Retooling True Strike, Looking for Feedback

[Talin]

Within my regular group we have all more or less come to the conclusion that True Strike as a Cantrip in the PHB is just for all intents and purposes impractical for use in combat. With that in mind I was thinking about it yet again this evening and finally thought to myself "I can just rewrite it as a 1st level spell". So here it is, let me know if its in a good place or not, or if someone has already beaten me to the punch here. (I'm assuming yes seeing as this game has been out nearly 6 years now.)

True Strike
1st-Level Divination

Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

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. You gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn't ended.

I'm guessing it would be sound enough all things considered, but I'm all ears here.

[Segev]

My personal fix for it, regardless of whether the casting time is changed or not, is to make it so that the affected attack cannot have disadvantage and has advantage. What this does is ensure advantage even if something else would have given disadvantage.

I don’t think what you have here is worth a first level spell slot, though. Just changing the casting time to a bonus action doesn’t make it good enough to be a cantrip, in my opinion.

As a first level spell, it should either auto crit or all but ensure a hit. With bonus-action casting, maybe you could make it “merely” set the d20 to 18 before bonuses. If it is a standard action, then it should just auto-crit.

[Zhorn]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?586969-Fixing-True-Strike

Take a walk down memory lane, there are discussions on a bunch of different fixes for True Strike, including the one you propose here.
Have a read, grab any parts you like, and quote them out here if you'd like to continue the conversation (posting directly into that thread will just get it necro-locked, so here in this thread would be better)

As with most cantrip fixing, you'll want to look at where you see this fitting in on the power scale compared to other cantrips, who will have access to it, who will actually WANT to use it, and how it will alter play.

[Yuroch Kern]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?586969-Fixing-True-Strike

Take a walk down memory lane, there are discussions on a bunch of different fixes for True Strike, including the one you propose here.
Have a read, grab any parts you like, and quote them out here if you'd like to continue the conversation (posting directly into that thread will just get it necro-locked, so here in this thread would be better)

As with most cantrip fixing, you'll want to look at where you see this fitting in on the power scale compared to other cantrips, who will have access to it, who will actually WANT to use it, and how it will alter play.

Ah yes, good times. As it is written, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, Valor Bards, and any Monk that picks it up are about the only ones that really get use, unless you use nets, then the Sorcerer too. I use it on mine, pretty effective actually...

[Myth27]

Within my regular group we have all more or less come to the conclusion that True Strike as a Cantrip in the PHB is just for all intents and purposes impractical for use in combat. With that in mind I was thinking about it yet again this evening and finally thought to myself "I can just rewrite it as a 1st level spell". So here it is, let me know if its in a good place or not, or if someone has already beaten me to the punch here. (I'm assuming yes seeing as this game has been out nearly 6 years now.)

True Strike
1st-Level Divination

Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

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. You gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn't ended.

I'm guessing it would be sound enough all things considered, but I'm all ears here.
yeah I think it can work, I don't think ti's OP.


My personal fix for it, regardless of whether the casting time is changed or not, is to make it so that the affected attack cannot have disadvantage and has advantage. What this does is ensure advantage even if something else would have given disadvantage.

I don’t think what you have here is worth a first level spell slot, though. Just changing the casting time to a bonus action doesn’t make it good enough to be a cantrip, in my opinion.

As a first level spell, it should either auto crit or all but ensure a hit. With bonus-action casting, maybe you could make it “merely” set the d20 to 18 before bonuses. If it is a standard action, then it should just auto-crit.

nice one, I didn't think about this possibility, I like it.

[Pleh]

True Strike as a Cantrip in the PHB is just for all intents and purposes impractical for use in combat.

It is mechanically almost identical to taking the Help action in combat, except it has a range of 30ft (normally you must be within 5ft) and requires concentration for the round (meaning you could be concentrating on a different spell while taking the Help action, if you were within 5ft of the enemy).

The Animated Spellbook on Youtube did a great episode on both the impracticality of True Strike and the occasional utility of the Help action. True Strike is a bit of a trap, because in previous editions, it had more teeth, but the Help action isn't totally useless. It's a bit rare, but sometimes only some people in the party can deal meaningful damage in combat, so increasing their effectiveness becomes more efficient than each person trying to attack. It's a great option for weaker combat characters like if the party has lower level hirelings who might struggle to hit the monster's AC and deal small damage on a hit, whereas they can give advantage to the powerful PCs who are going to be the encounter winners no matter what.

Since Help and True Strike are nearly identical, they have similar applications. It's not great to say, "this spell is mostly for sidekick characters" but that's what the action economy says.

I like Segev's answer. Guarantee Advantage. Seems easy to remember and implement and worthy of taking over other spell options.

[Yuroch Kern]

Well, a bonus action True Strike as it is would make Cantrip blasters very brutal, especially a Warlock managing to pick it up. But the slotted spell you made is great, since its' use isn't delayed, which was one of the biggest flaws it had.

[Tanarii]

I ended up coming to the conclusion there was no fixing it. Easy advantage is too powerful, and by the time you put a bunch of constraints around it it's just not worth it for a caster, who has so few attack roll spells.

It's fairly weak on the typical caster, but if you make it powerful enough to be worth it, it's ridiculously broken on a GISH

In other words, it's a good study case for developers, but shouldn't be allowed in play. Just like the SCAG cantrips.

[Segev]

I ended up coming to the conclusion there was no fixing it. Easy advantage is too powerful, and by the time you put a bunch of constraints around it it's just not worth it for a caster, who has so few attack roll spells.

It's fairly weak on the typical caster, but if you make it powerful enough to be worth it, it's ridiculously broken on a GISH

In other words, it's a good study case for developers, but shouldn't be allowed in play. Just like the SCAG cantrips.

I think it becomes useful in enough niche cases without being useful in all with my change to it DEFINITELY giving Advantage. It's good for sniping, or for when one hit every other round is more solid than potentially 1-2 hits each round (e.g. when Advantage gives more than just two shots at rolling well enough to hit, such as for rogues with sneak attack).

[Zhorn]

I ended up coming to the conclusion there was no fixing it. Easy advantage is too powerful, and by the time you put a bunch of constraints around it it's just not worth it for a caster, who has so few attack roll spells.

It's fairly weak on the typical caster, but if you make it powerful enough to be worth it, it's ridiculously broken on a GISH
Yep, I remember getting to that conclusion in the other thread

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.
With some back and forths (suggest reading the other thread for context, quotes kept to jump to relevant sections) these were the two versions I feel comfortable standing by a year later.


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.
Basic concept is a guaranteed weapon hit, no attack roll means no crit chance, and the further intent of not being able to apply the -5 to hit penalty it disqualifies use with GWM and SS.

The other version reintroducing attack rolls


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.

Both are using BB / GFB as the basic structure, but intentionally not including any additional damage component as part of the cantrip (avoiding power creep).
Taking an action means classes with Extra Attack will still favour multiple chances to hit for more damage, but when getting A hit is more important, this is where it comes in.
Action Cantrip gives EK compatibility with War Magic
Not being a Bonus Action allows AT to still dash/disengage/hide etc
Sorcerer based gish builds can meta magic quicken + twin to get off 3 attacks in a round
Warcaster compatible
Concentration free
Immediate payoff

lots of discussion about building these versions in the old thread.

[Damon_Tor]

A DM I play with did something I was surprised by recently when a player used True Strike: she actually took the sentence "Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses" seriously. In addition to getting advantage on his next turn, he was told what damage types the creature was resistant to and which of his saves were the weakest (in relative, narrativist terms, not "his fortitude save is +4 but his will save is -1", but rather "you sense he would be more vulnerable to spells targeting his mind than his body").

It's honestly something I never considered doing, always just glossing over that sentence as flavor text. Which, to be fair, it is, but it also wasn't an inappropriate reading.

[Segev]

A DM I play with did something I was surprised by recently when a player used True Strike: she actually took the sentence "Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses" seriously. In addition to getting advantage on his next turn, he was told what damage types the creature was resistant to and which of his saves were the weakest (in relative, narrativist terms, not "his fortitude save is +4 but his will save is -1", but rather "you sense he would be more vulnerable to spells targeting his mind than his body").

It's honestly something I never considered doing, always just glossing over that sentence as flavor text. Which, to be fair, it is, but it also wasn't an inappropriate reading.

That is an interesting approach, and would give the spell more utility as a divination.

[Damon_Tor]

That is an interesting approach, and would give the spell more utility as a divination.

It me feel like a dumbass for not thinking of it. One of those moments that make you want to kick yourself; it's RIGHT THERE in the text of the spell. And there's enough leeway for the DM to give whatever information he feels is relevant.

[Pleh]

A DM I play with did something I was surprised by recently when a player used True Strike: she actually took the sentence "Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses" seriously. In addition to getting advantage on his next turn, he was told what damage types the creature was resistant to and which of his saves were the weakest (in relative, narrativist terms, not "his fortitude save is +4 but his will save is -1", but rather "you sense he would be more vulnerable to spells targeting his mind than his body").

It's honestly something I never considered doing, always just glossing over that sentence as flavor text. Which, to be fair, it is, but it also wasn't an inappropriate reading.


That is an interesting approach, and would give the spell more utility as a divination.


It me feel like a dumbass for not thinking of it. One of those moments that make you want to kick yourself; it's RIGHT THERE in the text of the spell. And there's enough leeway for the DM to give whatever information he feels is relevant.

Also, True Strike only requires the Somatic Component of pointing at your target. You could likely perform this cantrip pretty discreetly to get tactical info outside of combat.

[Asisreo1]

The true fix to True Strike is to ban it because you can't hate what doesn't exist.

[Talin]

A DM I play with did something I was surprised by recently when a player used True Strike: she actually took the sentence "Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses" seriously. In addition to getting advantage on his next turn, he was told what damage types the creature was resistant to and which of his saves were the weakest (in relative, narrativist terms, not "his fortitude save is +4 but his will save is -1", but rather "you sense he would be more vulnerable to spells targeting his mind than his body").

It's honestly something I never considered doing, always just glossing over that sentence as flavor text. Which, to be fair, it is, but it also wasn't an inappropriate reading.

Considering that JUST giving advantage on an attack roll might be a tad lackluster, doing something akin to the Battle Master Fighters Measuring Up ability would certainly help flesh out the spell some more, like letting the Caster know the Monsters AC or Weakest Saving Throw.

[Asisreo1]

Considering that JUST giving advantage on an attack roll might be a tad lackluster, doing something akin to the Battle Master Fighters Measuring Up ability would certainly help flesh out the spell some more, like letting the Caster know the Monsters AC or Weakest Saving Throw.

In my opinion, just being able to choose a resistance, vulnerability, or weakest saving throw is enough to justify a cantrip. It'd actually cause interesting choices, even from a cantrip.