Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
If a spell has an obvious effect it will described it. Otherwise, having to touch an arcane focus or use a material component is going to make a spell a lot more obvious than simply speaking some words or making a hand gesture; of course some spells are a bit vague about what those words/gestures may be, so it may fall to your DM and/or player to decide how unusual/obviously spellcasting they might be.
For example, the verbal component of Geas would probably be quite easy to hide if you're already talking to the target, you just need to include your command somewhere within that dialogue so unless the command is a really odd request the target may not notice it. But then what is the somatic component of Demiplane? Waving your hands in intricate gestures to create a doorway is probably fairly obvious, especially as it works at range (if it was touch we could just assume it was touching the surface), but the spell doesn't actually describe the somatic component.
In the case of True Strike however the somatic component is explicit; you point at the target. That's it.
But, if casting isn't obvious, then what is the point of subtle spell or counterspell?
Subtle spell enables you to cast spells that you otherwise can't (you can't speak and/or can't move). For Counterspell, there aren't actually that many spells with only vocal or only somatic components, the vast majority of spells have at least two components, any of which could be considered perceptible depending upon what the spell will do. This is actually another reason why Subtle Spell can be useful, as it makes it easier to hide what you are doing from a caster you expect to Counterspell you.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything has a section on Identifying a Spell, where to know what spell is being cast you must make an Intelligence (Arcana) check as a reaction to determine the spell. While it unfortunately doesn't go into much more detail, we can probably assume that if a target has seen you use a spell before they probably don't need to check, and that you must also make a similar check in order to determine that magic is being cast at all (if a target is doing something that could be spellcasting but isn't obvious).
These are all parts of why Counterspell isn't as overpowered as many people believe; you need to be able to perceive that casting is (or may be) occurring and either counterspell without knowing what you're countering, or have seen the specific spell before in order to know (or at least guess). A lot of damaging spells have material components (or require a focus) so will trigger the reaction to Counterspell fairly easily, but more insidious and subtle spells will be harder for a caster to simply counter.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
That is talking about knowing if you specifically got targetted. it has nothing to do with knowing if a spell was cast in the same room as you. Apples and oranges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Arcane tricksters have cunning action and stealth (bonus action to hide) or steady aim (bonus + move) will give advantage. Either option gives advantage for an attack that is over 30' away where true strike is limited to 30'.
What scenario do you think would make true strike a better option?
Idk? Hexblade Warlock, maybe?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
Also use it with Eldritch Knight. Once you get War Magic, you can cast true strike using your action, then make one weapon attack as a bonus action. The only issue is, the wording of the spell states that you get advantage on an attack roll on your next turn. I wouldn't restrict it in this way, because the authors of the PHB probably weren't anticipating all the creative builds people would come up with. I'm sure the authors of the PHB didn't realize how OP Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Sentinel, and Polearm Master would be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
Hmm... possibly, actually. If the Hexlock has Fey Touched, they want to move to a different location without eating an OA, and it's not viable to attack this turn, then it may be viable to misty step and true strike. This hinges on having some reason why it's not viable to attack right now, though, since I don't believe they have anything that benefits from crit-fishing; maybe the Hexlock has disadvantage this turn, or they're a ranged Hexlock and the target has full cover from the only safe spot they can teleport to.
You're stretching. Since the enemy is engaged, that 11th level rogue can use steady aim this turn and get sneak attack and then again next turn.
Only if he does not have to move to do it. If you are playing on a map with a grid steady aim is not an option more than it is an option for a ranged Rogue and on a melee Rogue (which most Arcane Tricksters are IME) it is almost never.
What if the enemy who poisoned you and who you want to attack is literally standing next to you. Sure you "can" use steady aim and then get housed next turn, but most would use cunning action-disengage.
There are a very small number of situations where true strike would be nice. However you have to consider what you're giving up in order to use it.
Agree completely! I am not saying it is going to be often, nor that it is a good choice, especially considering the very small number of cantrips you have, but I do think it will be useful on occasion.
If you note my post, I did not suggest taking it as one of your known cantrips, I suggested getting it on a scroll so you would have it for those rare situations without giving up one of your known cantrips.
Look at the spell, it takes a full action to use, it has a range of 30 feet and it is concentration.
Full action - without quicken it is a full action in order to cast. This means for the rogue that's usually giving up an attack, more than likely a sneak attack at that.
You would never give up a sneak attack to do this. You would give up an attack, usually one with disadvantage, to enable a sneak attack the following turn.
Range 30' - you have to be in melee range in order to use it (30' is melee since most creatures move it or greater). After casting, if you or the target move more than 30' from each other the spell (action) is wasted.
There is nothing in the spell description stating that the target needs to be within 30 feet when casting. You can cast it and then take cunning-action dash if you want and move 90 feet away from the target.
Concentration - immediately drop concentration on any other spell you've got up and then true strike has a duration of 1 round. You can't cast and hold it for later. Admittedly if you're not a primary caster this may not be that great of an issue, but even arcane tricksters tend to like concentration spells.
If you read my post you note that I suggested you cast it as a readied action right before your turn, not on your turn. Yes you drop concentration, if you are concentrating already, and that should be considered but the only Rogues that can use this are Arcane Tricksters and high level Thieves. It is not often that my Arcane Tricksters are concentrating in battle, occasionally they are but not often. Thieves are almost never concentrating.
I'm not saying true strike is completely worthless (just mostly ~98%). To make use of it at all required specific subclasses and even then it mostly comes down to corner cases. The only three non-specialized multiclass options I can think of are: Fighter Eldritch knight's war magic, Wizard bladesinger extra attack and a sorcerer that quickens and cast a to hit spell.
I think it is better in the hands of an Arcane Trickster or a Thief than in any of these examples. I can't think of any time I would want to use this with any class other than Rogue.
Edit: After consideration if you had an EK with an awesome melee weapon like a vorpal blade and metamagic adept I could see you using this, but that is a rare case.
If you've got some odd rogue/sorcerer/wizard/feat build that you want true strike then take it. But if you're going mostly rogue you're going to find you always have better rogue only options.
No straight Arcane Trickster or Thief using a scroll is the best (really only) viable use I think. If you are a multiclass sorcerer you probably have better spells to use.
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
If a spell has an obvious effect it will described it. Otherwise, having to touch an arcane focus or use a material component is going to make a spell a lot more obvious than simply speaking some words or making a hand gesture; of course some spells are a bit vague about what those words/gestures may be, so it may fall to your DM and/or player to decide how unusual/obviously spellcasting they might be.
For example, the verbal component of Geas would probably be quite easy to hide if you're already talking to the target, you just need to include your command somewhere within that dialogue so unless the command is a really odd request the target may not notice it. But then what is the somatic component of Demiplane? Waving your hands in intricate gestures to create a doorway is probably fairly obvious, especially as it works at range (if it was touch we could just assume it was touching the surface), but the spell doesn't actually describe the somatic component.
In the case of True Strike however the somatic component is explicit; you point at the target. That's it.
But, if casting isn't obvious, then what is the point of subtle spell or counterspell?
Subtle spell enables you to cast spells that you otherwise can't (you can't speak and/or can't move). For Counterspell, there aren't actually that many spells with only vocal or only somatic components, the vast majority of spells have at least two components, any of which could be considered perceptible depending upon what the spell will do. This is actually another reason why Subtle Spell can be useful, as it makes it easier to hide what you are doing from a caster you expect to Counterspell you.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything has a section on Identifying a Spell, where to know what spell is being cast you must make an Intelligence (Arcana) check as a reaction to determine the spell. While it unfortunately doesn't go into much more detail, we can probably assume that if a target has seen you use a spell before they probably don't need to check, and that you must also make a similar check in order to determine that magic is being cast at all (if a target is doing something that could be spellcasting but isn't obvious).
These are all parts of why Counterspell isn't as overpowered as many people believe; you need to be able to perceive that casting is (or may be) occurring and either counterspell without knowing what you're countering, or have seen the specific spell before in order to know (or at least guess). A lot of damaging spells have material components (or require a focus) so will trigger the reaction to Counterspell fairly easily, but more insidious and subtle spells will be harder for a caster to simply counter.
Read the Somatic portion. Must have a free hand and be able to make gestures. Think standing and pointing with your entire arm, not hiding the casting by putting your hand in a pocket. Pointing is a pretty obvious effect.
Geas and similar spells like suggestion don't work that way, neither RAW or RAI. For both of those examples the character is casting. The commands may be part of that casting, but not the entirety. Some DMs may let you disguise casting via deception.
You have to be consistent about spell casting across the board. Otherwise you get casters going around wearing large cloaks and casting while hidden, thereby bypassing counterspell (they can't see me pointing, holding my focus, etc.) or the need for subtle spell.
Agree completely! I am not saying it is going to be often, nor that it is a good choice, especially considering the very small number of cantrips you have, but I do think it will be useful on occasion.
If you note my post, I did not suggest taking it as one of your known cantrips, I suggested getting it on a scroll so you would have it for those rare situations without giving up one of your known cantrips.
Look at the spell, it takes a full action to use, it has a range of 30 feet and it is concentration.
Full action - without quicken it is a full action in order to cast. This means for the rogue that's usually giving up an attack, more than likely a sneak attack at that.
You would never give up a sneak attack to do this. You would give up an attack, usually one with disadvantage, to enable a sneak attack the following turn.
Range 30' - you have to be in melee range in order to use it (30' is melee since most creatures move it or greater). After casting, if you or the target move more than 30' from each other the spell (action) is wasted.
There is nothing in the spell description stating that the target needs to be within 30 feet when casting. You can cast it and then take cunning-action dash if you want and move 90 feet away from the target.
Concentration - immediately drop concentration on any other spell you've got up and then true strike has a duration of 1 round. You can't cast and hold it for later. Admittedly if you're not a primary caster this may not be that great of an issue, but even arcane tricksters tend to like concentration spells.
If you read my post you note that I suggested you cast it as a readied action right before your turn, not on your turn. Yes you drop concentration, if you are concentrating already, and that should be considered but the only Rogues that can use this are Arcane Tricksters and high level Thieves. It is not often that my Arcane Tricksters are concentrating in battle, occasionally they are but not often. Thieves are almost never concentrating.
I'm not saying true strike is completely worthless (just mostly ~98%). To make use of it at all required specific subclasses and even then it mostly comes down to corner cases. The only three non-specialized multiclass options I can think of are: Fighter Eldritch knight's war magic, Wizard bladesinger extra attack and a sorcerer that quickens and cast a to hit spell.
I think it is better in the hands of an Arcane Trickster or a Thief than in any of these examples. I can't think of any time I would want to use this with any class other than Rogue.
Edit: After consideration if you had an EK with an awesome melee weapon like a vorpal blade and metamagic adept I could see you using this, but that is a rare case.
We both agree that it isn't worth wasting a cantrip selection on. The other issue I have with assuming you've got a scroll is you'd have to have it out or easily accessible to be able to pull it off, and even then how many true strike scrolls are you going to have?
Range: Yes there is. The range of true strike is 30' not self. The spell specifies the self only in the text.
Concentration: I think that may be down to play style and what you're doing. I've been in entire combats where the arcane trickster stayed disguised or kept a silent image up or hideous laughter going.
Besides the odd corner cases, the only situation I can think of is if a sorcerer had a Crown of Stars going since its not concentration.
We both agree that it isn't worth wasting a cantrip selection on. The other issue I have with assuming you've got a scroll is you'd have to have it out or easily accessible to be able to pull it off, and even then how many true strike scrolls are you going to have?
Range: Yes there is. The range of true strike is 30' not self. The spell specifies the self only in the text.
Concentration: I think that may be down to play style and what you're doing. I've been in entire combats where the arcane trickster stayed disguised or kept a silent image up or hideous laughter going.
Besides the odd corner cases, the only situation I can think of is if a sorcerer had a Crown of Stars going since its not concentration.
It is like any other potion or scroll, it is in your pack or in a scroll tube on your belt. You pull it out and read it just like you draw a dagger and throw it or get out a potion and drink it. As a scroll though it is really cheap to have around. If you have a wizard in the party it is 15gp and 1 day to scribe it. If not it is 100gp to buy it outright. You don't need to have a lot because as you said it is rare to use it, but it will be valuable when you do want it.
On range I misposted eariler - the spells range is 30 feet, the target has to be within 30 feet when you cast it, but it does not have to stay within 30 feet. At least nothing in the description says it needs to. After you cast it you can move as far away as you want. That is what I meant to say. Once you cast it on a creature (from within 30 feet), you have advantage against that creature on the next turn regardless of where it is.
Disguise Self is not a concentration spell. I have been through entire fights with disguised too, but concentration is not an issue there. It is an issue for shadow blade or tasha's laughter. Silent Image is not that common to use in combat IME because minor illusion is a cantrip and not concentration and just about as useful once combat starts.
We both agree that it isn't worth wasting a cantrip selection on. The other issue I have with assuming you've got a scroll is you'd have to have it out or easily accessible to be able to pull it off, and even then how many true strike scrolls are you going to have?
Range: Yes there is. The range of true strike is 30' not self. The spell specifies the self only in the text.
Concentration: I think that may be down to play style and what you're doing. I've been in entire combats where the arcane trickster stayed disguised or kept a silent image up or hideous laughter going.
Besides the odd corner cases, the only situation I can think of is if a sorcerer had a Crown of Stars going since its not concentration.
It is like any other potion or scroll, it is in your pack or in a scroll tube on your belt. You pull it out and read it just like you draw a dagger and throw it or get out a potion and drink it. As a scroll though it is really cheap to have around. If you have a wizard in the party it is 15gp and 1 day to scribe it. If not it is 100gp to buy it outright. You don't need to have a lot because as you said it is rare to use it, but it will be valuable when you do want it.
On range I misposted eariler - the spells range is 30 feet, the target has to be within 30 feet when you cast it, but it does not have to stay within 30 feet. At least nothing in the description says it needs to. After you cast it you can move as far away as you want. That is what I meant to say. Once you cast it on a creature (from within 30 feet), you have advantage against that creature on the next turn regardless of where it is.
Disguise Self is not a concentration spell. I have been through entire fights with disguised too, but concentration is not an issue there. It is an issue for shadow blade or tasha's laughter. Silent Image is not that common to use in combat IME because minor illusion is a cantrip and not concentration and just about as useful once combat starts.
Hmm on disguise self. No one questioned it at all when the DM called for a con save. We all just assumed it was concentration. As for minor illusion vs silent image, it depends on what you want to hide during the fight - so game dependent.
However range is still 30' look at detect magic range self(30'), comprehend languages or at another crappy spell witchbolt. Witchbolt explicitly states the spell ends outside of 30' because it does damage. Where detect magic is probably the closest to true strike. Detect magic targets self then you can see magic up to 30' away. True strike you target a creature up to 30' away but the effect is range self. Basically the same effect for both spells, but detect magic is written much better.
If you're HB True Strike to give that kind of insight, ok. However, the spell Does Not give weaknesses or Defenses, but rather a quick peak at what might happen on the enemy's turn to give you advantage. I use it to give a bit more detail on the enemy's posture, missing limbs, encumbrance due to gear. Stuff like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Casting isn't obvious unless it has an obvious perceptible effect; this is described in the Targets section of casting a spell:
If a spell has an obvious effect it will described it. Otherwise, having to touch an arcane focus or use a material component is going to make a spell a lot more obvious than simply speaking some words or making a hand gesture; of course some spells are a bit vague about what those words/gestures may be, so it may fall to your DM and/or player to decide how unusual/obviously spellcasting they might be.
For example, the verbal component of Geas would probably be quite easy to hide if you're already talking to the target, you just need to include your command somewhere within that dialogue so unless the command is a really odd request the target may not notice it. But then what is the somatic component of Demiplane? Waving your hands in intricate gestures to create a doorway is probably fairly obvious, especially as it works at range (if it was touch we could just assume it was touching the surface), but the spell doesn't actually describe the somatic component.
In the case of True Strike however the somatic component is explicit; you point at the target. That's it.
Subtle spell enables you to cast spells that you otherwise can't (you can't speak and/or can't move). For Counterspell, there aren't actually that many spells with only vocal or only somatic components, the vast majority of spells have at least two components, any of which could be considered perceptible depending upon what the spell will do. This is actually another reason why Subtle Spell can be useful, as it makes it easier to hide what you are doing from a caster you expect to Counterspell you.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything has a section on Identifying a Spell, where to know what spell is being cast you must make an Intelligence (Arcana) check as a reaction to determine the spell. While it unfortunately doesn't go into much more detail, we can probably assume that if a target has seen you use a spell before they probably don't need to check, and that you must also make a similar check in order to determine that magic is being cast at all (if a target is doing something that could be spellcasting but isn't obvious).
These are all parts of why Counterspell isn't as overpowered as many people believe; you need to be able to perceive that casting is (or may be) occurring and either counterspell without knowing what you're countering, or have seen the specific spell before in order to know (or at least guess). A lot of damaging spells have material components (or require a focus) so will trigger the reaction to Counterspell fairly easily, but more insidious and subtle spells will be harder for a caster to simply counter.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That is talking about knowing if you specifically got targetted. it has nothing to do with knowing if a spell was cast in the same room as you. Apples and oranges.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Idk? Hexblade Warlock, maybe?
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
My Homebrews: Monsters, Magic Items, Spells, Races
Rhulg- Hobgoblin Gunsmith
Also use it with Eldritch Knight. Once you get War Magic, you can cast true strike using your action, then make one weapon attack as a bonus action. The only issue is, the wording of the spell states that you get advantage on an attack roll on your next turn. I wouldn't restrict it in this way, because the authors of the PHB probably weren't anticipating all the creative builds people would come up with. I'm sure the authors of the PHB didn't realize how OP Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Sentinel, and Polearm Master would be.
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
My Homebrews: Monsters, Magic Items, Spells, Races
Rhulg- Hobgoblin Gunsmith
Hmm... possibly, actually. If the Hexlock has Fey Touched, they want to move to a different location without eating an OA, and it's not viable to attack this turn, then it may be viable to misty step and true strike. This hinges on having some reason why it's not viable to attack right now, though, since I don't believe they have anything that benefits from crit-fishing; maybe the Hexlock has disadvantage this turn, or they're a ranged Hexlock and the target has full cover from the only safe spot they can teleport to.
Only if he does not have to move to do it. If you are playing on a map with a grid steady aim is not an option more than it is an option for a ranged Rogue and on a melee Rogue (which most Arcane Tricksters are IME) it is almost never.
What if the enemy who poisoned you and who you want to attack is literally standing next to you. Sure you "can" use steady aim and then get housed next turn, but most would use cunning action-disengage.
Agree completely! I am not saying it is going to be often, nor that it is a good choice, especially considering the very small number of cantrips you have, but I do think it will be useful on occasion.
If you note my post, I did not suggest taking it as one of your known cantrips, I suggested getting it on a scroll so you would have it for those rare situations without giving up one of your known cantrips.
You would never give up a sneak attack to do this. You would give up an attack, usually one with disadvantage, to enable a sneak attack the following turn.
There is nothing in the spell description stating that the target needs to be within 30 feet when casting. You can cast it and then take cunning-action dash if you want and move 90 feet away from the target.
If you read my post you note that I suggested you cast it as a readied action right before your turn, not on your turn. Yes you drop concentration, if you are concentrating already, and that should be considered but the only Rogues that can use this are Arcane Tricksters and high level Thieves. It is not often that my Arcane Tricksters are concentrating in battle, occasionally they are but not often. Thieves are almost never concentrating.
I think it is better in the hands of an Arcane Trickster or a Thief than in any of these examples. I can't think of any time I would want to use this with any class other than Rogue.
Edit: After consideration if you had an EK with an awesome melee weapon like a vorpal blade and metamagic adept I could see you using this, but that is a rare case.
No straight Arcane Trickster or Thief using a scroll is the best (really only) viable use I think. If you are a multiclass sorcerer you probably have better spells to use.
Read the Somatic portion. Must have a free hand and be able to make gestures. Think standing and pointing with your entire arm, not hiding the casting by putting your hand in a pocket. Pointing is a pretty obvious effect.
Geas and similar spells like suggestion don't work that way, neither RAW or RAI. For both of those examples the character is casting. The commands may be part of that casting, but not the entirety. Some DMs may let you disguise casting via deception.
You have to be consistent about spell casting across the board. Otherwise you get casters going around wearing large cloaks and casting while hidden, thereby bypassing counterspell (they can't see me pointing, holding my focus, etc.) or the need for subtle spell.
We both agree that it isn't worth wasting a cantrip selection on. The other issue I have with assuming you've got a scroll is you'd have to have it out or easily accessible to be able to pull it off, and even then how many true strike scrolls are you going to have?
Range: Yes there is. The range of true strike is 30' not self. The spell specifies the self only in the text.
Concentration: I think that may be down to play style and what you're doing. I've been in entire combats where the arcane trickster stayed disguised or kept a silent image up or hideous laughter going.
Besides the odd corner cases, the only situation I can think of is if a sorcerer had a Crown of Stars going since its not concentration.
It is like any other potion or scroll, it is in your pack or in a scroll tube on your belt. You pull it out and read it just like you draw a dagger and throw it or get out a potion and drink it. As a scroll though it is really cheap to have around. If you have a wizard in the party it is 15gp and 1 day to scribe it. If not it is 100gp to buy it outright. You don't need to have a lot because as you said it is rare to use it, but it will be valuable when you do want it.
On range I misposted eariler - the spells range is 30 feet, the target has to be within 30 feet when you cast it, but it does not have to stay within 30 feet. At least nothing in the description says it needs to. After you cast it you can move as far away as you want. That is what I meant to say. Once you cast it on a creature (from within 30 feet), you have advantage against that creature on the next turn regardless of where it is.
Disguise Self is not a concentration spell. I have been through entire fights with disguised too, but concentration is not an issue there. It is an issue for shadow blade or tasha's laughter. Silent Image is not that common to use in combat IME because minor illusion is a cantrip and not concentration and just about as useful once combat starts.
No one caught
Hmm on disguise self. No one questioned it at all when the DM called for a con save. We all just assumed it was concentration. As for minor illusion vs silent image, it depends on what you want to hide during the fight - so game dependent.
However range is still 30' look at detect magic range self(30'), comprehend languages or at another crappy spell witchbolt. Witchbolt explicitly states the spell ends outside of 30' because it does damage. Where detect magic is probably the closest to true strike. Detect magic targets self then you can see magic up to 30' away. True strike you target a creature up to 30' away but the effect is range self. Basically the same effect for both spells, but detect magic is written much better.
If you're HB True Strike to give that kind of insight, ok. However, the spell Does Not give weaknesses or Defenses, but rather a quick peak at what might happen on the enemy's turn to give you advantage. I use it to give a bit more detail on the enemy's posture, missing limbs, encumbrance due to gear. Stuff like that.