken.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-07, 10:51 AM

I just wanted to thank Bjarkmundur for compiling that list. Thank you very much, it's very helpful.

moonfly7

2019-05-07, 11:12 AM

I know this is gonna sound really OP and maybe stupid, but what about just make it a bonus action casting time? Then just make it only useable every other turn, like you can cast it, auto hit same turn, the you can cast it again next turn.

LibraryOgre

2019-05-07, 11:19 AM

Minor nitpick: There's one letter too much, here :smallamused:

That said, it's a pretty good name for a character (that I'd use, anyway).

It strikes me as the kind of name someone named Arkhios would give as a fake name... like, they started to give their own name, then shoved in an extra syllable. :smallbiggrin:

I know this is gonna sound really OP and maybe stupid, but what about just make it a bonus action casting time? Then just make it only useable every other turn, like you can cast it, auto hit same turn, the you can cast it again next turn.

Because that allows it to activate all the things on an Attack action that don't require a bonus action... for example, Extra Attack only happens with an Attack Action. Similar to Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade, this makes it the spell that does the lifting.

moonfly7

2019-05-07, 11:55 AM

That was the intention, I meant like booming blade, "you must make an attack as part of this spell" come to think of it, should be an action

moonfly7

2019-05-07, 11:56 AM

Still a bit much for a cantrip though, no one uses it. It might just be a lost cause sadly. Unless it becomes a full blown spell

Zhorn

2019-05-07, 12:01 PM

Agreed. As advantage, true strike is a lost cause. Trying to balance a cantrip that grants advantage requires too many conditionals that it becomes either too convoluted or unusable.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-07, 01:17 PM

Those are some fair points worth looking at, but I don't think they're deal breakers.

Paladin Smites:
Yes, it is a reliable delivery method for some smiting. Extra Attack should still come out as stronger though with that second attack damage that could also carry a smite, combined with polearm master (or even two weapon fighting) for that additional bonus action attack, paladin's were already crazy strong with going nova in a round.
Smites are also a finite resource, so it's not like they'll be smiting every attack.
Additionally (since paladins don't get cantrips from their own class), outside of getting a level 1 cantrip access, this kind of combo wouldn't come up until level 3 with multiclassing or level 4 with a feat (which polearm master is still the stronger choice), making it only "optimal" for 1 or 3 levels before extra attack comes in an takes over. AND if they do go down the multiclass route, that is delaying access to their level 5 abilities which is usually considered the first true power spike.
So yes, there is synergy with smites, but it's not increasing the power potential of the class.

Tavern Brawler:
Yes again it can synergize, but it wouldn't really be a spam in most applicable situations. And when you are spamming it turn to turn, did you really need that grapple to begin with?
Attack a target then grapple them. Next turn, they should already still be grappled so you unlikely to need to grapple them again.
First target dead now grappling a second target? Was that first grapple necessary or much of a game changer?
Fleeing targets or enemy trying to get past you? Sentinel would be the stronger choice than Tavern Brawler for that situation; damage AND stopping the enemy from moving away.

Combo potential:
Yes, thanks to Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade laying the ground work, there are a good deal of thought out builds for optimising weapon attack cantrips, which is why I said earlier that this cantrip shouldn't have any increased damage added at the level brackets like the other cantrips, as that would be the tipping point of adding too much.

Valid points to bring up for discussion. Just don't see them as making this broken.

The smiting and smite-like abilities are somewhat balanced with the possibility of missing. Even Extra Attack can turn into two misses. The resource is only expended on a successful hit, though, so it may be inevitable. The Tavern Brawler was more of an example of setting up reliable tactical combos per round, since AC is no longer an object. Sure you gotta win a Strength check, but you can win on a roll of 1 and get Expertise. No AC involved, whereas Sentinal still has to hit. It also can bring more mundane considerations: auto-hit with a poisoned blade or even just auto-hitting with a Great-Weapon/Shillelagh every round. AC being removed as a barrier with a Cantrip infinitely seems more suited to finitely with slots.

JNAProductions

2019-05-07, 01:21 PM

The smiting and smite-like abilities are somewhat balanced with the possibility of missing. Even Extra Attack can turn into two misses. The resource is only expended on a successful hit, though, so it may be inevitable. The Tavern Brawler was more of an example of setting up reliable tactical combos per round, since AC is no longer an object. Sure you gotta win a Strength check, but you can win on a roll of 1 and get Expertise. No AC involved, whereas Sentinal still has to hit. It also can bring more mundane considerations: auto-hit with a poisoned blade or even just auto-hitting with a Great-Weapon/Shillelagh every round. AC being removed as a barrier with a Cantrip infinitely seems more suited to finitely with slots.

Except that it really doesn't scale well.

It's nice for levels 1-4, but at level 5, it'll rarely be better than making two attacks. (And for those with only one attack, rarely better than a more potent cantrip.) It does have a niche use-really high AC foes-but then again, so does Chill Touch, or Ray of Frost.

Segev

2019-05-07, 01:27 PM

I know I'm harping, but what problems do people see with the suggestion of negating Disadvantage and then granting Advantage? Does it not sufficiently fix it? Does it make it too good? How so?

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-07, 01:42 PM

Agreed. As advantage, true strike is a lost cause. Trying to balance a cantrip that grants advantage requires too many conditionals that it becomes either too convoluted or unusable.

Except that it really doesn't scale well.

It's nice for levels 1-4, but at level 5, it'll rarely be better than making two attacks. (And for those with only one attack, rarely better than a more potent cantrip.) It does have a niche use-really high AC foes-but then again, so does Chill Touch, or Ray of Frost.

Perhaps. It may be more of a committee level discussion on "how can we make a Cantrip grant Advantage?" It's been done with Disadvantage, by only giving it to the Bard...and for a follow up on mundane considerations, JNA, I would carry at least 5 nets with an auto-hit every round, or with Tavern Brawler, large blankets. Auto-hitting creates the idea I can take all the penalties I want, and do it anyway. And it would work with the enemy casters too, making very deadly games at all levels.

JNAProductions

2019-05-07, 01:48 PM

Perhaps. It may be more of a committee level discussion on "how can we make a Cantrip grant Advantage?" It's been done with Disadvantage, by only giving it to the Bard...and for a follow up on mundane considerations, JNA, I would carry at least 5 nets with an auto-hit every round, or with Tavern Brawler, large blankets. Auto-hitting creates the idea I can take all the penalties I want, and do it anyway. And it would work with the enemy casters too, making very deadly games at all levels.

Oh no, an enemy caster gets to get an automatic weapon attack hit! However will the Fighter survive 1d6+2 points of damage per round?

Nets are a good point, though. It eats up an action to free, and restrains until freed, which is pretty powerful. That's really the only problem I can see, though, and it DOES require the caster to approach within 15'. Not an issue for an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster. Bit of an issue with a spindly Wizard.

If I were to modify True Strike to allow auto-hits, I'd probably just disallow its use with nets. Not super elegant, but functional. Or, if you want to be a little more elegant about it, make it so it simply does the damage the weapon would do on a hit, with no other effects. So the net does 0 damage.

moonfly7

2019-05-07, 03:06 PM

Although I consider it a lost cause, maybe make truestrike a nerfed guiding bolt. You make a melee attack that does no damage, but instead add the damage to the next attack roll. Or even all attacks next round.

Great Dragon

2019-05-07, 03:17 PM

I know I'm harping, but what problems do people see with the suggestion of negating Disadvantage and then granting Advantage? Does it not sufficiently fix it? Does it make it too good? How so?

I'd say that both negating Disadvantage and then granting Advantage is a little outside of the intention of 5e. Since having both makes the Roll "normal", regardless of how many of each there are, or their sources.

To me, a spell that did that - would be at least 6th level. Since everyone would want it.
Especially if it was a Bonus Action to cast.

JNAProductions

2019-05-07, 03:47 PM

LibraryOgre

2019-05-07, 04:18 PM

6th level?

For a spell to grant advantage on one attack? On your next turn?

I don't know about 6th level, but consider that an infinite number of advantages can be cancelled by a single disadvantage, and vice versa.

A spell which overcame that is a pretty big fundamental change.

Segev

2019-05-07, 04:34 PM

I'd say that both negating Disadvantage and then granting Advantage is a little outside of the intention of 5e. Since having both makes the Roll "normal", regardless of how many of each there are, or their sources.

To me, a spell that did that - would be at least 6th level. Since everyone would want it.
Especially if it was a Bonus Action to cast.
Specifically not a Bonus Action, though; I suggest not changing anything save the addition of the removal of Disadvantage before the Advantage is added.

I don't know about 6th level, but consider that an infinite number of advantages can be cancelled by a single disadvantage, and vice versa.

A spell which overcame that is a pretty big fundamental change.

It is a big change, but it's also pretty situational, and, barring a Sorcerer with Quicken, remains every-other-round.

Zhorn

2019-05-07, 11:50 PM

It also can bring more mundane considerations: auto-hit with a poisoned blade or even just auto-hitting with a Great-Weapon/Shillelagh every round.
Poison is a fair point, but it is also comparable to hitting an enemy with a magic weapon. At 100 gp expenditure per 1 minute (or 3 pieces of ammunition) application, it's already a considerable investment on the player's end to get that 1d4 damage with a DC10 Con save. And if your using stronger poisons, either the cost expenditure is even higher, or the group is running with a lenient DM/homerule that nerfs the cost to a point where a auto hit with a weapon is the least broken aspect of what is happening in that scenario.
Great weapons are also a consideration, but again not without some mix and matching to get that combo at a low enough level to really matter, as bard/sorcerer/warlock/wizard don't get those delicious 1d12 or 2d6 weapons as baseline, and will need to be a little MAD to get decent use out of it via multiclassing. Hexblade warlocks would qualify, so you have that. But otherwise the great weapon scenario shouldn't turn up naturally until level 3 with Eldritch Knights fighters. So yes, there is an area in the low level where this cantrip is bordering on the powerful side of things, you have that (which I did admit to back in post #78 that it is a bit powerful at lower levels before extra attack takes over when it is introduced). Again though, the cantrip isn't adding MORE damage per attack. Powerful comparative to that level, but not broken powerful.

Oh no, an enemy caster gets to get an automatic weapon attack hit! However will the Fighter survive 1d6+2 points of damage per round?

Nets are a good point, though. It eats up an action to free, and restrains until freed, which is pretty powerful. That's really the only problem I can see, though, and it DOES require the caster to approach within 15'. Not an issue for an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster. Bit of an issue with a spindly Wizard.

If I were to modify True Strike to allow auto-hits, I'd probably just disallow its use with nets. Not super elegant, but functional. Or, if you want to be a little more elegant about it, make it so it simply does the damage the weapon would do on a hit, with no other effects. So the net does 0 damage.

These two comments do make me think a wording revision is in order to make sure it is not intended to be stacked with other optional on-attack perks.
Great weapon master and Sharp Shooter I do think should be worded around, but not in a "not compatible with ability x or ability y" as that is a specific fix rather than a general one.

True Strike (modified)
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: -
Components: V, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful attack with a weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects.
What would be a good way to word that? regular weapon attack? normal attack damage? I don't think smite or sneak attack need to be worded out of being applicable as they have resources and conditionals controlling their use, but that flat +10 damage from GWM/SS is a red flag. Some way to indicate that they are not applicable because their condition (the -5 to hit) is no applicable.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-08, 12:38 AM

Oh no, an enemy caster gets to get an automatic weapon attack hit! However will the Fighter survive 1d6+2 points of damage per round?

Nets are a good point, though. It eats up an action to free, and restrains until freed, which is pretty powerful. That's really the only problem I can see, though, and it DOES require the caster to approach within 15'. Not an issue for an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster. Bit of an issue with a spindly Wizard.

If I were to modify True Strike to allow auto-hits, I'd probably just disallow its use with nets. Not super elegant, but functional. Or, if you want to be a little more elegant about it, make it so it simply does the damage the weapon would do on a hit, with no other effects. So the net does 0 damage.

Heh, that fighter really rolled some low HP, neh?

Mostly, getting the question, "How powerful is advantage?", answered would give a base to work with. Guiding Bolt is kinda TS-ish, with a requirement and some exotic damage. It's merely a 1st level spell, on a specific list. That can be reverse engineered for a cantrip perhaps. Afterall, disadvantage has already been done on an exclusive cantrip already, and is awesomely balanced and used.

A note on auto-hit, though: Fireball is auto-hit too. Maybe turning an attack roll into a saving throw would be the balance?

Zhorn

2019-05-08, 01:43 AM

A note on auto-hit, though: Fireball is auto-hit too. Maybe turning an attack roll into a saving throw would be the balance?

A saving throw may be interesting, though the save DC combined with the damaging modifier of the weapon hit could be a little MADdening.
Let's say; Dex saving throw, half damage if successful, causes weapon damage + modifier.
If the damage modifier is the same as the casting modifier, then it's a sub-optimal pick for STR/DEX gishes
If the damaging modifier is kept as the modifier appropriate for the weapon then casters will need to MAD themselves to get decent mileage out of it.
Then there's the success/failure outcome
If you don't have the half damage on a successful save, then the cantrip is outpaced by all other damaging cantrips too quickly for it to be worth while.
If you keep the half damage on success, your smite concern from #86 is here also
I think it's an interesting idea, and avoids advantage which is the hard part to balance around.
Ignoring my assumption on how I assume it would run; how would YOU run it?

Mjolnirbear

2019-05-08, 02:25 AM

Back to the first page, why is a bonus action cast time bad again? It was dismissed as too powerful, but the way I see it:

* full casters are rarely using melee attacks, and have only one attack in most cases.
* rogues have competing uses for their BA, and furthermore, are already generally expected to sneak attack every turn
* EKs is already one of the few builds where True Strike isn't useless
* warlocks (or blade locks) already have a far better cantrip in Eldritch Blast
* paladin, barbarians, Fighters, rangers, monks and rogues need to spend a precious feat or a level dip to get it; everything else has too many cantrip options and True Strike becoming competitive won't flip that

What am I missing? If someone would kindly give me the TLDR

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-08, 02:47 AM

A saving throw may be interesting, though the save DC combined with the damaging modifier of the weapon hit could be a little MADdening.
Let's say; Dex saving throw, half damage if successful, causes weapon damage + modifier.
If the damage modifier is the same as the casting modifier, then it's a sub-optimal pick for STR/DEX gishes
If the damaging modifier is kept as the modifier appropriate for the weapon then casters will need to MAD themselves to get decent mileage out of it.
Then there's the success/failure outcome
If you don't have the half damage on a successful save, then the cantrip is outpaced by all other damaging cantrips too quickly for it to be worth while.
If you keep the half damage on success, your smite concern from #86 is here also
I think it's an interesting idea, and avoids advantage which is the hard part to balance around.
Ignoring my assumption on how I assume it would run; how would YOU run it?

Presuming that any spell modifier is dependent upon the origin list, TS is either a Charisma or Intelligence spell. The save would conform to those rules, and would be a little MADdening. Transforming an 18 Str greatsword attack into a Dex save with a Cha/Int of 12 would yield 2d6+4, Dex save 11 for half, assuming levels 1-4. Any extra, like Sneak Attack or Smite, must be applied before the save and is considered a "rider", and a successful save ignores it. This is keeping with a Cantrips power level and current trends. And so...

True Strike

School: Divination
Level: Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Range: 30'
Target: self
Components: S, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

Gesturing at your foe, your movement is temporarily overridden and you strike with sudden alacritus insight, hitting all but the fastest opponent. As part of casting this spell, you must make a weapon attack at a target creature in within range, otherwise the spell fails. The attack is resolved as a non-critical automatic hit, with appropriate stat modifiers applied. The target is entitled to a Dex save for half damage. Any extra damage modifiers and/or conditions, such as Divine Smite, Sneak Attack, and Feat effects, are considered "riders" and are avoided on a successful save.

...Thoughts?

Zhorn

2019-05-08, 04:28 AM

Presuming that any spell modifier is dependent upon the origin list, TS is either a Charisma or Intelligence spell. The save would conform to those rules, and would be a little MADdening. Transforming an 18 Str greatsword attack into a Dex save with a Cha/Int of 12 would yield 2d6+4, Dex save 11 for half, assuming levels 1-4. Any extra, like Sneak Attack or Smite, must be applied before the save and is considered a "rider", and a successful save ignores it. This is keeping with a Cantrips power level and current trends. And so...

True Strike

School: Divination
Level: Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Range: 30'
Target: self
Components: S, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

Gesturing at your foe, your movement is temporarily overridden and you strike with sudden alacritus insight, hitting all but the fastest opponent. As part of casting this spell, you must make a weapon attack at a target creature in within range, otherwise the spell fails. The attack is resolved as a non-critical automatic hit, with appropriate stat modifiers applied. The target is entitled to a Dex save for half damage. Any extra damage modifiers and/or conditions, such as Divine Smite, Sneak Attack, and Feat effects, are considered "riders" and are avoided on a successful save.

...Thoughts?

I'm warm to the idea. It's more preferable to RAW True Strike, and utilising a saving throw does make it look like it would pair with EK's Eldritch Strike. But that still from level 10 onward, and until then BB and GFB are going to be more reliable for decent damage output on anything without a very high AC, and after that point they'll still have a high lead in damage potential.

Like I've said with mine; wording needs work. There shouldn't be a particular need to call out other specific abilities by name, just the condition/concept they fall under. That way if something is added/removed/ or changed in the game, you don't need to rewrite this spell.
Might want to look at another saving throw spell and use the wording layout as a template to neaten up the sentence structure, could probably knock it down to less than 2/3 word length and still cover all the points.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-08, 04:45 AM

What would be a good way to word that? regular weapon attack? normal attack damage? I don't think smite or sneak attack need to be worded out of being applicable as they have resources and conditionals controlling their use, but that flat +10 damage from GWM/SS is a red flag. Some way to indicate that they are not applicable because their condition (the -5 to hit) is no applicable.

1. That's level 4
2. Feats are an optional rule
3. - 5/+10 has always been broken, and many have swapped it out for - prof/+ double prof.
4. People housruling an entire cantrip have no trouble managing other rules ona case-by-case basis.

We really need someonr to start crunching some numbers on a DPR Calculator. Just remember that some races get a bonus cantrip at level 1, so it's applicable to any level ans be sure to make no calculations on level 4, since it's a notable power spike level due to Feats.

Zhorn

2019-05-08, 06:04 AM

1. That's level 4
2. Feats are an optional rule
3. - 5/+10 has always been broken, and many have swapped it out for - prof/+ double prof.
4. People housruling an entire cantrip have no trouble managing other rules ona case-by-case basis.

We really need someonr to start crunching some numbers on a DPR Calculator. Just remember that some races get a bonus cantrip at level 1, so it's applicable to any level ans be sure to make no calculations on level 4, since it's a notable power spike level due to Feats.

If it were to happen after level 5 I would care a little less, but it would still bother me as being over the top.
I'm also one of those folks doing the "-prof/+double prof" adjustment to GWM/SS, but even so I like to approach game design from a 'how does this interact with RAW' line of thinking. As such I'd like to have this version worded to be clear on the RAI interpretation.

Like we talked about on page 3, I'm adverse to having an auto-hit cantrip get any pluses to damage at baseline, and while GWM/SS take a feat to access it, the intended counterbalance to them is completely negated on an auto-hit. Smites are spending spell slots and so doesn't bother me since that's a resource expenditure, same for poisons. Sneak attacks have their own conditionals, and moving away from the advantage model is the best way to keep a relative power balance when dealing with rogues.

I've viewing GWM/SS's -5 to hit as the conditional. Don't meet the condition > don't get the bonus. But not everyone is going to share that view, so if they read the revised spell and don't see a worded clause that indicates if won't combo with GWM/SS, then they'll assume it can. And boom, we're into OP territory.

We want the version of True Strike to be good enough that it's a common and acceptable choice, but not so good that it's ALWAYS picked.

Yuroch Kern

2019-05-08, 09:56 AM

If it were to happen after level 5 I would care a little less, but it would still bother me as being over the top.
I'm also one of those folks doing the "-prof/+double prof" adjustment to GWM/SS, but even so I like to approach game design from a 'how does this interact with RAW' line of thinking. As such I'd like to have this version worded to be clear on the RAI interpretation.

Like we talked about on page 3, I'm adverse to having an auto-hit cantrip get any pluses to damage at baseline, and while GWM/SS take a feat to access it, the intended counterbalance to them is completely negated on an auto-hit. Smites are spending spell slots and so doesn't bother me since that's a resource expenditure, same for poisons. Sneak attacks have their own conditionals, and moving away from the advantage model is the best way to keep a relative power balance when dealing with rogues.

I've viewing GWM/SS's -5 to hit as the conditional. Don't meet the condition > don't get the bonus. But not everyone is going to share that view, so if they read the revised spell and don't see a worded clause that indicates if won't combo with GWM/SS, then they'll assume it can. And boom, we're into OP territory.

We want the version of True Strike to be good enough that it's a common and acceptable choice, but not so good that it's ALWAYS picked.

Part of the difficulty in wording is if you're not specific, then it's open to vast interpretations that may have unintended results. As has been pointed out, it can't be TOO good, or it's not a Cantrip. Also, the spell is invariably MAD, which also limits it a little. Someone who manages GWM at low level with TS is probably working on concept rather than min/maxing. The spell I present is a representation of how I would tackle it: the same Str 18, Chr/Int 12 uses GWM and the spell, so it would be 2d6+14, Dex save 11 for 1d6+2. Paladin tries to nova with Str 16, Chr 16, with Divine and Thunderous Smite: 1d8+3, +2d8, +2d6, Dex save 13 for roughly 1d4+1. Now use a poisoned +2 flaming greatsword at higher level with a Str 18, Cha/Int 14: 2d6+6+2d6 and poison, Dex save 12 for 1d6+3+1d6. High elf heavy crossbow with Dex 16, Int 18: 1d10+3, Dex save 14 for about 1d6+1. I had meant to include that inherent weapon qualities are not riders, and this incarnation of the spell would favor weapon quality. Also, since it's a Dex save, the spell would fare poorly against Evasion. Frankly, all Cantrips become backup at high levels, so it becoming less relevant is part of the curve. As far as scaling, it improves with character ability and the casting stat. Sorcerers hitting it with Metamagic could advance it farther, and messing with an opponent's Dex even more. Because it's already a little MAD, it kinda supports multiclassing too.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-08, 09:59 AM

I've viewing GWM/SS's -5 to hit as the conditional. Don't meet the condition > don't get the bonus. But not everyone is going to share that view, so if they read the revised spell and don't see a worded clause that indicates if won't combo with GWM/SS, then they'll assume it can. And boom, we're into OP territory.

This is actually a fair point, but hard to address.
"as long as you would have no penalties to the attack roll" might be a conditional that fits within 5e's traditional vagueness, but I'm not sure if it's the solution.
It does however make me smile, to make a Houserule that requires a RAW vs RAI thread discussing "is disadvantage considered a penalty to attack rolls?"
But maybe that makes it even more perfect. Look at all the Sage Advice needed to clarify some of the game's basic features. I've seen countless times someone stating "vagueness is a part of the game, and it is done deliberately. The game is designed for a GM, and it expects the rules to be interpreted by said GM"

Mechanically it works just fine saying "does not work with - 5/+10 Feats". It's just not as clean.
That's stíl the way I'm writing it in my document of Houserules.

Zhorn

2019-05-08, 10:33 AM

This is actually a fair point, but hard to address.
"as long as you would have no penalties to the attack roll" might be a conditional that fits within 5e's traditional vagueness, but I'm not sure if it's the solution.
It does however make me smile, to make a Houserule that requires a RAW vs RAI thread discussing "is disadvantage considered a penalty to attack rolls?"
But maybe that makes it even more perfect. Look at all the Sage Advice needed to clarify some of the game's basic features. I've seen countless times someone stating "vagueness is a part of the game, and it is done deliberately. The game is designed for a GM, and it expects the rules to be interpreted by said GM"

Mechanically it works just fine saying "does not work with - 5/+10 Feats". It's just not as clean.
That's stíl the way I'm writing it in my document of Houserules.

I'd be thinking more in line with (as I was failing to figure out the wording for in #104) "a normal weapon hit" in a way that makes it clear using GWM/SS is not a normal weapon hit. Smites and sneak attacks can ride on a normal weapon hit, so it shouldn't cause any disruption there, but GWM and SS are declared as a special attack before their roll to hit is made.

"as long as you would have no penalties to the attack roll" I think would be overshooting the goal on this one, with the theme of the spell to have the attack reliable guided to hit the target, striking true. Blocking it from being used via disadvantage, half cover, and three quarter cover, makes it too easy to shut down.
Right level of general vagueness though, as it would block GWM/SS without naming them in particular, and if any other ability was introduced (either official or homebrew) that followed a similar mechanic, it would also be covered under the wording.

Zhorn

2019-05-08, 11:03 AM

True Strike (modified)
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: -
Components: V, S, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful attack with a weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects.
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful regular attack with your currently equipped weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers weapon damage and effects as if hit by a regular attack.

An attempt at rewording it. Does this sound like it bars GWM/SS attacks?

Also, figured this should be a V,S,M spell. Verbal with some arcane words, declaration, or a prayer, and Somatic for the Babe Ruth style gesture towards the intended target. I figure it shouldn't be subtle when your doing a true strike, as it should carry the thematic nature of a called shot.

JNAProductions

2019-05-08, 11:32 AM

An attempt at rewording it. Does this sound like it bars GWM/SS attacks?

Also, figured this should be a V,S,M spell. Verbal with some arcane words, declaration, or a prayer, and Somatic for the Babe Ruth style gesture towards the intended target. I figure it shouldn't be subtle when your doing a true strike, as it should carry the thematic nature of a called shot.

I'd just leave it at damage. Otherwise, nets.

Zhorn

2019-05-09, 10:43 AM

I'd just leave it at damage. Otherwise, nets.

I would have first thought nets would be considered a special type of attack, but seems thay are a regular attacks and the conditions of it's specialness are just a bunch of well chosen traits my the designers. range 5/15 means without crossbow expert or sharpshooter, it's meant to almost always be with disadvantage, and you right net restraint is rather strong if you have a group ready to gang up on a successfully netted creature. I'd like to keep "weapon damage and effects" as a indication bonus effects from magic items and similar would still come into play, along with it being rider compatible for smite/sneak attack (assuming conditions are met for the later).
How about defining it as "one successful regular damage dealing attack with your currently equipped weapon"? edit: scratch that, make it part of the material component requirement instead?
I'd like to keep the language as simple and precise on this as possible without getting TOO specific.
Anyway, we get to:

True Strike (modified)
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: -
Components: V, S, M (a weapon capable of dealing damage)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful regular attack with your currently equipped weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers weapon damage and effects as if hit by a regular attack.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-11, 04:25 AM

Ironheart

2019-05-11, 05:29 AM

I would do a funky ‘charge up’ mechanic, affecting a weapon user’s damage, and maybe spell damage as well. Something like this:

True Strike (modified)
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Special
Components: V, S
Duration: Conc. up to 1 round

When you cast this spell, you choose either to cast another spell or make a weapon attack on your next turn. If you cast another spell (which you choose when casting True Strike), you can make one target roll with disadvantage on that spell’s saving throw if it has one. If you make a weapon attack, roll the damage the attack would deal. If you hit your next attack, you add that damage to the roll.

I’d like for the spell to have enough reward that those who use a cantrip slot for it can feel like they influence things moderately well. I think the design balance lies within the fact that the user has to wait a round before he gets his ‘pay-off’, which still has an inherent risk of his next roll going poorly. I feel as though the advantage mechanic already addresses the situation where a character wants to make an impossible shot, for instance, given that advantage can range from a +1 to a +19 bonus, depending on how the dice is rolled.

Part of the risk, as well, is giving time for enemies to react. A rogue ‘charging’ up wouldn’t get sneak attack from both damage rolls if a savvy enough enemy disengages and prevents the rogue from getting advantage or having an ally within 5 feet.

By limiting the effect on AoE spells, this cantrip feels much better at giving a ‘I want you to die in particular’ feel. Also, the concentration makes it so holding onto an important spell like Haste or Slow or Bane gives the spellcaster less damage potential.

Zhorn

2019-05-11, 08:04 AM

I wrote this on my character sheet, and it instantly became a non-decision, at level 3 it is wastly superior to just taking an attack action.
I'm gonna be using "only does weapon + mod damage" and I'll work from there. It'll probably require scaling, at least 1d8 at level 5, if not more.
I'm an EK, so Smite and Sneak Attacks aren't applicable.
I'm inclined to think this is the way to go, but only time can tell. It increases the minimum damage, but doesn't increase the damage ceiling.

I still strongly disagree with any direct damage increasing cooked baseline into the cantrip, especially since the whole shtick of what True Strike is about is accuracy, and if you go for accuracy + power then you'll end up at the some point of being superior to the attack action under more circumstances than intended.

A compromise between accuracy only and a level scaling cantrip might be to take the for of 1d4 to hit like a few others have mentions, bake that into a weapon attack cantrip such as what we've been doing, and have that bonus accuracy dice scale up under the same level breakpoints as the other cantrips

True Strike (modified)
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: -
Components: V, S, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a weapon attack with your currently equipped weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. As a benefit of this spell, you add 1d4 to the roll to hit.
This spell's bonus to hit increases by 1d4 when you reach 5th level (2d4), 11th level (3d4), and 17th level (4d4).

This reintroduces both a chance to miss into the attack with the chance to crit.
Levels 1 to 4: +1 to +4 bonus to hit.
Levels 5 to 10: +2 to +8 bonus to hit.
Levels 11 to 16: +3 to +12 bonus to hit.
Levels 17 to 20: +4 to +16 bonus to hit.

Not as strong as an auto hit, but scales up to be almost as good as one at higher levels.
I'd say at low levels (1-4) is would be comparable to the power level of GFB on a standard array character.

Nhorianscum

2019-05-11, 08:21 AM

LibraryOgre

2019-05-11, 08:56 AM

I still strongly disagree with any direct damage increasing cooked baseline into the cantrip, especially since the whole shtick of what True Strike is about is accuracy, and if you go for accuracy + power then you'll end up at the some point of being superior to the attack action under more circumstances than intended.

A compromise between accuracy only and a level scaling cantrip might be to take the for of 1d4 to hit like a few others have mentions, bake that into a weapon attack cantrip such as what we've been doing, and have that bonus accuracy dice scale up under the same level breakpoints as the other cantrips

This reintroduces both a chance to miss into the attack with the chance to crit.
Levels 1 to 4: +1 to +4 bonus to hit.
Levels 5 to 10: +2 to +8 bonus to hit.
Levels 11 to 16: +3 to +12 bonus to hit.
Levels 17 to 20: +4 to +16 bonus to hit.

Not as strong as an auto hit, but scales up to be almost as good as one at higher levels.
I'd say at low levels (1-4) is would be comparable to the power level of GFB on a standard array character.

I like this approach, as well. It strikes a good middle ground between the auto-hit, and preserves the ability to have criticals, but also to have misses.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-11, 09:13 AM

I like this approach, as well. It strikes a good middle ground between the auto-hit, and preserves the ability to have criticals, but also to have misses.

I like it, it preserves the delicate balance of lower levels, yet includes enough scaling to still be relative post-5.
Bonus action, applying to attack rolls and saving throws, or Greenflame-type cantrip?

LibraryOgre

2019-05-11, 09:21 AM

Zhorn

2019-05-11, 09:22 AM

I like it, it preserves the delicate balance of lower levels, yet includes enough scaling to still be relative post-5.
Bonus action, applying to attack rolls and saving throws, or Greenflame-type cantrip?

No to bonus action, it's an action cantrip with the attack baked in like GFB or BB.
No to saving throws or stacking onto other types of attacks rolls, that's Bless.

There's a point in design where you have to look at all the things you want to do and stop yourself from getting greedy :smallwink:

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-11, 09:57 AM

I already wrote it on, before you answered xD
Looks pretty cool on my character sheet:

Weapon Cantrip
Action, 5 feet
Attack: +5 vs. AC
Damage: 1d8+5 Slashing Damage

Greenflame: On hit, deal 2 fire damage to a different creature I can see within 5 feet of my target or:
True Strike: +1d4 to hit.

Edit: At level 5, I get better DPR from using Greenflame Blade (against 2 targets) or Extra attack (against 1 target), even against high AC opponents. I even get 0,1 better DPR from using Greenflame blade against one target (because of the extra 1d8) than I get from getting +2d4 on the attack roll. I actually get less DPR even if the hit chance is 100%, which seems silly. Am i doing something terribly wrong here? This basically means that even though it's more accurate, I'm better off crossing my fingers with extra attack or greenflame blade :/
Maybe this changes at level 7 with War Magic?

Maybe True Strike is just more intended for silly gishes, paladins and rouges, and not EKs :/

Suggested fix: Add some sort of utility or niche, since straight-up numbers end up either being too strong or too weak.
If we boost the numbers to deal OK damage, it becomes an auto-pick...

JNAProductions

2019-05-11, 12:36 PM

+1d4 to-hit does NOT need to scale.

Guidance doesn’t.
Bless doesn’t.
But they’re both top-notch spells.

Bjarkmundur

2019-05-11, 01:07 PM

Zhorn

2019-05-11, 08:35 PM

This is true, as displayed via my comment "even at 100% hit chance, EA and GFB are better". It doesn't matter how much precision you give an attack. If the damage is still inadequate, the DPR comes out lacking. This is the predicament with True Strike. It might get your accuracy up to the 90s, but the payoff isn't there.

If True Strike is intended to be presented as an option (to an EK, in this case) it would necessitate at least 1d4 bonus damage at level 1 and 2d4 bonus damage at levels 5.
But doing so makes it too strong for other classes, better suited to utilize it, such as ATs and Paladins.

This begs the question; where does True Strike shine?

Edit: The more I play around with the DPR calculator, the more confused I get.
Edit 2: How exactly is GFB getting away with +2d8 bonus damage at level 5? :O

When looking at ability balance, it's not all just about raw damage (or DPR if you rather think in those terms), there is also a degree of applicability (in how versatile the ability is and in how many different situations it can be used) along with its synergentic property (how well it works with and off other abilities).
This is why when crunching numbers, you'll end up with vastly different outcomes between abilities, because after enough factors come into play it's comparing apples to oranges.

Talking strictly in terms of Eldritch Knight using a 1d8 weapon;
If looking at a single melee attack (levels 1-4, using 1 Action), Green-Flame Blade will come out ahead as the superior pick in terms of damage.
Switch to comparing GFB against Extra Attack (levels 5-6), the numbers depend on your ability score modifiers as to what takes the lead. Have good INT + STR/DEX? GFB it is. Only have a good STR/DEX but not INT? Extra Attack is stronger.
Get War Magic and levels 7-10 become Cantrip priority in using GFB and using the Bonus action attack to pull ahead. Already using your bonus action for something else? Then the Attack Action is still stronger.

^ This is all old hat for anyone who's played an EK, but it's to demonstrate the point of the priorities flipping about as more stuff comes into play.
Eg: using a bow at range instead of attacking? GFB doesn't even apply to the scenario any more, as GFB is strictly melee.

Now throwing the 1d4 version of modified True Strike into the mix;

True Strike (modified)
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: -
Components: V, S, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a weapon attack with your currently equipped weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. As a benefit of this spell, you add 1d4 to the roll to hit.
This spell's bonus to hit increases by 1d4 when you reach 5th level (2d4), 11th level (3d4), and 17th level (4d4).
And in areas where GFB wouldn't apply, this version of TS would come out ahead for levels 1-4 and 7-10 (assuming no need of bonus actions in the later). The trade off is power vs reliability, with the focus being less of maximised potential damage, and instead getting reliable damage when you need it. The power aspect of the modified TS is with its diverse synergy in gish builds rather than being specialised into strictly melee only.
Only have a single attack and really need it to land? TS.
Have a high AC opponent? TS will probably get you further than GFB.
And now being back on the d20 as opposed to that auto-hit version I have on an earlier page;

True Strike (modified)
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: -
Components: V, S, M (a weapon capable of dealing damage)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you make one successful regular attack with your currently equipped weapon against one creature within the that weapon's range/reach, otherwise the spell fails. When hit, the target suffers weapon damage and effects as if hit by a regular attack.
it would qualify for the -5 to hit penalty of GWM/SS to get that +10 to damage.
Or looking at net such as JNAProductions was bringing attention to. Nets deal no damage but are considerably powerful when you have them land. This d4 version of TS will synergies with nets without making it an overpowered option as it would be under an auto-hit system.

You are right in that this version of TS does not compete well with GFB, and it shouldn't. It's playing a different game in addressing a different set of scenarios being stronger in different areas. And that's a good thing. If you look to make an ability on the same tier as something else AND be better than it, then you're just removing the reason for that other ability to exist in the first place.

Speaking of;

Weapon Cantrip
Action, 5 feet
Attack: +5 vs. AC
Damage: 1d8+5 Slashing Damage
Greenflame: On hit, deal 2 fire damage to a different creature I can see within 5 feet of my target.
True Strike: +1d4 to hit.
When I said "it's an action cantrip with the attack baked in like GFB or BB", I meant it behaved like BB or GFB in having an attack as part of the spell, not casting BB or GFB as part of TS. That's two cantrips in one you have written there.

Moving on

+1d4 to-hit does NOT need to scale.

Guidance doesn’t.
Bless doesn’t.
But they’re both top-notch spells.
Which I can understand where you're coming from, but there's also a few differences in application between these abilities to consider.
This True Strike is strictly a weapon attack roll
Guidance is for ability checks, and is mostly for out of combat scenarios (in combat the caster gets farm more value out of performing their own action).
Bless applies to all saving throws giving it a strong defensive utility, and is not limited to a single attack in an action, so it scales with Extra Attack (and all weapon and spell attack rolls in general) giving it a very strong offensive presence on the field. It also does scale by spell level, but by number of targets that it is cast on.
This is that variability/synergy vs speciality concept I was touching on earlier.
Bless a level 20 fighter before they go on an action surge attack nova round, that 1d4 to EVERY attack they make is going to go a long way, a far bigger impact than a single attack cantrip adding 4d4 to the 'to hit' roll.
Like before: apples to oranges

Still I do prefer the auto-hit version I've been working at. But I do recognise that it's hard to work around the clear power advantage it presents before Extra attack at level 5 corrects the imbalance (which I maintain isn't game breaking, just less than ideal).

Segev

2019-05-12, 10:35 AM

True strike’s problem in both 3e and 5e is that it is a lost round to prepare an attack that is presumed to be likely to hit. In 3e, the flat-out +20 to hit plus negating all penalties for concealment meant it was situationally useful for tough but important shots. It also was 1st level, and still considered weak for first level.

As a cantrip in 5e, especially with bounded accuracy, adding +20 is excessive, even with the fact that it takes an extra round of casting to prep it. Giving Advantage, however, is weak because rolling twice and taking the better roll is almost always worse than rolling twice and taking both rolls. Plus, it is negated by Disadvantage, and there are numerous other ways to gain Advantage that don’t take a cantrip and an action and concentration to set up. It’s not even useful to the Arcane Trickster for setting up Sneak Attack, since he can Hide as a bonus action to gain Advantage on an attack in the same round.

As a cantrip, it can’t push the result higher than 20 on the die, or at least not much. +1d4 seems okay, but the action to cast is far costlier in combat than Guidance’s usual non-combat uses are. Guidance can also be cast on others. And let’s not get started on Resistance, which really isn’t useful due to its short duration and the unpredictable nature of when it will be needed.

Guaranteeing Advantage regardless of Disadvantage-causing circumstances seems right to me for spending an action and using Concentration. If you don’t like that, then a more fitting effect would be guaranteeing a hit, and only rolling to check for criticals. No granting of Advantage at all; if you need Advantage to proc another effect, get it from somewhere else. Disadvantage is effectively negated by the can’t-miss nature of the attack, save for making crits even less likely.

But in any event, it needs to be better than just attacking twice, and it needs to be better than having your familiar use the Help action to give you Advantage.

Guaranteed Advantage or a guaranteed hit would do this.

Moxxmix

2019-05-13, 02:53 PM

My own idea of a revised version:

True Strike

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Duration: 1 minute; Concentration

While the spell is in effect, True Strike ensures that you cannot miss. If you make an attack roll that misses, the attack's normal effect is still applied. After you miss an attack, the spell ends.

At 5th level, the effect lasts through 2 missed attacks. At 11th level, the effect lasts through 3 missed attacks. At 17th level, the effect lasts through 4 missed attacks.

---

There's still value in getting advantage normally (both for crit chances, and things like Sneak Attack). It helps provide a safety net against disadvantage. It scales up in value with your level.

I considered the impact on abilities like GWM, and reworded the spell effect slightly. Rather than turning a miss into a "hit", it just says that the attack's normal effect still applies even when you miss. In the case of GWM, since you did not roll an actual hit on the attack, the bonus damage does not apply.

Since it still takes a regular action to cast, it's not really beneficial to recast in combat, but it should still be useful even if you cast it once in the first round of combat rather than casting before combat starts.

Zhorn

2019-05-13, 05:00 PM

Moxxmix

2019-05-14, 04:38 PM

@Moxxmix,
That's an interesting take on it. Might want to have some clearer definition of what a normal effect versus a bonus effect is. For abilities like Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade, normal effect is used to reference the weapon hit
"On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and..."
And so a reasonable conclusion could be drawn that anything after the 'and' is the bonus effect.
Using that logic, does that mean Sneak Attacks, Smites, Great Weapon Master, Sharp Shooter, etc, are all bonus effects too? Unless 'bonus' is used in the abilities description, or there is some wording what the cut off point is to the attacks normal effect, there's going to be a little back and forth over what does or does not qualify.
Going for a general description like you have is a good approach, and one I've advocated for in this thread already. Just the wording used could still be touched up a bit to be more clear, more concrete.

Yeah, the wording isn't the best.

I was reluctant to allow it to affect an attack that uses GWM or SS because those bonuses are specifically gained due to sacrificing your to-hit chance. Bypassing the to-hit portion and still gaining the benefit feels too much like a cheat. I'm less sure how it should interact with things like Sneak Attack, Smite, Green-Flame Blade, etc. Those are normal aspects of an attack, but would be excluded if I remove the ability to add a 'bonus' effect to an attack result.

I suppose an alternate way of building it would be something like:

"While the spell is in effect, you may replace any attack roll you make with a result of 15. Once used in this way, the spell ends." (Increase the number of times it can be used at higher cantrip levels, as before.)

Most attacks should hit if you roll a 15, although GWM/SS might still miss because they would then modify the roll to be a 10, and it also doesn't save you from being way out of your depth. Secondary effects would all still come into play, so you'd still get Sneak Attack, Smite, etc. Since it's a 15, it won't ever be a crit. It's sort of a way to make use of Concentration as a way to aim, making sure a swing doesn't miss as long as the caster can hold concentration.

So, burn your Concentration slot to avoid missing an attack for as long as you can maintain it. Is that reasonable at Cantrip level?

Math thoughts:

Most hit rates for common stuff are vaguely around a 50% hit chance. That is, if you roll a 10, you're probably going to hit. Suppose you had a +5 to-hit, and needed to hit an AC of 15. Advantage will average a 14, disadvantage will average a 7. This version of True Strike would benefit the advantaged roll 20% of the time, the normal roll 50% of the time, and the disadvantaged roll 70% of the time. (The rest of the time, the original roll would have hit already.)

If you manage four attacks during the combat, this would be useful to the person with advantage about 60% of the time, the normal attacker 95% of the time, and the disadvantaged attacker 99% of the time. More or less, you're trading one action at the start of the fight for the assurance that you can fix that time you're going to miss during the fight.

Looking at the math, it's only a small benefit, since you're trading out one action to ensure another attack doesn't miss, and the results will tend to be a wash. (This includes accounting for higher levels, where you're trading a round of multi-attacks for multiple fixed misses.) However it's a nice benefit for the player, because unfortunate misses can be incredibly frustrating.