Finally found a niche use for True Strike

[Segev]

https://anydice.com/program/24011

If you are going to make a single attack at disadvantage against something within 30 feet every round, your odds of hitting do improve using True Strike to remove the disadvantage on every other round rather than attacking with disadvantage every round.

Still requires the target to be in range and you not to lose concentration, though.

[Warder]

I've said it before, but the 5e implementation of True Strike is not a combat spell. It's what you use when you're taking aim for the rope on the hangman's noose that's around your friend's neck, when you're aiming for the enchanted ruby in that giant statue's eye that's causing the dungeon to collapse, etc. I'd absolutely take it for any sort of magical archer character for that reason alone, but maybe not for anything else.

[Segev]

I've said it before, but the 5e implementation of True Strike is not a combat spell. It's what you use when you're taking aim for the rope on the hangman's noose that's around your friend's neck, when you're aiming for the enchanted ruby in that giant statue's eye that's causing the dungeon to collapse, etc. I'd absolutely take it for any sort of magical archer character for that reason alone, but maybe not for anything else.

You'd better be able to get within thirty feet of that noose with your bow and arrow, then, and cast the spell without anybody objecting and starting combat because of it.

[Warder]

You'd better be able to get within thirty feet of that noose with your bow and arrow, then, and cast the spell without anybody objecting and starting combat because of it.

Yeah, it's still very limited, but it's what I'd use it for to lean into the magical archer making impossible shots thing. Never anything else.

[Valmark]

https://anydice.com/program/24011

If you are going to make a single attack at disadvantage against something within 30 feet every round, your odds of hitting do improve using True Strike to remove the disadvantage on every other round rather than attacking with disadvantage every round.

Still requires the target to be in range and you not to lose concentration, though.

I'm fairly sure that I'm misreading, but doesn't it say that you take the highest of two rolls where the number of sides on the dice is equivalent to the lowest of two d20 rolls?

"Highest of 2d[lowest of 2d20]"

As in, if I roll a 15 and a 13 then I roll 2d13 and take the highest?

(Again, I assume I'm reading it wrong).

[Tanarii]

Your math is wrong. Ot at least, it discounts chance to hit and total number of hits. It's better to attack with disadvantage twice as long as you have a 50% chance or better to hit.

Here's 60%, or a starting character with +5 (+3 mod + w prof) vs AC 13
https://anydice.com/program/24016

[JNAProductions]

I made an anydice program (https://anydice.com/program/24015) to check against an AC you hit on 9+. Replace the 8 with whatever number you like to get new results.

If you hit on a 9+, you have a slightly less chance of hitting with at least one attack (59.04% chance) but that's offset by the odds of getting two hits.

If we set it to hit on a 2+, you're much better off with two disadvantaged attacks than one normal.
If we set it to hit on a nat 20 only, you have literally ten times the odds of hitting with one normal attack than two disadvantaged.

Also, this assumes you have only one attack. If we check an Eldritch Knight at level 5, who has two attacks hitting on a 9+, using this program (https://anydice.com/program/24017)...

You get one hit slightly more often with four attacks at disadvantage than one normal and one disadvantage attack.
You get two hits more than twice as much with four than with two.
You have a small chance of getting three hits, and a pretty insignificant chance of four.

[Tanarii]

Also, this assumes you have only one attack. If we check an Eldritch Knight at level 5, who has two attacks hitting on a 9+, using this program (https://anydice.com/program/24017)...

You get one hit slightly more often with four attacks at disadvantage than one normal and one disadvantage attack.
You get two hits more than twice as much with four than with two.
You have a small chance of getting three hits, and a pretty insignificant chance of four.
Worth nothing an EK with war Magic at 7 would get 3 total attacks if using True Strike.

[Foolwise]

Would it be too big of a buff to take the line from True Strike's description, "Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target's defenses," to mean that the caster learns one (or all) of the target's resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities? I don't know if this would step on the toes of another spell, but it would at least make the cantrip more useful whenever the party encounters a foe they have never seen before.

[Boci]

You'd better be able to get within thirty feet of that noose with your bow and arrow, then, and cast the spell without anybody objecting and starting combat because of it.

Worth noting there is no verbal component to the spell. How likely that makes it casting it within 30ft unnoticed is up the DM, but its something. Also I believe you could cast the spell within 30 and then move away and still gain the benefit next round when you attack from 60ft+ away, I don't believe the range matters beyond when you cast the spell.

Still very niche, but could work and sounds cool.