Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
So… now 5.5E true strike qualifies for agonizing blast and pact of the blade and eldritch smite and repelling blast all at the same time right?
Like, that’s a lot of damage/control and all off of charisma. Am I interpreting this right? I have no idea.
Yes. *
While it is a lot, it's not as much as you'd think. True strike is comparable to other cantrips in its damage, and, while TS lets you use eldritch smite, which other cantrips don't, you can't true strike and also use blade pact's extra attacks, so smiting on the normal attacks is probably more effective overall.
Also, one should compare what you get out of eldritch smite with what else you can get out of the spell slots. Is true strike damage plus 4d8 plus prone to a single target really better than, say, Fireball?
(And you also don't have a lot of spell slots.)
Is it bad? Not at all. But I don't think it's categorically better than either non-TS blade pact, nor vanilla EB-and-spells warlocks.
* Some people disagree. I think they're wrong, but you should confirm with your DM before placing all your hopes and dreams in the hands of this combo.
But I could also divine smite at the same time, while not sustainable it makes a big boom. Awesome combat starter and could one shot mage BBEGs if you roll decent. Plus it all goes off charisma.
And if you have a enspelled weapon with divine smite you can just be warlock for this to work. This is also not a reliable strategy But very possible if you tell your DM exactly what your looking for or have a paladin plus artificer in the party.
Just curious,where/who does it say it qualifies?
Agonizing Blast says you have to pick a Warlock cantrip that deals damage. Repelling Blast requires a Warlock cantrip that requires an attack roll. True Strike is both. These also work with Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade.
Through Pact of the Tome you can get a wider variety of cantrips to use with these invocations because any cantrips you get count as Warlock cantrips, so you could use them on something like Thorn Whip or Ray of Frost.
Damage spells that require a saving throw like Mind Sliver would work with Agonizing Blast but not Repelling Blast.
I'd argue that RAW, the answer is 'no'.
True Strike does not require an attack roll. Nor is it a cantrip that deals damage. It is a cantrip that permits you to make a weapon attack and improves that weapon attack.
If you look through the attack rolls section, you'll see there are five mutually exclusive categories. You've got Ranged and Melee, then you've got Weapon, Unarmed (which can only be Melee) and Spell. There is no such thing as a hybrid Spell/Weapon attack.
So for any specific effect, you have to pick one of those categories. If you True Strike, it's either Melee or Ranged. It can't be both. Likewise, it has to pick one of Spell, Weapon or Unarmed - and the text of the spell makes it clear that the only valid choice is 'Weapon'.
Since it's a Weapon Attack, it's not a "spell that does damage" or "spell that requires an attack roll".
I am still missing the ruling that says you can use True Strike on a invocation/spell like agonizing blast.
I am not seeing how true strike can be used with agonizing blast.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with true strike. If you can stack paladin and warlock smites on a true strike (which you can), you can also do it on a regular attack (which you can). Furthermore, taking a regular attack action with a high-level blade warlock gets you three attacks, which gives you more chances to land a hit for your smiting.
It's a warlock cantrip that deals damage. Even if you buy the argument that the weapon's damage is somehow not a part of the spell's effects, despite the fact that you only make the weapon attack because you cast the spell, and the attack is modified by the spell, it also deals its own damage at level 5+.
I am still not understanding. As a material component, you need a physical weapon and you have to use that weapon. If you are not swinging the actual physical weapon, how do you use true strike?
In other words, you cast a cantrip, and, as part of its effects, you do damage. This makes it a candidate for agonizing blast.
But you can't use Agonizing Blast on an actual physical weapon, which is part of True Strike, correct?
Agonizing blast is type tied to true strike not the weapon, the benefit of Agonizing blast is grant to the weapon through the casting of TS
so yes, your right
Then you are allowed to cast 2 spells/invocations and attack with a weapon?
Agonizing Blast isn't a spell. It's an Invocation that lets you choose a specific Warlock cantrip that deals damage, and when you cast that cantrip, it deals extra damage. If you choose True Strike as the spell, then when you cast True Strike it deals extra damage.
Are you getting Agonizing Blast confused with Eldritch Blast, which is a spell?
pronouns: he/she/they
I understand Agonizing Blast an invocation is cast on true strike which has true strike cast on a weapon..
You cast true strike (spell) and attack with the weapon, and then use the invocation to add more damage. I wasn't sure if one can do all three "actions".
Agonizing Blast is not something you "cast" or "use" on its own. It's a passive feature that modifies a specific cantrip when you cast it.
True Strike is not something you cast "on" a weapon. It's a spell that includes a weapon attack as part of its casting, like Booming Blade.
There are not three actions here. There is one action: the Magic action used to cast True Strike.
pronouns: he/she/they
Exactly.
If you're still finding it confusing, consider how things work with a normal cantrip, such as fire bolt, which says:
You cast the cantrip, which causes you to make a ranged spell attack. If it hits, you do damage, which is modified by Agonizing Blast.
With true strike, it's effectively the same thing:
It's weirder, because you're bringing a weapon in to the spellcasting process, but the steps are not fundamentally different.