How is True Strike not overpowered?

[RNightstalker]

First off, a +20 bonus for a 1st level spell?!?!?!

Secondly, it's an insight bonus so it will stack with most everything else as they're not too common.

Thirdly, its on ANY attack roll: ranged, melee, touch.

Has anyone else nerfed this at their table?
Would having it give a smaller bonus that gives additional bonuses at higher levels be more appropriate, like +1 to start and an additional +1 for every two caster levels?

[Vhaidara]

It's a standard action to cast and only affects one attack. So you effectively give up an entire turn to makes sure 1 attack lands. In a game that generally relies on either multiple attacks or disabling enemies without using attack rolls (generally via saves, sometimes without even allowing for saves), its use is extremely limited.

[Cygnia]

For starters, it's usually a standard action cast AND its range is personal. So you can't just drop this on your fighters.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Well, it's a Standard Action to cast, Personal range and only applies to the next attack (singular) before the end of the next round. Low level casters don't deal enough damage for the spell to be worth it, and by the time that they do get enough oopmh behind them to take advantage of that +20, they've usually got better things to do with the action, or they're making multiple attacks (like scorching ray).

[Efrate]

It's a standard action to cast. You take a turn off, and spend a spell to make sure your next attack hits. That's 2 rounds of actions for 1 round of action, plus a slot. It's also personal only. And it's overkill on most touch attacks, except early where it's a slot for it then likely another slot which is most of your spells at level 1. If you use it to make your crossbow hit it's a waste. It's good with thing like shivering touch and dragons but that's the circumstance it shines in, and it's still a wasted round of actions that doesn't immediately affect the fight.

[Darg]

It's really great when you stack damage multipliers and/or when you take advantage of single hit attacks like Whirlwind Attack, decisive strike/overpowering strike ACFs, or using a lance while mounted.

Other than that, it's for when you wouldn't be hitting the target, but still need to do something. Because of the action cost or the resource cost of a 5th level slot to use on the same turn, it isn't a versatile spell and is really only usable for niche cases.

[Jay R]

It looks like it ought to be, doesn't it? But the truth is, in actual use it doesn't overwhelm your foes.

Others have given the theoretical answer (it takes two rounds for one attack, only the wizard gets the benefit, etc.). The practical answer is that nobody has ever managed to dominate the game with it.

Try it in a game some time. You will see that it doesn't, in fact, distort the game.

[Biggus]

In my games it generally only gets used as a quickened spell (which means it's effectively 5th level) as it's very rarely worth using a standard action to cast. If you've got a ray spell you're pretty sure will **** up your opponent it can be worth it for a 95% chance to hit, but most creatures don't have very high touch AC anyway.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Simple answer is, it's only as powerful as your next attack would be if it hits. and even then, less so, because you're taking an entire extra action for it.

Sure, a paladin could drop 2 feats and get battle blessing and sword of the arcane order to cast it as a swift action with no upcast, but that's as far as you can take it.

The often thought of "broken" form of true strike is using the custom magic item creation rules to just make an item of perpetual true strike. Due to the spell's effect, instead of giving +20 to hit on each attack roll, this would only give a +20 to your next attack roll after spending a standard action to activate the item, but it would last until you made an attack.

[RexDart]

It's a fairly nice spell for a Duskblade (used with Quick Cast), but even there, better spell choices exist.

[Rynjin]

Let's assume you deal 1d8+6 damage with your primary attack.

You cast True Strike (1 standard action) and then the following turn attack (1 standard action). You have a 95% chance to deal 1d8+6 damage.

Does having an (almost) guarantee of dealing 1d8+6 damage sound like a good use of your time?

If so, have you considered casting Magic Missile instead, which deals 3d4+3 damage, with 100% accuracy?

That's the exact same average damage BTW. And it's twice as fast.

Edit: This question was so out of left field I actually thought this was the 5e forum.

True Strike is SIGNIFICANTLY worse in 3.5 than even 5e.

[Particle_Man]

True strike (or at least a silent version of it) is nice for assassins. If you spend all that time setting up the death attack, it would be a shame to then miss with it.

[Calthropstu]

I have seen a build that used it. It got a quick version and the purpose was to make absurd bull rush attacks, knocking enemies 100 feet. It was paired with a ranger for some serious tactic advantage.

[Fizban]

First off, a +20 bonus for a 1st level spell?!?!?!

Secondly, it's an insight bonus so it will stack with most everything else as they're not too common.

Thirdly, its on ANY attack roll: ranged, melee, touch.

Has anyone else nerfed this at their table?
Would having it give a smaller bonus that gives additional bonuses at higher levels be more appropriate, like +1 to start and an additional +1 for every two caster levels?

First off: ignore the forum. If it's caused problems in your games and you think it needs a nerf, nerf it. A +10 would still be plenty worth casting for the sort of character it's "aimed" at. Don't forget it also lets you ignore concealment. I wouldn't necessarily drop it all the way down to +1/level or +1/2 levels, that does make it a little too extremely niche (though on the other hand, even just the ignoring of concealment for a single attack at 1st is still easily read as a reasonable situational 1st level spell), but more importantly such a nerf can have the opposite effect: they look at how small the bonus is and think it should be a swift action, because there are swift action spells with low bonuses like that, and now you're pressured to remove the major feature/restriction while also making a spell that is still more powerful than those existing swift action spells.

Secondly: people don't think it's overpowered because there's a certain blindness to combos (in addition to the obvious blindness to damage). If a spell is strong on its own, it gets compared to the most powerful spells that exist, often even spells of higher level, and is usually excused because lol magic: True Strike doesn't immediately put people to sleep and allow a coup-de-grace, so clearly it's not actually powerful compared to Sleep. Instead True Strike is a combo piece, and if you put together a combo that just means you've "earned" whatever result you get, which was totally fully intended by the designers (nevermind that the designers who wrote the second half of your combo are probably completely different from those who wrote True Strike). No, it doesn't do anything on its own- it just lets you do something that you clearly couldn't have done before, for a tiny, tiny cost. And then people print more ways to ignore that cost, like Circlet of Rapid Casting, or Artificer, or Metamagic Wand Grips, or Arcane Fusion, or Arcane Spellsurge, or. . .

And of course, True Strike mostly enables either a single big Power Attack hit on the weapon attack side, which is "just damage," or a blasting spell hit, which is "just damage," or a non-blasting spell hit, which "was a touch attack so it's assumed to always hit anyway." There's actually a funny bit where Scorching Ray, normally the primary offender in the creep of no-save damage for all of 3.5, is itself actually not a great combo with True Strike due to the multiple attack rolls (the uber orbs of course require only one, thus True Strike). Or it can be compared to spending two turns casting level appropriate damage spells, ignoring how this is a single 1st level spell with full effect at CL 1.

The biggest response so far is clearly "it's a standard action," and sure, it is. Until you quicken it (quite possibly for free), or you have a round where you're not in range or are blocked from affecting your foe but expect you will be next turn, which can happen accidentally far more than people realize and be set up intentionally with ease via the many BFC spells.

In short: people don't think it's overpowered because their power level is higher than yours, and char-op culture tends to make excuses for any and every RAW combo, because the whole point of char-op is finding those combos- their expected power level is defined by them.

If a spell is so powerful that a character will still find it useful even if cut in half, or had its level massively increased, or standard consumable forms become no-brainers that everyone should have available if they can use them, yes, those are indicators the spell might be too powerful. As written in the DMG, if something is so powerful that every character who can should have it (and this applies to True Strike unless you deliberately avoid every spell that requires an attack roll), yes, it might be too powerful (ignore when people immediately try to reducto ad absurdum this obvious definition of the word "balance"). True Strike could easily be cut to +10, and still virtually guarantee a hit at the level it's introduced, or for single touch spells later. It could be kicked up to 3rd level (or 4th, maybe even 5th), and people that want the effect would still have use for it at that level, if you never told them it was originally 1st for them to complain about the "nerf," they would just recognize it as more specialized instead of a gimme. The same sort of changes can be made to plenty of OP core spells, including defensive spells people will really push back on because it's "just defense"- you should see what happens when I recommend nerfing Shield and Mage Armor (just a bit so they don't make a mockery of the entire armor system, and they freak out).


And of course, there is the final solution. If it's not appropriate as written and people want to whine about the bonus you're willing to allow, just "ban" it entirely, remove the problem. The concept of the spell, spending a standard action and a spell to virtually guarantee a hit on your next turn, is very basic, and might not be appropriate for all games even in concept even if you squashed all the combo bugs. If it's entirely unfixable then good riddance.

[loky1109]

The often thought of "broken" form of true strike is using the custom magic item creation rules to just make an item of perpetual true strike. Due to the spell's effect, instead of giving +20 to hit on each attack roll, this would only give a +20 to your next attack roll after spending a standard action to activate the item, but it would last until you made an attack..

There are knight order in my setting, that using true strike swords, but... This swords will crumble into dust after single strike.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Secondly: people don't think it's overpowered because there's a certain blindness to combos (in addition to the obvious blindness to damage). If a spell is strong on its own, it gets compared to the most powerful spells that exist, often even spells of higher level, and is usually excused because lol magic: True Strike doesn't immediately put people to sleep and allow a coup-de-grace, so clearly it's not actually powerful compared to Sleep. Or it can be compared to spending two turns casting level appropriate damage spells, ignoring how this is a single 1st level spell with full effect at CL 1.

The biggest response so far is clearly "it's a standard action," and sure, it is. Until you quicken it (quite possibly for free), or you have a round where you're not in range or are blocked from affecting your foe but expect you will be next turn, which can happen accidentally far more than people realize and be set up intentionally with ease via the many BFC spells.

In short: people don't think it's overpowered because their power level is higher than yours, and char-op culture tends to make excuses for any and every RAW combo, because the whole point of char-op is finding those combos- their expected power level is defined by them.

These are indeed legitimate concerns for some "pretty good but not quite as good as others" spells. However, it doesn't apply to True Strike. Because True Strike is really bad, even compared to other spells that are far from the best. Rynjin didn't compare it to casting two level-appropriate spells, but to casting one magic missile, or just other blastings like shocking grasp, if you wanna get in melee. A wizard or sorcerer's attacks are just not that impressive, and auto-hitting on one of them just isn't that good. And yes, touch attacks are not going to hit always, but it will almost always hit at the very least 50% of the time, and that means just casting twice is almost always better than casting true strike and risking to just not be able to act because the fight finished in this one round.

And if you say "you have to quicken it", that means you're at least level 9. At this level, touch attacks will hit even more often, your melee attacks will be even more underwhelming compared to your spells (especially 5th level spells), and you'll have even more options to quicken that are much better, like just buffing the fighter of the party, or just simply magic missile, once again.

People don't think Magic Missile, or Flaming Sphere or Greater Magic Weapon are overpowered because their power level is higher than yours. People don't think True Strike is good because the spell is bad.

[Darg]

Well ok, there is another situation where it can be extremely helpful: when you can't see the target and someone is able to point out which square they are in. You would blindly swing into the square and the spell basically guarantees that the strike/touch succeeds.

The spell is not terrible. It's actually really good at what it does. The problem is getting access to it when it would be beneficial. The optimization necessary to actually break the balance of the game with the spell is pretty difficult and highly specialized. And let's be real here, how often does a character need that +20 in order to be even effective? Players already have a 1 in 20 swings auto true strike effect built into the game.

[Mechalich]

True strike (or at least a silent version of it) is nice for assassins. If you spend all that time setting up the death attack, it would be a shame to then miss with it.

Really it's nicely paired with any sort of opening attack, whether that's an actual physical attack or a spell that's a touch attack. It's not a bad spell to cast in the round immediately prior to attacking, assuming that's something the party has control over (they often won't) and other persistent buffs have already been applied. It's particularly helpful to pair with an attack carrying a SoS or SoD effect, including mundane sources of such effects like poison.

A Wand of True Strike is therefore a useful item to have around, especially for anyone trying to take advantage of flat-footed enemies, since it really sucks to miss with that opening sneak attack, and also for similar pick-your-battles kind of dramatic moments when it's very important not to miss - like say, starting a battle in the king's court by Disintegrating the king.

However, True Strike is fundamentally about getting to ignore the RNG for a single attack. High-optimization games are generally built around ignoring the RNG as a matter of course - usually by boosting beyond it - and therefore True Strike loses all value.

[Darg]

However, True Strike is fundamentally about getting to ignore the RNG for a single attack. High-optimization games are generally built around ignoring the RNG as a matter of course - usually by boosting beyond it - and therefore True Strike loses all value.

I wouldn't say it loses all value, it is a first level spell after all that does allow you to bypass concealment miss chance. If you have persistent spell and a free 7th level slot, you could cast it the night before and benefit from it on your first attack of the day.

[Rebel7284]

True Strike is a unique spell with some niche use, so it's good to keep in mind that it exists. However, most of the time, just using True Strike without a specific plan is not a good return on investment on a first level slot.

I understand the temptation to value auto-hitting, my second character ever was a gish with a ton of to-hit bonuses. However, I recognized quickly that while hitting was nice, my damage rolls were not doing very much. The same idea applies to True Strike. Certain builds do benefit from Quickened True Strike + [Tome of Battle] strike or Arcane Fusion with True Strike + Orb of X, but most of the time, actions are too valuable to use a buff that only affects you for one attack.

[Maat Mons]

It's important not to have a knee-jerk reaction to big numbers. Here's a fun thought exercise that illustrates why. Imagine if True Strike gave a +2,000 bonus instead of a +20 bonus. How much better would it be? Well, a +20 bonus gives you a 95% chance to hit, and a +2,000 bonus gives you... a 95% chance to hit. Once you pass the threshold of "enough," more isn't better.

Anyway, the litmus test to determine if something is overpowered is "does it cause problems in-game?" So, has anyone observed True Strike causing problems?

If you do decide to nerf it, the question you need to ask is "how much can I scale this back before people stop using it." Personally, I've never seen anyone use True Strike. That doesn't seem to bode well for people using a nerfed version of it, but maybe my experience is atypical.

[Rynjin]

Now, a fun way to rework True Strike so it's not completely useless, try using the Psionic version instead.

Inevitable Strike can be cast as a Swift for a +5 (and ignore concealment.

Alternately, it can be cast as normal True Strike for a bit of extra PP, or have the bonus jacked but keep Swift action cast by pumping PP into it, making it the equivalent of a 5th level spell to get a +20 bonus as a Swift action (same as Quickened True Strike).

This sidesteps the "big numbers are scary" issue while actually making the spell usable.

If you just want a solid 1st level spell...+5 to your next attack roll as a Swift is pretty good, and makes a great spell for Paladins and such to have access to.

[Quertus]

I've seen people try to use True Strike, and… the results were underwhelming.

There's even a +1 bow with True Strike at will, and it's… just not worth the action economy lost to use it.

If your table finds True Strike overpowered in actual play, your players are either really bad at math, really crazy crafty, or your table is so low-op that playing there would cause the average Playgrounder to suffer d4 sanity loss.

[icefractal]

There's a few situations it's useful for, but they're pretty niche.
Ambushing - although with a one round duration and a verbal component, this only works for certain types of ambushes.
Sniping - True Strike cancels the penalty for being at maximum range, and at that range probably nobody can hear you cast it. But it's still just a single opening shot. And long-range combat is rare in D&D because it leaves the rest of the party twiddling their thumbs.

I played a character that was basically the best case scenario for True Strike (a gestalt Diviner/Desperado who used spells for investigation and buffing and relied on a rifle for offense), and I did prepare it (for that sniping scenario) and I still don't think I ever cast it.

[Segev]

Maybe it is something an arcane hierophant could make hse of with his animal companion familiar. Familiars share spells, so you could cast it and your animal companion familiar attack with it in the same round.

[Mechalich]

Thinking on it, True Strike can actually be used to improve the action economy - by bringing a hit chance that's below 50% up to an effective 50%.

Now, that's not useful for a PC, since any single attack standard action by a PC should be at well above 50% in almost all cases, but there's a wide range of potential minions to which that would apply.

[Malphegor]

It’s great when you can get it as a free action. Runecaster applying it as a permament touch activated rune on the handle of every weapon, activating each round so long as the wielder is touching the rune.

And it doesn’t even seem that silly or metagamey to have on at all times on a weapon, that’s pretty standard fantasy magic weapon enhancement: ‘the sword of truth that always strikes true’ from Disney’s adaptation of Sleeping Beauty for example.


But otherwise it’s costing a standard action for a bonus that might not be needed depending on dice roll, and doesn’t make things any deader faster.

[Calthropstu]

It can be used in conjunction with combat maneuvers. A +20 to disarm an opponent taking away their main schtick if you are going for capture? Steal the bbeg wizard's uber headband before running away?

[pabelfly]

It can be used in conjunction with combat maneuvers. A +20 to disarm an opponent taking away their main schtick if you are going for capture? Steal the bbeg wizard's uber headband before running away?

I don't know, you'd better have a really good plan on what you're doing when the BBEG gets their turn with you right in front of them and having just antagonised them.

[Calthropstu]

I don't know, you'd better have a really good plan on what you're doing when the BBEG gets their turn with you right in front of them and having just antagonised them.

Hmmmm. I suppose "Oh my god it's the tarrasque" as you do it is insufficient?

Though I suppose having wizard ally cast dimension door after you do it is a good idea.