The uselessness of True Strike - can it even be fixed?

[Segev]

Would true strike even be worth using if it were a bonus-action cast and read, "On your next attack against the target this turn, you have Advantage?"

[Sception]

That might honestly be a bit much if it didn't take concentration, but if it did take concentration I still don't see it getting much use. Maybe instead:

True Strike, Cantrip, 1 action, V-S, 30 foot range, Duration 1 round.
As an action choose one creature within range. That creature has advantage on their next attack role made before the end of your next turn.
At higher levels: Starting at level 5, the attack deals an additional d6 force damage if it hits. At level 11: 2d6 force damage. At level 17: 3d6 force damage.

Still takes an action, but no concentration, and you can pass the benefit off to someone else who might be able to make better use of it than you, sort of like a ranged help action but only for attacks. Also it gains some scaling bonus damage at higher levels like other attack cantrips.

Casting the spell to boost someone else's attack also fits with one of the most iconic pop culture reference points:

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/28/a1/ae/28a1ae61130e5b605753586e7b096edc--disney-disney-disney-stuff.jpg

[ProsecutorGodot]

I was actually very partial to an item you get in Baldurs Gate 3 that automatically cast it when you missed an attack.

We should start on what could be considered "strong" because it gives us a lot of room to work with. I'm honestly not even sure it's all that great but I might even just try having it be "reaction: gain advantage on your next attack against the target. Trigger: when you miss an attack."

Reasoning: Advantage isn't that hard to get, reaction is a heavy cost.

[Willie the Duck]

Would true strike even be worth using if it were a bonus-action cast and read, "On your next attack against the target this turn, you have Advantage?"

Given that the only spell you can cast after a bonus action spell is a cantrip and an iconic 'single big attack' effect are the (now misnamed) SCAGtrips, I can see a lot of people using the two in combination. It would be a use where it would be worth using, but honestly not a place where a melee caster needed boosting.

Before fixing True Strike, I think it might be helpful to figure out to what game mechanic area you think it ought to apply (the thematic concept is pretty solid: you cast a spell to make yourself better at fighting for a brief moment). My hot take is that the spell was designed under the assumption that there would be spells similar to 3e Disintegrate, where you need to land a high-level attack spell or else it is wasted (but if it does land, it justifies the additional expense of actions and spell choices). Since those didn't materialize in the game we got, what is True Strike's purpose? Do you want it to be a boost for fighty-caster types (like Eldritch Knight)? In that case, maybe make it still cost an action, but it apply to a full turn of attacks--so an EK might cast it one round, still getting movement and bonus actions, and then get their next round (which they can Action Surge for maximum effectiveness) full of advantage attacks*. Do you want it as a boost for semi-gishes, like the proverbial cleric1/wizardx-1 with a SCAGtrip? Well then the version you suggested would be good.
*exactly why you would play a Samurai, with this option on the table, is a good question.

[Kireban]

Just make it a bonus action. If you make it work on the next attack too it might be too strong.

[RogueJK]

Would true strike even be worth using if it were a bonus-action cast and read, "On your next attack against the target this turn, you have Advantage?"

Just making it a Bonus Action without any other cost is overcorrecting too far.

It would actually make it basically a must-have, turning into the default Bonus Action option for times when you didn't have something else specific to do with your Bonus Action, and you don't already have Advantage from another source.

They already have that mechanic of "Bonus Action Advantage" with the Rogue's new Steady Aim from Tasha's, but that requires 3+ Rogue class levels to access, and also further requires that you not move for the entire round.

Just straight-up "Bonus Action Advantage" with no other requirements is way too much. Even if it required Concentration, that would help tone it down a little for the Casters when they're Concentrating on something better, but still leave it wide open as the default Bonus Action for Martials with a caster dip or Magic Initiate feat, or for Casters who aren't otherwise Concentrating, and it would therefore still be way too good.


Off the top of my head, one way to raise the cost and render it only occasionally useful might be something like making it "Reckless Attack Light", by keeping it a Bonus Action with Advantage on the next attack roll, but then giving attacks against you Advantage until the next turn. (Or perhaps just the first attack roll against you before the next turn has Advantage.) This makes it a risky but potentially useful option for times when you really want to land that attack/spell. Flavor it like "The magic allows you to focusing hard on landing that one attack roll, but in return it dulls your senses and reflexes so that you're not able to dodge as well that turn". Call it "Tunnel Vision". :smallbiggrin:

This would mean it's no longer a definite go-to for every character in every situation, and wouldn't overshadow the Rogue's Steady Aim, while still making it more useful than in its current state for times when the benefit outweighs the cost.

[Blood of Gaea]

I could see it being a blade cantrip. Replace the rider damage with "the next time you attack this creature before the end of your next turn, you make the attack with advantage", then tack some scaling damage on at 5th, 11th, and 17th level.

[Sorinth]

It depends on what you want. Do you want it to be a good spell that every Gish uses, or do you want it to be situationally useful but not something that get spammed?

My preference would be to make it a buff to allies, so something like choose a target within 60ft that gets advantage on their next attack roll and not have it cost concentration. It's not super strong but would probably see some use.

But I could see something like having it be a concentration spell that lasts a minute and grants you a bonus to hit with weapons equal to your spell casting mod. It would still cost an action to cast and take concentration so although it's a strong buff there's opportunity cost associated with it so is probably not something that is spammed.

[Segev]

In 3e, true strike took a round's standard action to cast, and lasted long enough to apply to the next round, just like in 5e. But what it did there was give you +20 to the roll to hit, making it highly unlikely you'd miss.

What if true strike in 5e had all the same mechanics for casting and Concentration and what attack it applies to, but instead of Advantage, it extends your crit range to 2-20? That is, you automatically hit and crit on the attack unless you roll a natural 1.



(In the past, I've suggested that it functions as written, but also strips Disadvantage before applying Advantage, so that you have Advantage even on attacks that otherwise could never have it because Disadvantage negates it.)

[samcifer]

I think it would be usable if it had this kind of wording:

Casting Time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: 30 ft.
Target: 1 creature you can see (including yourself)
Effect: The targeted creature has advantage on the first attack roll they make
during their next turn. This effect can only be applied once and to a single creature each round.


If it was worded like that, including the removal of the concentration requirement, it would be much more usable as a spell and get some actual use.

[Doug Lampert]

I could see it being a blade cantrip. Replace the rider damage with "the next time you attack this creature before the end of your next turn, you make the attack with advantage", then tack some scaling damage on at 5th, 11th, and 17th level.

If it's a blade cantrip like the existing SCAG cantrips, then would not the comparable design be to have the attack be part of the spell-cast? (And hence not usable with multiattack). I'd allow this version of true strike to be used with ranged/thrown/reach weapon attacks.

I'd state that the added damage is 1d6 at 5, 2d6 at 11, and 3d6 at 17 and does NOT stack with rogue sneak attack: (claimed reason) rogues already get bonus damage for precision, (actual reason) otherwise every rogue in existence would be finding a way to access this spell as it would be golden for them.

[Renvir]

In 3e, true strike took a round's standard action to cast, and lasted long enough to apply to the next round, just like in 5e. But what it did there was give you +20 to the roll to hit, making it highly unlikely you'd miss.

What if true strike in 5e had all the same mechanics for casting and Concentration and what attack it applies to, but instead of Advantage, it extends your crit range to 2-20? That is, you automatically hit and crit on the attack unless you roll a natural 1.



(In the past, I've suggested that it functions as written, but also strips Disadvantage before applying Advantage, so that you have Advantage even on attacks that otherwise could never have it because Disadvantage negates it.)

I could see that as a 1st level spell instead of a cantrip. Anything that is going to auto-crit should have some kind of limitation on uses.

[Gignere]

I think my problem with it is that advantage is too little to waste your whole action.

Maybe a +10 to your next attack roll (similar to PWT), will make it much more usable.

Basically when you want to guarantee a hit you would use true strike, which was what it was used for in prior versions.

[Dienekes]

In 3e, true strike took a round's standard action to cast, and lasted long enough to apply to the next round, just like in 5e. But what it did there was give you +20 to the roll to hit, making it highly unlikely you'd miss.

What if true strike in 5e had all the same mechanics for casting and Concentration and what attack it applies to, but instead of Advantage, it extends your crit range to 2-20? That is, you automatically hit and crit on the attack unless you roll a natural 1.



(In the past, I've suggested that it functions as written, but also strips Disadvantage before applying Advantage, so that you have Advantage even on attacks that otherwise could never have it because Disadvantage negates it.)

Free crit is a bit much at low levels and would probably make it the most sought after cantrip for Paladins and Rogues.

How about something like "On your next attack roll, your attack is considered successful hit regardless of the result of your roll."

That's it, it does what it says. The strike hits no matter what. But you still would have to roll in hopes of getting a crit.

[Segev]

Free crit is a bit much at low levels and would probably make it the most sought after cantrip for Paladins and Rogues.

How about something like "On your next attack roll, your attack is considered successful hit regardless of the result of your roll."

That's it, it does what it says. The strike hits no matter what. But you still would have to roll in hopes of getting a crit.

Sounds somewhat reasonable to me. But is it worth the Cantrip slot even then? How often is a guaranteed hit every other round at best going to be optimal?

Maybe against some rare super-hard-to-hit monsters?

[Quietus]

We already have cantrips that add numerical benefits - Guidance, and Resistance. Just make True Strike the equivalent of these. 1 minute duration, concentration, can add 1d4 to an attack roll once during that spell's duration.

[Segev]

We already have cantrips that add numerical benefits - Guidance, and Resistance. Just make True Strike the equivalent of these. 1 minute duration, concentration, can add 1d4 to an attack roll once during that spell's duration.
That seems to render bless a bit worthless as a first level spell. Maybe the greater targeting and the ability to target others makes the difference worthwhile?

[MoiMagnus]

A suggestion taking inspiration on the divination wizard:

True Strike
Cantrip Divination

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
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 defences. Immediately roll one d20 and record the number rolled. Until the spell end, you may replace any attack roll you make against the target of this spell with the foretelling roll. You must choose to do so before the roll. This foretelling roll can be used only once.
The number of d20 rolled increases by one when your reach 5th level (2d20), 11th level (3d20) and 17th level (4d20). Each foretelling roll can be used only once.

[Amdy_vill]

I feel the best fix is making it a level 1 spell and changing it to a bonus action.

1. makes it better than just making 2 attacks,
2. prevents spam/overuse by making it a leveled spell. so no I cast 3 in a turn.

[Valmark]

IMO for sure make it a bonus action. That done remove the "on your next turn" part.

There, now it has a use. I still wouldn't take it unless MAYBE on a rogue (given that it conflicts with Cunning Action that's a big maybe) but it's not a bad option anymore.

Even making it a sure hit could be good- I would NOT make it a sure crit, because then it becomes basically a must-have.

[Dienekes]

Sounds somewhat reasonable to me. But is it worth the Cantrip slot even then? How often is a guaranteed hit every other round at best going to be optimal?

Maybe against some rare super-hard-to-hit monsters?

Unless my math is wrong, any creature with an AC that you only have a 45% chance to hit.

Assuming 2d6+3 damage. So 10 for a hit, 17 for a crit.

10*.95+17*.05=10.35 over 2 rounds is 5.175

A 45% chance to hit without this spell is
10*.4 + 17*.05=4.85

So it is the best option from levels 1-3 against ACs of 17 or higher. From CR 1 to 3 that's animated armor, knights, veterans, azer, and a bunch of wyrmlings. And if your GM throws npcs with classes at you, any Wizard with Shield. Which honestly was more than I thought there would be when I started looking.

I agree it's not the best and it doesn't scale great. I wonder if the casting time could be changed to 1 attack. So when the classes that actually want it that get Extra Attack at level 5 the cantrip doesn't dwindle to meaninglessness.

[Guy Lombard-O]

We already have cantrips that add numerical benefits - Guidance, and Resistance. Just make True Strike the equivalent of these. 1 minute duration, concentration, can add 1d4 to an attack roll once during that spell's duration.

That sounds like a fairly good solution to me. Not useless (thanks to the 1 minute use time), but definitely a cantrip-level benefit (assuming I'm reading it correctly and it's a single 1d4 to a single attack roll). The fact that it'll stack with Advantage (which is reasonably achievable in such ambush scenarios) rather than likely just being duplicative is also a bonus.

It's good enough to use once in a while as a pre-cast spell for presumably low-stakes encounters initiated by the party, but certainly nothing that's going to get spammed a lot since it takes concentration, and it's far less powerful than the leveled-spell equivalent (Bless). Nicely done.

[Zhorn]

It really depends on the use.

If you are thinking for melee attack, then True Strike is just bad and needs an overhaul.

If using it for high level spells with attack rolls, it makes a lot more sense.

[stoutstien]

It really depends on the use.

If you are thinking for melee attack, then True Strike is just bad and needs an overhaul.

If using it for high level spells with attack rolls, it makes a lot more sense.
Which spells exactly? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single one that advantage is worth concentration for.

[sithlordnergal]

It really depends on the use.

If you are thinking for melee attack, then True Strike is just bad and needs an overhaul.

If using it for high level spells with attack rolls, it makes a lot more sense.

I mean...then why not hide? You get Advantage if you succeed, you can avoid being targeted for one round, it doesn't take Concentration, and if the enemy wants to find you that have to use their action to make a Perception check.

[Zhorn]

Which spells exactly? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single one that advantage is worth concentration for.
I just mean generally. If you are going to be spending one of your higher level spell slot on an attack roll, it's a bigger waste if that misses versus just missing with a melee hit, so the advantage from true strike holds more value there.

I still rather homebrew the spell to be a gish viable choice, but I was just getting at there's a use for it as written that's viable. Not great nor optimal, but still viable.

[stoutstien]

I just mean generally. If you are going to be spending one of your higher level spell slot on an attack roll, it's a bigger waste if that misses versus just missing with a melee hit, so the advantage from true strike holds more value there.

I still rather homebrew the spell to be a gish viable choice, but I was just getting at there's a use for it as written that's viable. Not great nor optimal, but still viable.

I was just curious if you had a specific spell in mind. Maybe some combo with quicken spell? Still drawing a blank here but maybe there one that works well.

[Necromas]

If it's a blade cantrip like the existing SCAG cantrips, then would not the comparable design be to have the attack be part of the spell-cast? (And hence not usable with multiattack). I'd allow this version of true strike to be used with ranged/thrown/reach weapon attacks.

I'd state that the added damage is 1d6 at 5, 2d6 at 11, and 3d6 at 17 and does NOT stack with rogue sneak attack: (claimed reason) rogues already get bonus damage for precision, (actual reason) otherwise every rogue in existence would be finding a way to access this spell as it would be golden for them.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, but you might as well let it stack with sneak attack, as rogues are pretty much expected to get a sneak attack off every turn regardless. And they certainly can already stack it with booming blade or greenflame blade and do more damage than this albeit only in close range.

One thing I might change though is to get rid of the advantage rider and instead have it give +1d4 to the next attack roll against the target from anyone. Kind of like a lesser guiding bolt. Just because I love teamwork but I think giving an ally immediate advantage is a bit strong compared to just a +1d4.

[Necromas]

I was just curious if you had a specific spell in mind. Maybe some combo with quicken spell? Still drawing a blank here but maybe there one that works well.

Contagion and Dispel Evil and Good are the only spells above second level that rely on a single attack roll to be successful. Otherwise there's stuff like crown of stars, blade of disaster, or steel wind strike but those all involve multiple attack rolls and no single one will be any huge amount of damage.

[RogueJK]

I just mean generally. If you are going to be spending one of your higher level spell slot on an attack roll, it's a bigger waste if that misses versus just missing with a melee hit, so the advantage from true strike holds more value there.

Yes, but that's a rather tenuous point, because you're not going to be using your upper level slots for "one or done" attack roll spells.


There are extremely few situations in which upcasting a low level single-attack-roll spell like Guiding Bolt or Chromatic Orb (for example) to use a 3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th/8th/9th level spell slot is a good choice. There are so many other more powerful things you could be doing with your upper spell slots besides just causing a little damage to one target.

Spending your entire Action in a round plus using your Concentration to cast a suboptimal cantrip just so you can increase the chances that your next round's suboptimally upcast attack spell's high level slot isn't wasted is... quite suboptimal.


And the only "one attack roll/slot-wasted-if-it-misses" spell above 2nd level that I can find is Contagion (Level 5), which is a rather lackluster 5th level spell anyway. (Better for enemy NPCs than PCs.)

Crown of Stars (7th Level) is the only other one that's close, since each attack roll expends a mote, but you have seven motes so it's still not a complete waste if one roll misses. That spell doesn't require Concentration and lasts for an hour, so it would work with True Strike, but only does 4d12 radiant damage on a hit for each of your 7 motes. Therefore, if you were to use it in combo with True Strike, you'd be doing an average of 2d12 (13) damage each round over 14 rounds, using a 7th level slot, your Actions over 14 rounds, and your Concentration over 14 rounds. What an awful choice... (And that's assuming that you never get hit over the course of those 14 rounds and lose Concentration on your True Strike.)

You'd be way better off just spending those 14 rounds casting Character Level 13+ Firebolt or another attack cantrip every round, with no Concentration or 7th level slot cost, and greater total damage.



Contagion and Dispel Evil and Good are the only spells above second level that rely on a single attack roll to be successful.
Dispel Good and Evil isn't wasted if you miss with the attack roll. You still get the defensive benefits, and can continue with further Dismissal attack rolls for the duration. Besides, Dispel Good and Evil is a Concentration spell, so you couldn't utilize it in conjunction with True Strike anyway.

[stoutstien]

Contagion and Dispel Evil and Good are the only spells above second level that rely on a single attack roll to be successful. Otherwise there's stuff like crown of stars, blade of disaster, or steel wind strike but those all involve multiple attack rolls and no single one will be any huge amount of damage.

AFB but doesn't dispel good evil take concentration? Good call on contagion.

[Necromas]

AFB but doesn't dispel good evil take concentration? Good call on contagion.

Yes, fair point. You can't even cast it and make the touch attack in the same action.

[sayaijin]

The last time this came up, one of the best solutions was to make it a weapon attack cantrip like the SCAGtrips. It adds 1d6 to your attack roll, then 2d6 at level 5 and so forth.

I would add, based on the ideas here, that it also increases your crit range. Is crit range of 19-20 at level 1, 18-20 at level 5, etc. good enough?

[Tvtyrant]

Make it a ranged weapon cantrip with "this attack hits"? It would be considerably better at high levels where AC can outrun attack (Tarrasque), or as a Rogue spell (SA every turn dang it.)

[Samayu]

It doesn't seem like it would need much to be usable.

First, change it from your attack to the target's attack, meaning you can give anyone the bonus.
Second, change it from "on your next turn" to, "on the target's next attack".
Third, change it from 1 round concentration, to "until the end of your next turn."

I agree that changing it to a bonus action would lead to it being an auto-spam. As it is, making it usable on allies could lead it to being spammed on, say, rogue sneak attacks, but you're giving up your own action for it.

I disagree with adding scaling damage dice. The base weapon damage is already essentially scaled with the attacker's levels, especially when used with attack cantrips.

[Quietus]

That seems to render bless a bit worthless as a first level spell. Maybe the greater targeting and the ability to target others makes the difference worthwhile?

Bless works on 3 targets, for a full minute, effecting each attack made during that time.

My proposed True Strike fix affects only a single attack, total. After that, you have to recast it.

[Rusvul]

It doesn't seem like it would need much to be usable.

First, change it from your attack to the target's attack, meaning you can give anyone the bonus.
Second, change it from "on your next turn" to, "on the target's next attack".
Third, change it from 1 round concentration, to "until the end of your next turn."

I agree that changing it to a bonus action would lead to it being an auto-spam. As it is, making it usable on allies could lead it to being spammed on, say, rogue sneak attacks, but you're giving up your own action for it.

I disagree with adding scaling damage dice. The base weapon damage is already essentially scaled with the attacker's levels, especially when used with attack cantrips.

This strikes me as essentially redundant with the Help action. I guess there's some marginal utility if you give it a range, but the fact remains that using your action to gain advantage on one roll (and to do nothing else) is rarely, uh. Advantageous. (And when it is, you can typically Help.)

I think to make it work it either needs to 1) have better action economy or 2) give a much more significant bonus. I think the second option is better--if it were worth casting round-to-round, it would probably be spammable.

Since the 3.5 use case of "make sure my important spell doesn't miss" (due to the lack of important spells with attack rolls), I think the most interesting role for True Strike to take is a sort of ambush buff. "Make sure my first attack doesn't miss." In order for that to be any good, though, it'd have to stack with advantage. Maybe a flat bonus or 1d6/5 levels? (hell, if it's a 1d6/5 levels kind of thing, you could probably even remove concentration.)

[Edea]

Ramp the range up to 120 feet. Everything else can be left alone.

The problem for me isn't the action used. The problem's that it somehow expects me to consider blowing that action when I'm within melee range of whatever it is I'm pointing at 'a good idea'.

[Pinkie Pyro]

My personal fix was simple: keep it as an action, but I made it so the effect keeps going until you miss an attack roll, and each successful attack while it's active extends it 1 round in duration. so it's potentially advantage for the rest of the encounter if you get a streak going.

then, at higher levels, it also applies to skills/saving throws, but with the caveat of failing those also ends the effect.

[Jerrykhor]

Since the 3.5 use case of "make sure my important spell doesn't miss" (due to the lack of important spells with attack rolls), I think the most interesting role for True Strike to take is a sort of ambush buff. "Make sure my first attack doesn't miss." In order for that to be any good, though, it'd have to stack with advantage. Maybe a flat bonus or 1d6/5 levels? (hell, if it's a 1d6/5 levels kind of thing, you could probably even remove concentration.)

I always wonder about using True Strike right before rolling initiative in terms of strict RAW.

By RAW, if you tell the DM you want to attack a creature while he doesnt notice you, he would ask you to roll initiative first. If the enemy goes first, he is surprised, then his turn ends, then you get to attack on your turn.

If you go first, you get to attack a surprised creature (and all the benefits apply such as Assassin feature), then the creatures turn comes and goes because he is surprised.

But If you declare you want to cast True Strike, wouldn't it be replacing the attack with it? As in by RAW, you have to spend the 1st round casting True Strike, because if you cannot attack before initiative, you cannot cast True Strike before initiative either.

There is the argument of Casting Spells out of combat, which means before initiative. But with True Strike's 30ft range, its hard to convince the DM that you remain hidden after casting it from that near.

[Gignere]

They need to make true strike really true strike, advantage is too little to waste a whole action for.

If it was a +10 or a minimum roll of 15 we will see a lot more use because this is objectively better than the help action.

This will be helpful if you absolutely needed to land a blow or you’re fighting something with 20+ AC.

[Tanarii]

Would true strike even be worth using if it were a bonus-action cast and read, "On your next attack against the target this turn, you have Advantage?"
No, it breaks it the other way. It goes from a trap option to a must have option for martials. Like the SCAG cantrips, but in steroids.

IMO the correct fix is to make it useful to full spellcasters, not to martials,

[Witty Username]

Replace True Strike with Steady Aim and call it a day.

[Selrahc]

the only "one attack roll/slot-wasted-if-it-misses" spell above 2nd level that I can find is Contagion (Level 5),


Also "Plane Shift".

[RogueJK]

Also "Plane Shift".

Good catch. If used for the option of a non-Concentration 7th Level Banishment, it's a "one or done" melee spell attack.

So that's one. :smallbiggrin:

[Vegan Squirrel]

I don't have a solid answer here, but it's been fun reading through everyone's ideas on what levers to pull to change the spell's usefulness. Here's another lever to toy with: if the attack hits, it ignores any resistance to the attack's damage.

Obviously ignoring immunity would be too strong, but ignoring resistance gives it a niche as a poor man's magic weapon/Elemental Adept. And it fits the idea of striking true.

[Sorinth]

This strikes me as essentially redundant with the Help action. I guess there's some marginal utility if you give it a range, but the fact remains that using your action to gain advantage on one roll (and to do nothing else) is rarely, uh. Advantageous. (And when it is, you can typically Help.)

I think to make it work it either needs to 1) have better action economy or 2) give a much more significant bonus. I think the second option is better--if it were worth casting round-to-round, it would probably be spammable.

Since the 3.5 use case of "make sure my important spell doesn't miss" (due to the lack of important spells with attack rolls), I think the most interesting role for True Strike to take is a sort of ambush buff. "Make sure my first attack doesn't miss." In order for that to be any good, though, it'd have to stack with advantage. Maybe a flat bonus or 1d6/5 levels? (hell, if it's a 1d6/5 levels kind of thing, you could probably even remove concentration.)

You can only use the Help action in combat to give advantage if the target of the attack is within 5ft of you. So it's still an upgrade on the Help action but worse then the Mastermind's Master of Tactics which doesn't sound bad for a Cantrip.

[Sorinth]

The last time this came up, one of the best solutions was to make it a weapon attack cantrip like the SCAGtrips. It adds 1d6 to your attack roll, then 2d6 at level 5 and so forth.

I would add, based on the ideas here, that it also increases your crit range. Is crit range of 19-20 at level 1, 18-20 at level 5, etc. good enough?

Making it like a SCAG cantrip where you make an attack as part of the casting and the attack is at advantage makes it decent, and it can gain bonus damage starting at 5th. It wouldn't overshadow the other SCAG weapon cantrips but still be useful for certain builds.

[Segev]

IMO the correct fix is to make it useful to full spellcasters, not to martials,

Hm. The only thing that really separates the usefulness of the two is the fact that, for a spellcaster, a single hit or miss is a much bigger proposition, due to the resource cost of a spell slot and the higher damage output that single-target spells have over most attacks. Well, that, and the fact that higher-level martials use extra attacks, so true strike is actually really bad for them at that point. Only SCAG-cantrip gishes really appreciate it, I think.

[Mitchellnotes]

I actually like the idea of making it use a bonus action, but still require concentration. This would make it useful to give advantage to a small subset of users who are looking to have one, big, attack and want to make sure it connects. Rogues come to mind (compared to steady aim, it requires spellcasting and concentration, but would allow for movement w/o disengaging), or some gishes using the melee cantrips, clerics, or someone who is crit-fishing (hexblade warlocks with elven accuracy?) Each of these uses is a little unique, but for all of them there are other ways to get advantage (some better or worse). It provides an option without it being The option.

[Edea]

The action used shouldn't change unless the effect is upgraded from a cantrip to an actual spell.

The simplest way to make it useful to a 'full' caster would be to significantly increase its range.

[Eldariel]

How about just "automatically hits" instead of advantage? It used to be +20 after all; that's basically autohit except on nat 1.

[sayaijin]

Making it like a SCAG cantrip where you make an attack as part of the casting and the attack is at advantage makes it decent, and it can gain bonus damage starting at 5th. It wouldn't overshadow the other SCAG weapon cantrips but still be useful for certain builds.

Yeah, last time this came up, I recommended that, and it got shot down. I think it could work though. It would be weaker than multiple attacks and weaker than the other SCAGtrips, so bladesingers and eldritch knights might not want it either. The only class that would really consider it is rogue, and it still isn't as good as BB.

Here we go:

True Strike

Evocation cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (5-foot radius)
Components: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Duration: 1 round

You carefully poise the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a weapon attack with it against one creature within the weapon's range. You have advantage on the attack roll.

At Higher Levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d6 force damage to the target on a hit. This damage increases by 1d6 at 11th level (2d6) and again at 17th level (3d6).

Spell Lists. Artificer, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

[Reynaert]

Can't you just make it give double advantage and keep the rest the same?
Perhaps even cancel out disadvantage, so there's no weirdness about those interactions.
And it's 30 feet range so no longbow longrange shenanigans. (Pity though...)
It would certainly fit the narrative idea of the spell.

So basically:
- Cantrip
- 1 Action
- Concentration, 1 round
- 30 feet
- Your next attack against the target, roll 3d20 and keep the highest roll. That is your attack roll.

Somewhat unrelatedly this made me think of something else:

- Cantrip
- 1 Action
- Concentration, 1 round
- Your next attack against the target deals an extra 1d8 damage. When you are concentrating on this spell you may cast it again to increase the duration by 1 round and the extra damage by another 1d8. You may do this as many times as you like.

[Tanarii]

Hm. The only thing that really separates the usefulness of the two is the fact that, for a spellcaster, a single hit or miss is a much bigger proposition, due to the resource cost of a spell slot and the higher damage output that single-target spells have over most attacks. Well, that, and the fact that higher-level martials use extra attacks, so true strike is actually really bad for them at that point. Only SCAG-cantrip gishes really appreciate it, I think.Exactly, but the problem is there are very few concentration free attack roll leveled spells.

So either is needs to be expanded to help non-attack rolls somehow (best option IMO), or drop the concentration so it can be used with with the attack roll spells with concentration. And IIRC there are a few concentration attack roll spells it would be nice to use with.

Btw if you simultaneously fix witch bolt, you'll end up with some nice low level (and maybe even upcast) usefulness between it and chromatic orb at least.

[DwarfFighter]

When to cast True Strike?

If you cannot attack this turn, casting True Strike lets you do something this turn that pays off for your next turn.

If you have a limited resource to attack with, True Strike adds security on your "investment".

If you have disadvantage, True Strike can help. Disadvantage will reduce your chance of hittiing by the same factor as your initial chance of missing.

E.g.: If you need to roll 11 or more to hit (50%), disadvantage will turn 50% of any hits into misses. If you need to roll a 20 to hit (5%), disadvantage turns 95% of any hits into misses.

It is surely preferable to attack every second round with True Sight at 30% chance to hit, instead of every round with 9% chance to hit.

-DF

[MoiMagnus]

It is surely preferable to attack every second round with True Sight at 30% chance to hit, instead of every round with 9% chance to hit.

The problem of True Strike is that it is surely preferable to not attack at all than to attack every second round at 30%.

Alternative choices being: casting a non-attack spell, disengaging to run away, dodging, making a persuasion or intimidation check to stop he fight, and many more.

As you presented it, True Strike is a "lose less" spell (if you best option is attacking at 30% every two turns, you're probably losing), and poorly does its job at it: it's concentration so you lose it if you get hit badly, it has no immediate effect so if you die before it's pointless. It's only a cantrip, but it's still an action.

In fact, the only situation where I would consider attacking at proba as low as 30% is a situation where I believe I can finish off the enemy in one hit, so between "True Strike to hit at 30% next turn" and "Hit at 9% chance now", I'd probably chose "Hit at 9% chance now (and try again next turn if it fails)" because of the probability of finishing of the creature immediately rather than having to suffer an additional turn of attacks.

To have True Strike be interesting, it should either
(1) Be useful as a "win more" spell.
(2) Be actually effective as a "lose less" spell.

Edit: and it's crappy range doesn't help either. If its range was 600ft (yes 600, not 60) you can use it to compensate for the long-distance disadvantage of a longbow or something similar.

[Segev]

Doesn't help with Tanarii's desire to make it a caster-primary spell, but adjusting one of my old ideas:

Make it have range of "sight," and make it remove Disadvantage before adding Advantage?

Once again, what this does is make it so that you 100% will have Advantage on that attack. Even if you'd have had Disadvantage without the spell.