Nevermind, True Strike Sucks!

[GrandMajora]

So we're aware that when it comes to BG3's mechanics, Larian has taken steps to either tweak or improve certain features in the game that many fans and players consider 'unsatisfactory' in table top. Such as the Ranger class, often perceived as being the worst class in the game.

But I just noticed another tweak that I'm fairly certain Larian added, which is that True Strike is now a spell that you cast on other people, instead of yourself. This means that you can cast True Strike without wasting the turn in which it was cast.

I only just noticed this change today, so I had been refusing to use True Strike up til now as I considered it a worthless cantrip. But now that I know about this, I might utilize it more often... particularly in the Commander Zhalk fight, with his BS levels of AC.

[Mosey]

True Strike as-is is entirely useless in every way imaginable.

It gives you advantage on one attack, so you roll twice and take the higher number.

It costs an action that could be used for an attack.

Therefore the price of using True Strike is exactly the same as attacking twice.

It is garbage unless it's been totally redone for launch. It's unclear if that's the case, but we will see.

[markelphoenix]

Originally posted by Mosey:

True Strike as-is is entirely useless in every way imaginable.

It gives you advantage on one attack, so you roll twice and take the higher number.

It costs an action that could be used for an attack.

Therefore the price of using True Strike is exactly the same as attacking twice.

It is garbage unless it's been totally redone for launch. It's unclear if that's the case, but we will see.

I think entire point is being able to cast it on someone else...so, say, couldn't you cast it on a rogue so that they would be able to get sneak attack off?

Also, if you have a very high damage attacker, would there not be value in giving them advantage on their high damage attack?

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Mosey:

True Strike as-is is entirely useless in every way imaginable.

It gives you advantage on one attack, so you roll twice and take the higher number.

It costs an action that could be used for an attack.

Therefore the price of using True Strike is exactly the same as attacking twice.

It is garbage unless it's been totally redone for launch. It's unclear if that's the case, but we will see.

As I said in my OP, you cast True Strike on an ally, instead of yourself in BG3. Meaning that you can give it to the next person in the que to give them advantage on their next attack immediately, instead of having to wait 2 turns.

If you happen to meet an enemy with high AC, such as Zhalk, you can have your mages stand back and keep applying True Strike to your front line fighters who are keeping him distracted.

Now at first glance, it may sound ineffective as the spell casters are wasting the opportunity to simply hit Zhalk with a spell, but in my experience, the high AC enemies are able to dodge magic just as well as a physical blow. So really, giving your heavy hitters advantage every turn seems like the more practical solution to everybody just lashing out at them and hoping some of your rolls get lucky.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by markelphoenix:

Originally posted by Mosey:

True Strike as-is is entirely useless in every way imaginable.

It gives you advantage on one attack, so you roll twice and take the higher number.

It costs an action that could be used for an attack.

Therefore the price of using True Strike is exactly the same as attacking twice.

It is garbage unless it's been totally redone for launch. It's unclear if that's the case, but we will see.

I think entire point is being able to cast it on someone else...so, say, couldn't you cast it on a rogue so that they would be able to get sneak attack off?

Also, if you have a very high damage attacker, would there not be value in giving them advantage on their high damage attack?

That would work, if True Strike didn't benefit only the caster.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

That would work, if True Strike didn't benefit only the caster.

Did neither of you two read my post?

Larian tweaked the spell so that you cast it on other people, instead of yourself. That's what makes the spell come across as being useful now.

[markelphoenix]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

Originally posted by markelphoenix:

I think entire point is being able to cast it on someone else...so, say, couldn't you cast it on a rogue so that they would be able to get sneak attack off?

Also, if you have a very high damage attacker, would there not be value in giving them advantage on their high damage attack?

That would work, if True Strike didn't benefit only the caster.

And that is what the OP is saying...according to OP, in BG3, it looks like Larian made True Strike targetable (i.e. not just the caster, but whoever the caster wants to target).

[Mosey]

Three things:

1) It doesn't matter if you cast it on someone else, you still could have had two attacks. Be it from two different characters, or the same character, it's a net loss.

2) It doesn't matter if you cast it on a rogue to get their sneak attack, since they literally get advantage simply from hiding and ranged weapons exist. A rogue player that doesn't know this might as well roll a fighter.

3) Anyone can simply hide as a bonus action and give themselves advantage, further making True Strike entirely moot.

Hope that helps to clear this up. True Strike is a trap that should be avoided UNLESS it's been reworked for launch, which we don't know at the moment.

[Hobocop]

Originally posted by markelphoenix:

Originally posted by Hobocop:

That would work, if True Strike didn't benefit only the caster.

And that is what the OP is saying...according to OP, in BG3, it looks like Larian made True Strike targetable (i.e. not just the caster, but whoever the caster wants to target).

It always worked that way in 5e. You pick a target and get advantage on your next attack roll against that target. Still not worth using because you can just attack twice over two turns for the same overall benefit without wasting Concentration.

[Mosey]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

It always worked that way in 5e. You pick a target and get advantage on your next attack roll against that target. Still not worth using because you can just attack twice over two turns for the same overall benefit.

Yes. I should have mentioned that first. The OP is mistaking casting it on a friendly as that friendly getting the bonus when in reality they are getting advantage to attack their team mate.

It's honestly the one cantrip with no use whatsoever.

[Izuzul]

Originally posted by Jake Paul fan:

I genuinely think that I'm the only person in this thread that has read the entirety of OP's post. I'm a good boy.

I read it too, and they are mistaken. You cast true strike on enemies not allies unless you want advantage on your next attack on an ally.

True strike gives the CASTER advantage on the next attack against the target.

Edit: Sorry GrandMajora. Still love ya.

[BigAlzBub]

There are a tiny number of extreme edge cases where True Strike can be useful.
1) You have a rogue who is soloing a foe, if you grant the rogue advantage, they can sneak attack, if you don't then they deal a puny amount of damage.
2) You are adjacent to the foe of a rogue, but the rogue still has disadvantage (for instance they are in darkness and/or are blinded), if you grant them advantage then that balances out the disadvantage and they can sneak attack with a basic chance to hit.
3) You have a foe which can only be hurt by someone with a specific weapon (for instance a werewolf, and only one party member has a magic or silver weapon), then it make sense to throw the advantage on the one per who can hurt the foe.
4) You have some limited resource (like a spell scroll) which will cause massive damage on a hit but fizzles if you miss.

True Strike is a really bad spell, but it is not entirely useless, if you think outside the box.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

It always worked that way in 5e. You pick a target and get advantage on your next attack roll against that target. Still not worth using because you can just attack twice over two turns for the same overall benefit without wasting Concentration.

Wait, you get advantage against whoever you cast the spell on?

Because if that's the case, then it seems I was mistaken and I have misinterpreted the spell.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Reconciler:

Edit: Sorry GrandMajora. Still love ya.

Ah, well then...

To hell with this spell.

Sorry, everyone, false alarm!

[HotSoupPants]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

So we're aware that when it comes to BG3's mechanics, Larian has taken steps to either tweak or improve certain features in the game that many fans and players consider 'unsatisfactory' in table top. Such as the Ranger class, often perceived as being the worst class in the game.

But I just noticed another tweak that I'm fairly certain Larian added, which is that True Strike is now a spell that you cast on other people, instead of yourself. This means that you can cast True Strike without wasting the turn in which it was cast.

I only just noticed this change today, so I had been refusing to use True Strike up til now as I considered it a worthless cantrip. But now that I know about this, I might utilize it more often... particularly in the Commander Zhalk fight, with his BS levels of AC.

They could completely fix this cantrip by simply making it a bonus action concentration to give yourself advantage in the next round (not the same round you cast it). That would take it from a complete waste to a must have. But I don't think it's too OP.

It still eats up your concentration slot making it unusable for some builds plus the potential to lose concentration which happens a lot especially for a front-line gish. It would also eat your bonus action which I actually tend to use almost every turn so it's still a trade-off there. Also the field of battle can change a lot, you may not be able to attack your target next round for whatever reason. And it also takes a cantrip slot which are coveted in some builds.

I don't think it would break the game that much if your casters hit a tiny bit more often to make this spell viable.

[FeurinLongcastle]

It has some very limited utility in resource-gated attacks (like high-level spells eg. Disintegrate).

In rare scenarios you also might be choosing to wait and not use your action as you wait for the enemies to act first, and Larian's homebrew version of True Strike lasts 2 rounds so you might be able to use it effectively.

But in most scenarios its a trap spell.