It's generally useless, except where maybe you're running low on resources.
Scenario: You're up against the BBEG. Your fighter is on death saves, the cleric is paralysed, the rogue is doing what rogues do and running around asking weird questions, and you, the wizard, have only one spell slot left to you - and it's your 5th level slot. You know the BBEG likely has at least one Legendary Resistance left. Your main damage options are Fireball, or Chromatic Orb.
In that rare scenario, spending a turn casting True Strike may be the best option, since you know you can choose a damage type to avoid the BBEG's lightning and fire resistances, and the advantage on the roll might well be the difference between winning and losing the encounter. And you might even need a crit.
Not gonna come up often but since you can't cast your 7d8 damage Chromatic Orb twice it might be the difference between a TPK and not.
A good point. Short of using True Strike from a spellwrought tattoo or spell-storing ring, using True Strike with Bigby's Hand or Mordinkanen's Sword wouldn't work. And storing True Strike to use later would likely be a waste of the spell storing for a caster, with the possible exception of an Arcane Trickster.
This discussion has convinced me that True Strike is nearly useless as a cantrip. But if you could use it in an item so that you didn't have to concentrate and it wasn't limited to a caster, True Strike might have some utility. Monocle or Gun Sight of True Strike?
You still have to concentrate when you cast a spell from an item. You still cast the spell. It doesn't even let you bypass the components. It does let you cast something not on your spell list, cast without having spellcasting, and cast without expending a spell slot, so it's still quite good, but the shenanigans you propose are not RAW.
A rogue can use it to negate disadvantage, potentially setting up a Sneak Attack on the following turn, and still move; something which Steady Aim from Tasha's doesn't allow.
Sorcerers can also use it with Metamagic: Subtle Spell to cast it without being detected.
The rogue can always hide for the same effect...and the rogue wouldn't get sneak attack unless they also had an ally within 5ft right? So pretty highly situational overall but I guess it works. You would also have to get the cantrip somehow and give up a potentially more commonly useful cantrip to do so.
Sorcerer spending points to cast it subtilty might be an ok scenario but honestly I struggle to come up with a scenario that this would be beneficial to cast this vs. getting ADV via another spell instead as casting it and attacking would likely prompt combat and you would have to wait until the next turn to use it anyway?
Also the fact you would have to do this enough to justify taking it over another cantrip which is unlikely.
For me thats the real reason True Strike is so bad is that we have to search for a time that is is actively useful....and in only these small handful of scenarios is it even worth casting at all...much less worth it overall to actually pick in favor of another much much more useful cantrip overall.
Off the top of my head after however long ago this thread was, I think a high-elf fighter with a vorpal sword could use it to have almost a 10% chance to end the fight in the first round.
Really, it lets you almost double the chance of getting a critical hit so maybe a high-elf thief rogue could use it well.
Advantage does come a bit easy but almost always requires at least a bit of investment.
Oh, I guess if you're a rogue fighting some fiend with Devil's Sight or Truesight hiding in the Darkness spell, it could help (you still can't hide from them).
Off the top of my head after however long ago this thread was, I think a high-elf fighter with a vorpal sword could use it to have almost a 10% chance to end the fight in the first round.
Really, it lets you almost double the chance of getting a critical hit so maybe a high-elf thief rogue could use it well.
Advantage does come a bit easy but almost always requires at least a bit of investment.
Oh, I guess if you're a rogue fighting some fiend with Devil's Sight or Truesight hiding in the Darkness spell, it could help (you still can't hide from them).
You could've taken an Attack action on the turn that you cast True Strike, instead of casting True Strike. The only time this wouldn't be better is if you can cast True Strike without informing your target that there's a fight about to start. Which, unless my imagination is failing me, would only ever be when you're hidden from them. Which would already give you advantage on that attack regardless of True Strike. That's one of the things being hidden does.
If, perhaps, you're not a Rogue but a Cleric, and you're rationing out your Inflict Wounds uses, then yes. It may be better to cast True Strike.
All the Rogue needs for Sneak Attack is advantage *or* an ally within 5ft. Not both.
I guess a Sorcerer could also Quicken a spell, then use True Strike as their action to set up for their next turn's attack spell. Or they could Quicken True Strike and use their action to Dodge or something. Seems like a waste of time to me, but it is kinda neat.
Well, the implication I'm making is that you're a rogue (trying to get sneak attack) without having an ally reasonably close, which is a scenario that occurs more often against enemies who are ranged themselves.
Sneak attack damage can often be more valuable than 2 normal attacks across 2 turns.
Well, the implication I'm making is that you're a rogue (trying to get sneak attack) without having an ally reasonably close, which is a scenario that occurs more often against enemies who are ranged themselves.
Sneak attack damage can often be more valuable than 2 normal attacks across 2 turns.
Aim makes it so you can do that already on that on the same turn now
Well, the implication I'm making is that you're a rogue (trying to get sneak attack) without having an ally reasonably close, which is a scenario that occurs more often against enemies who are ranged themselves.
Sneak attack damage can often be more valuable than 2 normal attacks across 2 turns.
Aim makes it so you can do that already on that on the same turn now
Steady Aim is an optional rule that deprives the rogue of their ability to move during their turn. We don't always know which rules the DM will permit, so it's worth talking about.
Well, the implication I'm making is that you're a rogue (trying to get sneak attack) without having an ally reasonably close, which is a scenario that occurs more often against enemies who are ranged themselves.
Sneak attack damage can often be more valuable than 2 normal attacks across 2 turns.
Aim makes it so you can do that already on that on the same turn now
Steady Aim is an optional rule that deprives the rogue of their ability to move during their turn. We don't always know which rules the DM will permit, so it's worth talking about.
Fair point
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's generally useless, except where maybe you're running low on resources.
Scenario: You're up against the BBEG. Your fighter is on death saves, the cleric is paralysed, the rogue is doing what rogues do and running around asking weird questions, and you, the wizard, have only one spell slot left to you - and it's your 5th level slot. You know the BBEG likely has at least one Legendary Resistance left. Your main damage options are Fireball, or Chromatic Orb.
In that rare scenario, spending a turn casting True Strike may be the best option, since you know you can choose a damage type to avoid the BBEG's lightning and fire resistances, and the advantage on the roll might well be the difference between winning and losing the encounter. And you might even need a crit.
Not gonna come up often but since you can't cast your 7d8 damage Chromatic Orb twice it might be the difference between a TPK and not.
You still have to concentrate when you cast a spell from an item. You still cast the spell. It doesn't even let you bypass the components. It does let you cast something not on your spell list, cast without having spellcasting, and cast without expending a spell slot, so it's still quite good, but the shenanigans you propose are not RAW.
The rogue can always hide for the same effect...and the rogue wouldn't get sneak attack unless they also had an ally within 5ft right? So pretty highly situational overall but I guess it works. You would also have to get the cantrip somehow and give up a potentially more commonly useful cantrip to do so.
Sorcerer spending points to cast it subtilty might be an ok scenario but honestly I struggle to come up with a scenario that this would be beneficial to cast this vs. getting ADV via another spell instead as casting it and attacking would likely prompt combat and you would have to wait until the next turn to use it anyway?
Also the fact you would have to do this enough to justify taking it over another cantrip which is unlikely.
For me thats the real reason True Strike is so bad is that we have to search for a time that is is actively useful....and in only these small handful of scenarios is it even worth casting at all...much less worth it overall to actually pick in favor of another much much more useful cantrip overall.
Off the top of my head after however long ago this thread was, I think a high-elf fighter with a vorpal sword could use it to have almost a 10% chance to end the fight in the first round.
Really, it lets you almost double the chance of getting a critical hit so maybe a high-elf thief rogue could use it well.
Advantage does come a bit easy but almost always requires at least a bit of investment.
Oh, I guess if you're a rogue fighting some fiend with Devil's Sight or Truesight hiding in the Darkness spell, it could help (you still can't hide from them).
You could've taken an Attack action on the turn that you cast True Strike, instead of casting True Strike. The only time this wouldn't be better is if you can cast True Strike without informing your target that there's a fight about to start. Which, unless my imagination is failing me, would only ever be when you're hidden from them. Which would already give you advantage on that attack regardless of True Strike. That's one of the things being hidden does.
If, perhaps, you're not a Rogue but a Cleric, and you're rationing out your Inflict Wounds uses, then yes. It may be better to cast True Strike.
All the Rogue needs for Sneak Attack is advantage *or* an ally within 5ft. Not both.
I guess a Sorcerer could also Quicken a spell, then use True Strike as their action to set up for their next turn's attack spell. Or they could Quicken True Strike and use their action to Dodge or something. Seems like a waste of time to me, but it is kinda neat.
Well, the implication I'm making is that you're a rogue (trying to get sneak attack) without having an ally reasonably close, which is a scenario that occurs more often against enemies who are ranged themselves.
Sneak attack damage can often be more valuable than 2 normal attacks across 2 turns.
Aim makes it so you can do that already on that on the same turn now
Steady Aim is an optional rule that deprives the rogue of their ability to move during their turn. We don't always know which rules the DM will permit, so it's worth talking about.
Fair point