You point a finger at a target in range. Your magic marks your opponent and grants you an insight on its defences. Once an enemy within range hits you with an attack you may use your reaction to cast True Strike. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target.
Is this version of true strike possibly too powerfull? Im concidering giving this to my party's warlock.
Also, I don't quite get why it'd be a reaction. If you want to do it, you MIGHT get some traction treating it like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. They must make an attack as part of casting the spell, and they get advantage on that attack. It keeps it from being BONUS ACTION overpowered, while still providing some advantage.
I don't know. I never thought True Strike was altogether super WEAK. I just always thought it was a little BORING.
Also, I don't quite get why it'd be a reaction. If you want to do it, you MIGHT get some traction treating it like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. They must make an attack as part of casting the spell, and they get advantage on that attack. It keeps it from being BONUS ACTION overpowered, while still providing some advantage.
I don't know. I never thought True Strike was altogether super WEAK. I just always thought it was a little BORING.
True Strike is mathematically worse than just attacking.
True strike is a pretty bad spell - call it "weak" or niche or whatever, but its just not useful. Rogue and clerics are the only ones who don't get Extra Attack in their hybrid subclass options, and its always better to attack multiple times instead of using true strike. Rogues never want to give up a chance to land a sneak attack every round. Clerics need to multiclass or use a feat to get it, and even then, Divine Strike isn't exactly a huge consideration for most people.
In general, there are two situations where True Strike is really useful - one is you have time to cast the spell before combat begins, or when you have a second spell with an attack roll you absolutely don't want to miss (something like Bestow Curse and getting advantage on landing the touch attack).
And that's before we consider that True Strike is a Concentration spell. And its a targeted spell - there's a chance your target is dead before you make your attack next turn.
I can see it doesn't show the full description of the way i made this spell. The description is as follows:
You point a finger at a target in range. Your magic marks your opponent and grants you an insight on its defences. Once a creature within range hits you with an attack roll you can use your reaction to cast this spell. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target.
Simply extending the duration to two rounds makes it viable. As it is now, you are training one attack roll this round and another attack roll next round -> 0 attack rolls this round and 2 attack rolls next round. That is a bad idea, as you miss out on the chance of getting 2 hits. Only viable for your highest level spell and only if it has a single attack roll. Rarely worth it.
But if you do below, then you are trading 3 attack rolls for 4 attack rolls, a net gain of one attack roll, even if you are giving up the sleight chance of 3 hits. This becomes viable for use one every three rounds, as long as you are not concentrating.
True Strike
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 2 round
You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target's defenses. On your two next turns, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn't ended.
I can see it doesn't show the full description of the way i made this spell. The description is as follows:
You point a finger at a target in range. Your magic marks your opponent and grants you an insight on its defences. Once a creature within range hits you with an attack roll you can use your reaction to cast this spell. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target.
The action economy of this is a little borked. You pick a target; does this take an action? A bonus action? An interaction? You haven't done anything yet, but the spell's sort of started being cast? And then, if it hits you, you cast the spell, and it gives you advantage on your next attack roll? And does the duration only kick in once you get hit? So if you pick a target on turn one, they don't even try to attack you until turn five, and then they don't actually hit you until turn eight, are they your huckleberry that whole time?
Also, just nitpicking here, "instantaneous" and "1 round" are two different actions. Instantaneous is something that happens once and has forever happened. Like a fireball. The fireball doesn't explode over a full round, it just blows up and does its damage, and the damage is done.
If you're hellbent on making True Strike a reaction ability, then I'd word it like this:
LEVEL Cantrip
Casting Time 1 Reaction *
Range/Area 30 feet
Components S
Duration 1 Round
Attack/Save None
Damage/Effect Foreknowledge
When you are hit by an attack, you may cast this spell to give yourself advantage on the next attack roll you make against your attacker.
* - which you take when you are hit by an attack
Of course, I still can't think of a Wizard who would take a spell that requires they be hit by an attack from somebody within 30 feet, because wizards shouldn't be getting hit by attacks. If you want to make it at all palatable, though, I'd say resolve the mechanic like Green Flame blade (must make an attack as part of casting the spell) and maybe increase the range so that ranged attackers MIGHT want to use it EVER.
True Strike is mathematically worse than just attacking.
Well, unless you're using an attack that has limited shots (True Strike plus Chromatic Orb is usually better than Fire Bolt plus Chromatic Orb) or have disadvantage on the attack and your base hit chance is less than 50%. It would have more uses if its range were longer so you could negate disadvantage for long range fire.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You point a finger at a target in range. Your magic marks your opponent and grants you an insight on its defences. Once an enemy within range hits you with an attack you may use your reaction to cast True Strike. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target.
Is this version of true strike possibly too powerfull? Im concidering giving this to my party's warlock.
Reactions require a specific condition to trigger them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes you need to specified a condition for the trigger
And that can be powerful 🙄
My Peace unto you
Peace be with you friend.
Also, I don't quite get why it'd be a reaction. If you want to do it, you MIGHT get some traction treating it like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. They must make an attack as part of casting the spell, and they get advantage on that attack. It keeps it from being BONUS ACTION overpowered, while still providing some advantage.
I don't know. I never thought True Strike was altogether super WEAK. I just always thought it was a little BORING.
True Strike is mathematically worse than just attacking.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
True strike is a pretty bad spell - call it "weak" or niche or whatever, but its just not useful. Rogue and clerics are the only ones who don't get Extra Attack in their hybrid subclass options, and its always better to attack multiple times instead of using true strike. Rogues never want to give up a chance to land a sneak attack every round. Clerics need to multiclass or use a feat to get it, and even then, Divine Strike isn't exactly a huge consideration for most people.
In general, there are two situations where True Strike is really useful - one is you have time to cast the spell before combat begins, or when you have a second spell with an attack roll you absolutely don't want to miss (something like Bestow Curse and getting advantage on landing the touch attack).
And that's before we consider that True Strike is a Concentration spell. And its a targeted spell - there's a chance your target is dead before you make your attack next turn.
I can see it doesn't show the full description of the way i made this spell.
The description is as follows:
You point a finger at a target in range. Your magic marks your opponent and grants you an insight on its defences. Once a creature within range hits you with an attack roll you can use your reaction to cast this spell. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target.
Simply extending the duration to two rounds makes it viable. As it is now, you are training one attack roll this round and another attack roll next round -> 0 attack rolls this round and 2 attack rolls next round. That is a bad idea, as you miss out on the chance of getting 2 hits. Only viable for your highest level spell and only if it has a single attack roll. Rarely worth it.
But if you do below, then you are trading 3 attack rolls for 4 attack rolls, a net gain of one attack roll, even if you are giving up the sleight chance of 3 hits. This becomes viable for use one every three rounds, as long as you are not concentrating.
True Strike
You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target's defenses. On your two next turns, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn't ended.
The action economy of this is a little borked. You pick a target; does this take an action? A bonus action? An interaction? You haven't done anything yet, but the spell's sort of started being cast? And then, if it hits you, you cast the spell, and it gives you advantage on your next attack roll? And does the duration only kick in once you get hit? So if you pick a target on turn one, they don't even try to attack you until turn five, and then they don't actually hit you until turn eight, are they your huckleberry that whole time?
Also, just nitpicking here, "instantaneous" and "1 round" are two different actions. Instantaneous is something that happens once and has forever happened. Like a fireball. The fireball doesn't explode over a full round, it just blows up and does its damage, and the damage is done.
If you're hellbent on making True Strike a reaction ability, then I'd word it like this:
LEVEL
Cantrip
Casting Time
1 Reaction *
Range/Area
30 feet
Components
S
Duration
1 Round
Attack/Save
None
Damage/Effect
Foreknowledge
When you are hit by an attack, you may cast this spell to give yourself advantage on the next attack roll you make against your attacker.
* - which you take when you are hit by an attack
Of course, I still can't think of a Wizard who would take a spell that requires they be hit by an attack from somebody within 30 feet, because wizards shouldn't be getting hit by attacks. If you want to make it at all palatable, though, I'd say resolve the mechanic like Green Flame blade (must make an attack as part of casting the spell) and maybe increase the range so that ranged attackers MIGHT want to use it EVER.
Well, unless you're using an attack that has limited shots (True Strike plus Chromatic Orb is usually better than Fire Bolt plus Chromatic Orb) or have disadvantage on the attack and your base hit chance is less than 50%. It would have more uses if its range were longer so you could negate disadvantage for long range fire.