My DM is using this homebrew version of True Strike - too powerful?

[sayaijin]

So my DM wanted to "fix" the cantrip True Strike, but I'm worried it is going to be too powerful.

He's made it a weapon attack cantrip like booming blade, but it works with any proficient weapon (even ranged) and it gives +1d4 to attack roll.

The part I'm worried about is where he's made it where it the d20+d4 is equal to or greater than 20, then he's treating the attack as a crit and the attack as magical. Then he's giving it the additional d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th so 2d4, 3d4, and 4d4...seems like an auto crit at 17th level.

He's saying it's balanced because it's still only ever one attack and martials would prefer multiple attacks, but there's a guy who wants to play Rogue...

[Catullus64]

Umm... yeah, that extra crit thing sounds like a real problem. Especially with scaling.

That said, whether or not this homebrew works is really dependent on whether it changes some of the other things that make True Strike bad.

Does it still require Concentration?

Can you still only use it against a designated creature?

Is it still an action to cast?

Because if these things are still in play, it's still pretty bad, and the crit thing makes it only marginally better.

[Amnestic]

He's saying it's balanced because it's still only ever one attack and martials would prefer multiple attacks, but there's a guy who wants to play Rogue...

I'm pretty sure a paladin would also like to have a guaranteed crit for smites instead of rolling two attacks...

[PhantomSoul]

So my DM wanted to "fix" the cantrip True Strike, but I'm worried it is going to be too powerful.

He's made it a weapon attack cantrip like booming blade, but it works with any proficient weapon (even ranged) and it gives +1d4 to attack roll.

The part I'm worried about is where he's made it where it the d20+d4 is equal to or greater than 20, then he's treating the attack as a crit and the attack as magical. Then he's giving it the additional d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th so 2d4, 3d4, and 4d4...seems like an auto crit at 17th level.

He's saying it's balanced because it's still only ever one attack and martials would prefer multiple attacks, but there's a guy who wants to play Rogue...

Is he looking for more players? xD

[Guy Lombard-O]

Is he looking for more players? xD

I think I'd play a PAM paladin, and pick up warcaster right quick.

[Doug Lampert]

I think I'd play a PAM paladin, and pick up warcaster right quick.

Making it a blade cantrip (usable with ranged attacks) that gives advantage on the attack and 1d6 (scaling at 5, 11, and 17) extra damage is my proposed fix. Much weaker than the DM's proposed fix, and I still think it would probably be too strong on a rogue (here, have an extra 1-4 dice of sneak attack for the low, low cost of not needing to find a source of advantage).

So, yes, I think the GM is correct that this is fine on a normal martial, but a rogue or paladin at tier 2-4 becomes a monster with this rule unless he nerfs sneak attack and smite dice to not double on a crit.

[sayaijin]

Umm... yeah, that extra crit thing sounds like a real problem. Especially with scaling.

That said, whether or not this homebrew works is really dependent on whether it changes some of the other things that make True Strike bad.

Does it still require Concentration?

Can you still only use it against a designated creature?

Is it still an action to cast?

Because if these things are still in play, it's still pretty bad, and the crit thing makes it only marginally better.

I realize I was ambiguous before. The cantrip under his rules would not give advantage. It only gives the bonus to-hit.

Since it's a blade cantrip, it is an action and doesn't require concentration or another turn to do. It's just like booming blade where you make an attack with a bonus. In this case, the bonus is to-hit/crit.

Also, Amnestic, I hadn't thought of taking paladin to abuse this rule. Good call!

No but seriously, I should tell him this is a bad idea because of rogues and paladins, right?
Should I recommend just taking off the crit part of the rule? Still give extra to-hit and magic damage, but no crit?

[nickl_2000]

I realize I was ambiguous before. The cantrip under his rules would not give advantage. It only gives the bonus to-hit.

Since it's a blade cantrip, it is an action and doesn't require concentration or another turn to do. It's just like booming blade where you make an attack with a bonus. In this case, the bonus is to-hit/crit.

Also, Amnestic, I hadn't thought of taking paladin to abuse this rule. Good call!

No but seriously, I should tell him this is a bad idea because of rogues and paladins, right?
Should I recommend just taking off the crit part of the rule? Still give extra to-hit and magic damage, but no crit?

So, this stacks with advantage as a blade type cantrip. Effectively you are making (especially at a higher level) an auto-hit when you cast this cantrip. As a player, I would be playing a Paladin 2/Sorcerer X with Great Weapon Mastery. You can smite all day long with all those spell slots and by level 5 you are making up for the GWM -5 every single time you cast the spell (2d4 = 2.5 x 2 = 5). Based on bounded accuracy you are going to be hitting. Once you hit tier 4 you are getting an average of +10 to hit on every attack with this spell.

A CR 25 Tarrasque has an AC of 25, so by tier four I'm getting a +16 on average to each hit (meaning I have a better than 50% chance to hit the Tarrasque each round). Additionally you have a 55% chance to land a crit with each strike (because 10-20 is a crit), that is making those dice rollers classes drool.


I think it is fair to say that a 55% chance of critting with every strike, even in tier 4 is beyond broken. Then add advantage in there and the numbers get even higher for a chance to crit.



I would look at a different fix for true strike personally. My opinion on True Strike is that it should give advantage on all attacks you make against that creature until the end of your next turn.

[sayaijin]

So, this stacks with advantage as a blade type cantrip. Effectively you are making (especially at a higher level) an auto-hit when you cast this cantrip. As a player, I would be playing a Paladin 2/Sorcerer X with Great Weapon Mastery. You can smite all day long with all those spell slots and by level 5 you are making up for the GWM -5 every single time you cast the spell (2d4 = 2.5 x 2 = 5). Based on bounded accuracy you are going to be hitting. Once you hit tier 4 you are getting an average of +10 to hit on every attack with this spell.

A CR 25 Tarrasque has an AC of 25, so by tier four I'm getting a +16 on average to each hit (meaning I have a better than 50% chance to hit the Tarrasque each round). Additionally you have a 55% chance to land a crit with each strike (because 10-20 is a crit), that is making those dice rollers classes drool.


I think it is fair to say that a 55% chance of critting with every strike, even in tier 4 is beyond broken. Then add advantage in there and the numbers get even higher for a chance to crit.



I would look at a different fix for true strike personally. My opinion on True Strike is that it should give advantage on all attacks you make against that creature until the end of your next turn.

Basically I created this thread to come up with an intelligent response as to how he should nerf it.

I'm leaning towards just telling him to remove the crit aspect of it. It's then a cantrip that at tier 4 guarantees one single hit. That's good for rogues, but I'm not sure if it's better than booming blade.

Alternatively, could I tell him to keep the crit and have it add +1 to attacks then +2, +3, +4 instead of d4's?

[Ettina]

I'd just fix true strike by making it a bonus action that applies to your next attack regardless of what turn it's on.

[PhantomSoul]

So, this stacks with advantage as a blade type cantrip. Effectively you are making (especially at a higher level) an auto-hit when you cast this cantrip. As a player, I would be playing a Paladin 2/Sorcerer X with Great Weapon Mastery. You can smite all day long with all those spell slots and by level 5 you are making up for the GWM -5 every single time you cast the spell (2d4 = 2.5 x 2 = 5). Based on bounded accuracy you are going to be hitting. Once you hit tier 4 you are getting an average of +10 to hit on every attack with this spell.
...
I think it is fair to say that a 55% chance of critting with every strike, even in tier 4 is beyond broken. Then add advantage in there and the numbers get even higher for a chance to crit.

...And that penalty from GWM (unless separately house-ruled) isn't affecting crit rates, meaning you could potentally crit despite having missed based on the roll total (that isn't a 20)!

Actually, your mod starts being pretty irrelevant, depending on your goals... hm...

[Kane0]

Yeah too strong. Don’t let it scale and remove the crit part, so its a cantrip that lets you make a magical weapon attack with a +1d4 to the attack roll.

[Catullus64]

I would start by asking your DM just exactly why he needs to rework True Strike in the first place. Is being able to attack slightly better with a spell really important to someone's fantasy? Is there a story really burning to be told about this cantrip? Is someone's build failing to contribute to combat, and True Strike is the only thing that can save it?

If not, why risk overpowering some build or other when you could just not use the cantrip? That's how I'd present my criticism to the DM. This isn't an entire class or even an entire subclass that's not working, it's one not-very spectacular cantrip that everyone accepts is lousy.

[DarknessEternal]

Ask him what underpowered thing he's going to fix next is.

If there's an answer, ask what's next after that.

Keep going until you make the suggestion that he just write his own RPG, or save everyone else loads of time and just play D&D.

You can't balance every spell, there's too many.

If you're going to try and balance things, you have to balance the big things, like base classes or rest.

[Ettina]

Ask him what underpowered thing he's going to fix next is.

If there's an answer, ask what's next after that.

Keep going until you make the suggestion that he just write his own RPG, or save everyone else loads of time and just play D&D.

You can't balance every spell, there's too many.

If you're going to try and balance things, you have to balance the big things, like base classes or rest.

Just because you homebrew one thing doesn't mean you're somehow obligated to homebrew everything else. That's ridiculous. And DMs being encouraged to change things as they see fit is core to D&D. I don't think I've ever actually seen a DM who sticks entirely to RAW.

[Kane0]

Ask him what underpowered thing he's going to fix next is.

If there's an answer, ask what's next after that.

Keep going until you make the suggestion that he just write his own RPG, or save everyone else loads of time and just play D&D.

You can't balance every spell, there's too many.

If you're going to try and balance things, you have to balance the big things, like base classes or rest.

I disagree.

[Amnestic]

Ask him what underpowered thing he's going to fix next is.

If there's an answer, ask what's next after that.

Keep going until you make the suggestion that he just write his own RPG, or save everyone else loads of time and just play D&D.

You can't balance every spell, there's too many.

If you're going to try and balance things, you have to balance the big things, like base classes or rest.

Gonna echo others, aggressively disagree. A lot of these little tweaks/fixes are things that you do as+when you notice them, sometimes because I've played or played with that class/subclass, sometimes hearing/reading stories about them.

The creators of the game aren't perfect, there are some subclasses that are just better than others, some spells that are 'broken' (Wish+Simulacrum weeeeee) and there's no issue with a DM wanting to change those to create a table experience that they like.

I don't think this DM has fully considered the implications of their True Strike change and it's not the change I would have made, but changing true strike so it's actually a cantrip people want to take isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a popular topic.

[sayaijin]

Gonna echo others, aggressively disagree. A lot of these little tweaks/fixes are things that you do as+when you notice them, sometimes because I've played or played with that class/subclass, sometimes hearing/reading stories about them.

The creators of the game aren't perfect, there are some subclasses that are just better than others, some spells that are 'broken' (Wish+Simulacrum weeeeee) and there's no issue with a DM wanting to change those to create a table experience that they like.

I don't think this DM has fully considered the implications of their True Strike change and it's not the change I would have made, but changing true strike so it's actually a cantrip people want to take isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a popular topic.

I agree. I think he was partially coming up with homebrew here for the challenge of "fixing" one of the worst spells in the game. I think part of it was because one of the new guys (Bladesinger) was planning to take it, and he didn't want to tell him not to.

My mind immediately jumped to how busted it could be on a Rogue, but I'd forgotten about paladin.

[Damon_Tor]

So my DM wanted to "fix" the cantrip True Strike, but I'm worried it is going to be too powerful.

He's made it a weapon attack cantrip like booming blade, but it works with any proficient weapon (even ranged) and it gives +1d4 to attack roll.

The part I'm worried about is where he's made it where it the d20+d4 is equal to or greater than 20, then he's treating the attack as a crit and the attack as magical. Then he's giving it the additional d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th so 2d4, 3d4, and 4d4...seems like an auto crit at 17th level.

He's saying it's balanced because it's still only ever one attack and martials would prefer multiple attacks, but there's a guy who wants to play Rogue...

Controversial opinion: don't object. So the DM wants to make an OP cantrip. So what? Let it happen.

[Gignere]

So my DM wanted to "fix" the cantrip True Strike, but I'm worried it is going to be too powerful.

He's made it a weapon attack cantrip like booming blade, but it works with any proficient weapon (even ranged) and it gives +1d4 to attack roll.

The part I'm worried about is where he's made it where it the d20+d4 is equal to or greater than 20, then he's treating the attack as a crit and the attack as magical. Then he's giving it the additional d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th so 2d4, 3d4, and 4d4...seems like an auto crit at 17th level.

He's saying it's balanced because it's still only ever one attack and martials would prefer multiple attacks, but there's a guy who wants to play Rogue...

Your DM just gave away the Champion’s schtick to all rogues. Imagine combining this improved true strike with Elven Accuracy and Arcane Trickster with a familiar. The AT will basically be critting almost every round.

[Mastikator]

Controversial opinion: don't object. So the DM wants to make an OP cantrip. So what? Let it happen.

Exploit it even!

[Frogreaver]

So my DM wanted to "fix" the cantrip True Strike, but I'm worried it is going to be too powerful.

He's made it a weapon attack cantrip like booming blade, but it works with any proficient weapon (even ranged) and it gives +1d4 to attack roll.

The part I'm worried about is where he's made it where it the d20+d4 is equal to or greater than 20, then he's treating the attack as a crit and the attack as magical. Then he's giving it the additional d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th so 2d4, 3d4, and 4d4...seems like an auto crit at 17th level.

He's saying it's balanced because it's still only ever one attack and martials would prefer multiple attacks, but there's a guy who wants to play Rogue...

For a rogue I'd consider it to be in acceptable range for balance. At max level it comes out slightly stronger than booming blade for a rogue but has no secondary effects.


Your DM just gave away the Champion’s schtick to all rogues. Imagine combining this improved true strike with Elven Accuracy and Arcane Trickster with a familiar. The AT will basically be critting almost every round.

Right now the AT hits nearly every round, crits about 14% of the time and does +3d8 base damage higher with booming blade than a rogue using this version of true strike. And with booming blade there is a decent rider to potentially get more damage.

Is it slightly stronger, sure. But it's not that really that much stronger than currently available options.

[Rynjin]

Lemme put it this way: a 15 or 16-20/x2 crit rate is incredibly desirable even in 3.PF, a much higher power level system. There's a reason it's fairly difficult to GET such a crit rate in those systems, needing to use a magic item (a Keen weapon) or a Feat that requires 8th level (Improved Critical), AND only works with a set of very specific weapons (ones which already have an 18-20/x2 crit ratio).

Getting a free 15-20 crit rate on any weapon of your choice would be killer in Pathfinder. And while crits are relatively weaker in 5e (since you only get dice, not static bonuses), they don't need to be confirmed, and even an extra 1d6 is considered fairly powerful in this system, even before you factor in stuff like Sneak Attack actually being multiplied in this system. So not only is it overtuned, it's ASYMETRICALLY overtuned, being good for everyone, and bonkers for others.

TL;DR: This is a buff that would be considered arguably overpowered in a system with a much higher threshold for what constitutes "overpowered", and isn't any less so in 5e.

[Gignere]

For a rogue I'd consider it to be in acceptable range for balance. At max level it comes out slightly stronger than booming blade for a rogue but has no secondary effects.



Right now the AT hits nearly every round, crits about 14% of the time and does +3d8 base damage higher with booming blade than a rogue using this version of true strike. And with booming blade there is a decent rider to potentially get more damage.

Is it slightly stronger, sure. But it's not that really that much stronger than currently available options.

It’s not slightly stronger, when BB is adding 3d8 to damage this true strike with 4d4 added to attack roll is going to be over 90% crit rate with Elven Accuracy. This is adding around 9d6 + weapon die more damage per round, this is way more than + 3d8.

[Gignere]

The best to abuse this true strike isn’t even a rogue but rather a Paladin 2/whispers bard w/ EA stacking both Paladin smite and whispers “smite” on crits. To OP is your DM taking a new player I will show him how weak his proposed true strike is. Haha.

[Mellack]

For a rogue I'd consider it to be in acceptable range for balance. At max level it comes out slightly stronger than booming blade for a rogue but has no secondary effects.



Right now the AT hits nearly every round, crits about 14% of the time and does +3d8 base damage higher with booming blade than a rogue using this version of true strike. And with booming blade there is a decent rider to potentially get more damage.

Is it slightly stronger, sure. But it's not that really that much stronger than currently available options.

I am curious how this isn't stronger. At high level this proposed spell gives +4-+16, with an average of +10 that all counts toward critical. On average any die roll of 10+ is a critical, giving them a 55% chance. That is without advantage. With advantage, I think they will crit 80% of the time. That would seem quite strong, but I might be missing something.

Edit: I didn't mention that this also means almost any attack will hit at high levels. It moves from a 50-60% hit chance to a 95% hit chance, which is a big average damage boost just in that.

[Frogreaver]

It’s not slightly stronger, when BB is adding 3d8 to damage this true strike with 4d4 added to attack roll is going to be over 90% crit rate with Elven Accuracy. This is adding around 9d6 + weapon die more damage per round, this is way more than + 3d8.

Assuming a 100% crit rate the most damage this rogue can do with improved True Strike is 75 per round. (***Note even with this it doesn't have a 100% crit rate)

How much DPR does the EA/Booming Blade Rogue do per round? 65.6 with a chance of doing +18 if the enemy moves. Enemy needs to move a little over 1/2 the time for the DPR to be identical.

Want to reassess your conclusion based on actual numbers?


I am curious how this isn't stronger. At high level this proposed spell gives +4-+16, with an average of +10 that all counts toward critical. On average any die roll of 10+ is a critical, giving them a 55% chance. That is without advantage. With advantage, I think they will crit 80% of the time. That would seem quite strong, but I might be missing something.

Next time run the actual numbers before doing all these weird comparisons. They will usually surprise you ;)

[Gignere]

Assuming a 100% crit rate the most damage this rogue can do with improved True Strike is 75 per round. (***Note even with this it doesn't have a 100% crit rate)

How much DPR does the EA/Booming Blade Rogue do per round? 65.6 with a chance of doing +18 if the enemy moves. Enemy needs to move a little over 1/2 the time for the DPR to be identical.

Want to reassess your conclusion based on actual numbers?



Next time run the actual numbers before doing all these weird comparisons. They will usually surprise you ;)

I get 84 assuming 100% crit, and that’s only using a rapier not even Shadow blade. We’re not even accounting for the higher miss chance with only a +11 to hit compared to an average of +21 to hit with the true strike. So actual difference in DPR will be even higher as the true strike rogue will basically be always doing 84 expected damage with very low variance.

Edit: I am currently using booming blade with an AT and it’s not even close to half enemies are moving and triggering BB. I think it’s happened like once every 5 times I’ve used BB, maybe less.

[Mellack]

Assuming a 100% crit rate the most damage this rogue can do with improved True Strike is 75 per round. (***Note even with this it doesn't have a 100% crit rate)

How much DPR does the EA/Booming Blade Rogue do per round? 65.6 with a chance of doing +18 if the enemy moves. Enemy needs to move a little over 1/2 the time for the DPR to be identical.

Want to reassess your conclusion based on actual numbers?



Next time run the actual numbers before doing all these weird comparisons. They will usually surprise you ;)

I don't know how you are running the numbers, which is why I asked. What is the BB hit chance? How did you come by 14% crit? What is the DPR for this?

Can you compare that to the much higher hit chance and critical chance in this spell?

[sayaijin]

Based on what I've seen here, I'm going to make two proposals to my DM about ways to keep his idea, but balance it. The first option is to take away crit from the cantrip completely and just make it an auto-hit cantrip. You lose the damage of booming blade, but you essentially guarantee a hit. The second option keeps the to-hit bonus constant and instead scales a crit range starting at 5th level. Are these decent proposals?

True Strike
Source: Homebrew

Divination cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Weapon Range
Components: M (a weapon you are proficient with)
Duration: 1 round

You point your weapon towards the intended target and gain insight into its defenses. Make a weapon attack with it against one creature within the weapon's range and add 1d4 to the attack roll. The damage dealt by the weapon is considered magical for overcoming resistances.

At Higher Levels. At 5th level, the attack roll is increased by an additional 1d4 (2d4). This increases at 11th level (3d4) and again at 17th level (4d4).

Spell Lists. Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard


Keen Strike
Source: Homebrew

Divination cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Weapon Range
Components: M (a weapon you are proficient with)
Duration: 1 round

You point your weapon towards the intended target and gain insight into its weaknesses. Make a weapon attack with it against one creature within the weapon's range and add 1d6 to the attack roll.

At Higher Levels. At 5th level, when you use this spell, you score a critical hit on the attack when you roll a 19-20. This increases at 11th level (18-20) and again at 17th level (17-20).

Spell Lists. Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

[Zhorn]

I'd steer clear of the expanded crit range proposal for the same reason as the guaranteed crit one, cantrips are too easily tacked onto builds that get more mileage out of crits than others (rogues, paladins, hexblades) that it'll really up the damage disparity with more reliable nova-potentials.

Either go for the Auto hit: singular, no crit chance, but lands a reliable hit
Or the scaling 1d4 +To Hit per-tier modifier

Also avoid any proposals for the cantrip granting advantage, that's one of the pitfalls that made True Strike a nightmare to balance in the first place.
And tacking on extra damage on top of that again is just power creep.

[Nerdguy88]

There was a 3rd party book I found called evolving cantrips. The guy took the non damage cantrips and made them level and get better along with the damaging spells. I really liked true strike from there.

True Strike
At 5th Level You can choose to gain a +5 bonus to your next
attack roll against the target, instead of gaining advantage.
Additionally, the attack ignores half and three-quarters cover.
The spell no longer requires concentration.
At 11th Level The spell's effects last for 1 minute or until you
make your first attack against the target. You also learn the
target's lowest saving throw between Strength, Dexterity, and
Constitution.
At 17th Level When you cast this spell, you can choose
another creature within range to receive its benefits in
addition to yourself.

[sayaijin]

I'd steer clear of the expanded crit range proposal for the same reason as the guaranteed crit one, cantrips are too easily tacked onto builds that get more mileage out of crits than others (rogues, paladins, hexblades) that it'll really up the damage disparity with more reliable nova-potentials.

Either go for the Auto hit: singular, no crit chance, but lands a reliable hit
Or the scaling 1d4 +To Hit per-tier modifier

Also avoid any proposals for the cantrip granting advantage, that's one of the pitfalls that made True Strike a nightmare to balance in the first place.
And tacking on extra damage on top of that again is just power creep.

Fair enough. I'll just let him know that the crit thing makes the rogue and paladin unbalanced. Maybe he'll boost something else to compensate, or maybe he'll just stick to the to-hit.

[thoroughlyS]

I personally don't think making it a blade cantrip is the way to make it better. But if that is the direction your DM wants to take it, then I think it would be best to stick to the kind of scaling they use. It is important to note that the only thing that scales for cantrips is damage, so that they roughly mirror martial classes' weapon attacks. Compare guidance and resistance, which don't scale. Instead of increasing the bonus to hit (which goes against bounded accuracy), why not just increase the damage?

True Strike
Divination cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: Self (30-foot radius)
Components: S, M (a weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Duration: Instantaneous
You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a weapon attack with it against one creature within 30 feet of you. You add 1d4 to the attack roll.
This spell's damage increases when you reach certain levels. At 5th level, the weapon attack deals an extra 1d8 force damage to the target on a hit, and increases by 1d8 at 11th level (2d8) and again at 17th level (3d8).

This does damage comparable to booming blade, assuming the target suffers the rider damage once every third or fourth hit. Of note, this would be the only way to get bonus damage with a ranged weapon, so it's still pretty outside the norm for 5e, but the player in question is going Bladesinger, so it shouldn't be an issue.

[Amdy_vill]

to be honest, it is powerful and it does break game design principles we see in dnd but true strick is a "Trap spell" Like "Trap cards" in magic. it's designed to be bad and teach you a lesson about the action economy and that in and of its self is bad design so letting the obvious trap bad spell be good is ok, it's more of a preference in gameplay. I believe the "trap cards" and "Trap option" have no place in card games or dnd so I am fine with overcorrecting the problem. it also opens up some interesting gameplay interaction. it's not overpowered it's just really f***ing good. the only change I would suggest is instead of increasing the number of dice increases the dice size. it would bring it down to just being really good instead of boarding on overpowered.

[WaroftheCrans]

I think the issue is that it breaks the math of the game. Scaling d4s is a lot, and I would say it would be much more reasonable if you replaced the scaling d4s with proficiency bonus, which is what the math of the game is based on. If your group likes rolling dice, try scaling it with a singular die that increases in size, ala bardic inspiration.
Sure, it would still be powerful for rogues, paladins, and maybe bladesingers and hexblades, but it wouldn't massively outshine the other blade cantrips, at least if you don't build yourself around this modified truestrike. Without the expanded crit range, I can't imagine anyone other than a sharpshooter rogue taking this. So really, you just need to adjust the numbers.
Compare:
lvl 1: +1d4 (avg 2.5) vs +2. Crit range avg 17-20 vs 18-20
lvl 5: +2d4 (avg 5) vs +3 vs +1d6 (avg 3.5) . Crit range: 15-20 vs 17-20 vs 16-20
lvl 11: +3d4 (avg 7.5) v +4 vs +1d8 (avg 4.5). Crit range: 12-20 vs 16-20 vs 15-20
lvl 17: +4d4 (avg 10) vs + 6 vs + 1d12 (avg 6.5). Crit range: 10-20 vs 14-20 vs 13-20.

So yeah, 1d4 -> 2d4 -> 3d4 -> 4d4 is just too much. Proficiency bonus, bardic inspiration scaling or 1d4->1d6 -> 2d4 -> 2d6 are all within the realm of numbers the game is designed for, while still being powerful.

[sayaijin]

I personally don't think making it a blade cantrip is the way to make it better. But if that is the direction your DM wants to take it, then I think it would be best to stick to the kind of scaling they use. It is important to note that the only thing that scales for cantrips is damage, so that they roughly mirror martial classes' weapon attacks. Compare guidance and resistance, which don't scale. Instead of increasing the bonus to hit (which goes against bounded accuracy), why not just increase the damage?

True Strike
Divination cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: Self (30-foot radius)
Components: S, M (a weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Duration: Instantaneous
You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a weapon attack with it against one creature within 30 feet of you. You add 1d4 to the attack roll.
This spell's damage increases when you reach certain levels. At 5th level, the weapon attack deals an extra 1d8 force damage to the target on a hit, and increases by 1d8 at 11th level (2d8) and again at 17th level (3d8).

This does damage comparable to booming blade, assuming the target suffers the rider damage once every third or fourth hit. Of note, this would be the only way to get bonus damage with a ranged weapon, so it's still pretty outside the norm for 5e, but the player in question is going Bladesinger, so it shouldn't be an issue.

The player he's fixing it for is going bladesinger, but there's another guy wanting to play rogue, and I just know he'll take arcane trickster for this.

I got a lot of good ideas here. I'll present them to him. The biggest aspect being crit and rogues.

[Yakk]

3.5 replacements:

1. Do not scale number of d4s.

1b. Instead add 1d6 damage per tier.

2. Take the best of the d4s, not the sum.

3. Revert to baseline. Then add 1d12 damage per tier to the true stike attack.

I go with 3. 1b is a modification on 1, the rest are independent suggestions.

[sayaijin]

3.5 replacements:

1. Do not scale number of d4s.

1b. Instead add 1d6 damage per tier.

2. Take the best of the d4s, not the sum.

3. Revert to baseline. Then add 1d12 damage per tier to the true stike attack.

I go with 3. 1b is a modification on 1, the rest are independent suggestions.

So the thing that I keep coming back to is that it's called "True Strike".

There are a few things it can be balanced around:
A) Increasing accuracy and damage
B) Increasing accuracy only (to eventually be a guaranteed hit)
C) Increasing damage only

Option C doesn't make a lot of sense for a Cantrip called "True Strike". The only classes that I think would use Option B are rogue and paladin. Option A seems to be what most here have recommended.

[Dalinar]

It's been a few months since you opened the thread. Curious what you and your DM came up with.

I agree with whoever said to just make it a bonus action. It's way less complicated and fills a niche of "this attack really REALLY needs to land so I'll sacrifice some action economy for it" without overshadowing any particular options in the game off the top of my head (Rogues have busy bonus actions, Paladins don't necessarily have easy access to it, BB/GFB will probably do more damage and not sacrifice the bonus action, anyone with a bonus action attack would probably rather use that instead, etc.)

[sayaijin]

It's been a few months since you opened the thread. Curious what you and your DM came up with.

I agree with whoever said to just make it a bonus action. It's way less complicated and fills a niche of "this attack really REALLY needs to land so I'll sacrifice some action economy for it" without overshadowing any particular options in the game off the top of my head (Rogues have busy bonus actions, Paladins don't necessarily have easy access to it, BB/GFB will probably do more damage and not sacrifice the bonus action, anyone with a bonus action attack would probably rather use that instead, etc.)

Once I pointed out the brokenness of expanding crit range, he kinda just threw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. It was a real shame because I thought it was a neat idea, but he decided it was safer to just not home brew it at all.

[quindraco]

Once I pointed out the brokenness of expanding crit range, he kinda just threw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. It was a real shame because I thought it was a neat idea, but he decided it was safer to just not home brew it at all.

That's a shame. If the spell was just a bonus action it would be Zephyr Strike but weaker (no ignoring OAs, no bonus movement), and hence incredibly appropriate for a cantrip. You could even make it break concentration on other spells like ZS does by making it a concentration spell, like how the various Smite spells work.

[sayaijin]

That's a shame. If the spell was just a bonus action it would be Zephyr Strike but weaker (no ignoring OAs, no bonus movement), and hence incredibly appropriate for a cantrip. You could even make it break concentration on other spells like ZS does by making it a concentration spell, like how the various Smite spells work.

Well that's the other reason. The guy who took it was AT/Bladesinger, and he started giving the rogue the Aim bonus action from Tasha's. Once Aim came online, there wasn't enough benefit for him unless it pumped up damage or accuracy in another way.

[Man_Over_Game]

My thought process was:

"The next attack against that target gains a bonus to attack equal to your Proficiency. You can also spend your Bonus Action this turn to make a melee or ranged weapon attack against that target".

That's a balanced cantrip, one that isn't only good for doing one thing and one that isn't going to be spammed every friggin' turn. It also can't be easily abused by Quicken Spell or other shenanigans.

Make it powerful, versatile, but at a cost.

There's also no point in complicating things by adding a ton of annoying 1d4s. RNG is already applied through the attack roll, so there's no need to overcomplicate it more than that.

[DwarfFighter]

Why this obsession with making True Strike top tier? Every suggestion I see breaks it more than it fixes it. It's as if the existence of TS is somehow offensive, why not just remove it from circulation by banning it if it's so bad?

[LudicSavant]

So my DM wanted to "fix" the cantrip True Strike, but I'm worried it is going to be too powerful.

He's made it a weapon attack cantrip like booming blade, but it works with any proficient weapon (even ranged) and it gives +1d4 to attack roll.

The part I'm worried about is where he's made it where it the d20+d4 is equal to or greater than 20, then he's treating the attack as a crit and the attack as magical. Then he's giving it the additional d4 at 5th, 11th, and 17th so 2d4, 3d4, and 4d4...seems like an auto crit at 17th level.

He's saying it's balanced because it's still only ever one attack and martials would prefer multiple attacks, but there's a guy who wants to play Rogue...

You've identified the problem -- characters like Rogues do not prefer multiple attacks. Also, Warcaster exists.

[Kane0]

Why this obsession with making True Strike top tier? Every suggestion I see breaks it more than it fixes it. It's as if the existence of TS is somehow offensive, why not just remove it from circulation by banning it if it's so bad?

Removing a problem is just one way of fixing it. I assume people want to still use True Strike, but it just sucks so removing True Strike doesnt also remove the desire to use True Strike.

[DwarfFighter]

Removing a problem is just one way of fixing it. I assume people want to still use True Strike, but it just sucks so removing True Strike doesnt also remove the desire to use True Strike.

I don't think it's "just one way" in the sense that it's equal to the other failed attempts - it's a pretty conclusive and effective fix with arguably no negative game balance impacts. :)

(I humbly suggest that there is no way the game is hurt by the absence of this cantrip, as it is written.)

-DF

[sayaijin]

Why this obsession with making True Strike top tier? Every suggestion I see breaks it more than it fixes it. It's as if the existence of TS is somehow offensive, why not just remove it from circulation by banning it if it's so bad?

I can't speak for everyone, but I really like the idea of a Gish using magic to make their weapon attacks more accurate. We have cantrips that make melee attacks more powerful, but if you want more accuracy you need to use a leveled spell.

My DM's argument was past tier one, virtually no one would use a cantrip that only allowed for one attack unless it had a rider for damage like BB or GFB. The thread accurately pointed out that he overcompensate by changing the math on crit chance, but I still like the concept of a cantrip that makes one weapon attack more accurate.

[Amnestic]

Personally I think changing it to bonus action and keeping its concentration is sufficient to make gishes want it as an option. They might not always want to use it in favour of something else (maintaining other concentration spells, other BA uses like dual wielding, other BA uses like Cunning Action) but that's fine. It's still something they might want in their toolkit.

[DwarfFighter]

I can't speak for everyone, but I really like the idea of a Gish using magic to make their weapon attacks more accurate.


Surely the RAW version of the TS does exactly that?

-DF

[sayaijin]

Surely the RAW version of the TS does exactly that?

-DF

https://i.redd.it/eho7qnf2nxh21.jpg

As I'm sure you already know, the trap of true strike is that unless your character benefits from having advantage (Elven Accuracy or Rogue Sneak Attack), then you're better off attacking twice as opposed to using true strike and then attacking the next turn. The only exception to this that I can think of is if a caster is using a high level spell with an attack roll, and they need it to hit.

Therefore, the draw of "fixing" true strike is that it's such a bad spell it's practically begging to be fixed. There are many threads about it, so we don't need to get into it too much here, but the general consensus about homebrewing true strike is either
1) Make it a bonus action, but give it some negative that makes you not spam it every turn (takes concentration)
or
2) Make it a blade cantrip that has a fixed bonus to hit, but scaling bonus to damage.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread necromancy