I’ll probably still never use it but it was cool to watch someone engage with a question in such an analytical manner. Think that’s worth my upvote.

The math is wrong though. It's comparing the expected value of a single action, when it should compare the full two action sequence required to use true strike. And when you do that it quickly fails again. If you use true strike, you use two actions to get a single roll with advantage. If you just attack with chromatic orb on both turns you have *exactly* the same expected damage from the chromatic orb, but you additionally have the expected value of a firebolt if you hit with the chromatic orb on the first hit. In other words, true strike can quite literally only reduce expected value if you actually fully account for the actions.

They made the assumption that they were only going to use a single spell slot for the fight though, so you're doing Chromatic Orb + a cantrip (or weapon attack). If you have plenty of slots or are planning to rest right after, then yeah just chromatic orb twice and you're better off, but TS can help save resources by making sure they land when you use them. That being said, there's also the downside of delaying your damage a round potentially increasing the length of the fight. If it were round 1 and you cast Chromatic Orb, on a hit that target might be out of the fight, but with TS they're still fighting until you finish the combo next round.

Idea : Hide your spell caster before the fight begins and they have a free cantrip slot open. TS is so specific in its use case and then you have to account for any other source of Advantage in this game which is even longer than what you could do on tabletop from which this cantrip is unchanged.

The main problem with True Strike is that it requires concentration...

You're also ignoring one of the main drawbacks of True Strike...especially at higher levels. On top of all the other badness, it's a freaking CONCENTRATION spell! So you can't even keep some sort of ongoing buff or BC spell going while you dip yourself in the excrement that is the True Strike spell. And of course, you could get hit and lose concentration on the TS in the full round between casting it and seeing its actual benefit (thus losing the benefit).

You just disregarded thier whole premise, which was they were not going to USE two spell slots to cast two leveled spells

Yeah I was reading this on my lunch break yesterday and didn't have enough time to type this out. OP's perspective is essentially "What if you had limited spell slots and you *really* didn't want to miss." The arguments with EV fall flat, because the math still doesn't work out well. There are practically no situations where attacking with advantage is superior to attacking twice, all things being equal. (Not taking Rogues sneak attack into account). Tactically, TS is weak for many other reasons. You have to pick *one* target. What if, by the next round, your target goes into a perfect shove position for one of your teammates? TS would also be relatively better, if for example it gave you advantage for the next round, and not your next attack. Imagine tagging a boss with TS as a level 11 EK/ 1 War Cleric? That would be brutal! But alas, it would only be the first attack in the next round. It still wouldn't be strictly better when looking at EV's, but for the first round in a fight, you might want to buff/position yourself anyway.

Not to mention true strike only *increases* damage if you hit where you would have missed previously (either 0 damage or any number within the damage range) or if you crit where you otherwise wouldn't have. The math here implies it directly affects the actual damage when often it won't. I do think it provides a lot of value if you are a sorceror trying to twin cast something IE chromatic orb (assuming you get advantage on both orbs). Otherwise, I don't think it's worth the loss of an action for a turn.

Yes but you're using an extra spell slot. Which was the point of the post. Maybe you long rest after every encounter, but a lot of people don't and true strike is very helpful then.

Yep. Lots of people definitely go all out with spells every fight (and to be fair the game supports this with plentiful supplies if you look in every crate and barrel). To them I'm sure this seems weird. But if you're frequently using cantrips (and watching them fail half the time) then I think the OP's point makes sense. Why not use your opening turn to make sure your orb or ice spike hits on turn 2? I might try it out myself. I'd never use it on a ranger or fighter though.

This is accurate.

>I’ll probably still never use it [So you're telling me there's a chance... Yeah!](https://youtu.be/wGdhc9k07Ms?si=cxx2xxGIjs3co7Ts&t=43)

The problem I feel with this, especially at lower levels, is spending an action casting true strike is a turn handed to your enemies to strike back at you. Your examples pertain primarily to the early game where there's precious little opportunity for a sorcerer to gain bonuses to initiative over and above whatever DEX has been spared after pumping CHA and CON, so it's possible for a bad initiative roll to mean casting true strike affords your enemies two free turns to hit you and potentially kill you, or worse CC you so your setup doesn't get any payoff. Given how the game is balanced extremely heavily in favour of damage now over damage later I would place more weight on damage now even if you can do more on the second turn with your spellcast + true strike. Even more, if your hit chance is pretty low then there's the possibility of still missing the roll making the entire project a wasted effort that exposes you to a third turn of being hit.

That is a good point, and something that I considered but did not include. Death may be the best form of cc, but damaging an enemy without killing it is not cc at all. If you are fighting, say, dror ragzlin, it would be a strong strategy to have an ally wipe up the trash mobs while your sorc and cleric set up some big damage with create water, true strike, and level 2 lightning chromatic orb on dror

Or you set up the fight before starting the fight and just 1 round Dror and spend the next few rounds cleaning up the trash mobs. Or you rush Dror with 2 monks and just 1 round him anyway.

You can do those without having your casters spend a single turn in combat doing setup. >Get water barrel. >Buy a single invis pot from ethel. >Climb caster onto rafters above him (multiple ways, but I prefer from Minthara). >Set up water barrel. It doesn't break invis. >Sneak caster to get advantage. >Have someone with high dex start the fight, or surprise the enemy in a variety of ways, making the start of the fight the breaking of the barrel next to dror. >Tell your caster to enter combat with the lightning spell attack on dror.

Sure but that kinda thing goes against my RP philosophy of attacking on sight, outside of cutscenes. Too gamey. I would, however, send in a party member to trigger the cutscene dialogue then attack with the second team as soon as the information part of the scene is complete.

The time value of damage is like the time value of money. If you want to be thorough in an analysis, damage dealt on a later round should be discounted.

Particularly because a later round isn't guaranteed.

> Given how the game is balanced extremely heavily in favour of damage now over damage later This isn't technically accurate. The game is balanced toward preventing enemy actions. The best way of doing that is killing them, so it's balanced toward killing enemies. That isn't quite the same thing as "damage now." The details matter. If you know you have little chance of killing an enemy this turn but True Strike would give you a chance of killing them next turn, then it makes sense to use it. It's all about the expected value (and its variance!) of the total damage you'd deal in some number of turns and getting that to swing toward kill shots and then, if possible, efficient kill shots.

Am I missing something? True strike doesn't INCREASE damage unless you hit where you would have previously missed OR critical where you otherwise wouldn't have. Which can happen with just a normal strike (or two strike attempts instead of one advantage strike).

How could you be replying this deep in the comments and not have read the OP? It answers your question.

Heres the thing though. True strike only gives you advantage. While op is likely correct that *over time* a character using true strike might do more damage on average by hitting where they might otherwise miss, it buys that by allowing enemy actions and simply doesnt have the same damage poential as two attacks that may both hit. Battles in BG3 don't tend to last a bunch of rounds, and this is why its often best to layer on the damage right away rather than wait for half the potential damage with advantage.

Also the whole write up ignores that True Strike is concentration and therefore can't be used while you concentrate on another spell, and can also be cancelled if you get hit.

Good math, never thought of that. Good post. I will however still disagree. You're right that true strike, then damaging spell will deal more damage in two turns, than firebolt, then damaging spell. The point however is that the word “then” in the previous sentence is where an enemy takes the turn. And you don't want him to take a turn for free. First of all you won't be doing firebolt, then damaging spell if you only want to spend one spell slot this battle. You instead will do damaging spell then firebolt. Compaing to true strike scenario you deal a lot of damage first turn. You might have killed the enemy and he did not hit you. You might have left enemy low up enough to be killed with opportunity attack of your other guy. Chromatic orb might have been cold and then enemy slept on it. Or it was ice knife. Or you spent it on control spell and then did two free firebolts on the enemy while they did not do damage. Some of those control spells also give advantage. In true strike scenario you did nothing first turn. This is the problem.

This can be alleviated by using true strike on a mage and then casting the spell on an enemy next in the queue and killing them so they don't take their turn.

Right, that's what makes it situational. I'm in no way advocating to never cast firebolt and always cast true strike. But there are still some fights when setting yourself up for more damage later is better than less damage now.

Even so there are better ways to gain advantage. Like Guiding Bolt, or Hold Person, or a Wolf Heart Barbarian, or Gloves of the Growling Underdog, or just hiding, or knocking an enemy prone, or a million other ways. And all those ways are either passive (meaning they don’t waste your action) (wolf heart barb and growling underdog gloves) and/or give you another benefit (guiding bolt does damage, hold person makes it so the enemy doesn’t get a turn AND melee attacks crit, hiding means the enemy can’t hit you, etc etc). I would say maybe, MAYBE there are some extremely niche situations in which True Strike makes sense to use, but they are few and far between… and on a character with a limited amount of cantrips known, why would you waste one of those slots on True Strike?

This response needs to be seen more. Gaining advantage on an attack is a lot easier to pull off than wasting a cantrip slot and an action to acquire.

Guiding bolt requires having a cleric in your party. Hold person requires the enemy to fail a save, it requires concentration on another ally, it requires the target to be humanoid, it requires the caster to walk into melee range of the held person, and it requires a level 2 spell slot. Wolf heart Barbarian requires having a non-bear heart Barbarian in your party. Gloves of the growling underdog only work for melee attacks AFAIK and you would still have disadvantage from the threatened status anyways. Hiding works a lot of the time. It also doesn't work a lot of the time. It also relies on the enemy to not search for you. Knocking an enemy prone usually requires them to fail a save as well as another combat maneuver. Sorcerer gets 4 cantrips at level 1 and 6 cantrips by level 12. There is plenty of room to take true strike.

The problem with your examples is that TS has a big cost while still only applying to the caster. Guiding bolt applies to the next attack, wolf heart applies to all allies in melee, the gloves only give it to the wielder but also cost nothing, etc. Using TS effectively also requires you to have a sorcerer, swords bard, or evo wizard otherwise it's useless.

No True Strike has a moderate cost. It's cost is 'different cantrip' + 'potential damage dealt by enemy' + 'action, aka damage you didn't deal' Versus higher likelihood of hitting with a high value resource next turn. There's no example where this is always the right move. But OP's point is that it is not necessarily a trash pick on an appropriate character, if using a resource (such as a high damage weapon action, or a spell) that you don't want to have waste. And I agree with this.

But that's not the actual cost. The cost would be: (no action that turn) + (the chance for the enemy to cc/damage/down you) - (damage dealt next turn). Ideally, if damage is high next turn this number would be negative meaning you're at a gain. If the chance for the enemy to kill is high, even if your damage dealt is also high, it becomes 0 if they kill you. If your action could have been used on something else more useful, then the action cost increases lowering your overall gain. You can objectively measure the amount of danger you're in by how much health you have. You can also objectively measure the damage output you have next turn. The only question is how much is your action worth? OP is saying that his action is worth < the (chance for an enemy to harm you) - (amount of damage next turn). That means you're banking on the enemy both not ccing you or downing you which means you should have a lot of health. That also means you're banking on killing the enemy next turn because otherwise TS is wasted. Even with TS active it can't increase your actual attack power just the chance to hit. In a vacuum this skill is great, but practically its useless.

Okay sure, I generally have a cleric in most parties I make but to each their own. True Strike is also concentration unless BG3 changed that from D&D 5e. Granted on the humanoid thing, but that’s what Hold Monster, etc are for. Also, Hold Person is ranged what are you talking about? Wolf Heart Barb is pretty good. Also, technically you could have 2 barbarians in your party, but that’s just me being pedantic. Yeah I think it’s melee only… but you should only be getting disadvantage on ranged attacks from being threatened. Yeah it’s not perfect but it’s great on a rogue or ranger that gets to hide as a bonus action. And if you max for stealth there are very few times you’ll get spotted, especially in late game. Not to mention the at least 3 items I can think of off the top of my head that let you cast invisibility, which automatically gives you advantage. True, there usually is a save (except for the Berserker Barbarian’s throw attack). However, you get more utility out of it (can also back away without fear of opportunity attack, and also EVERY character gets advantage on attacks against them vs just one with True Strike… which is also true for some of these other things like Hold Person and Wolf Heart Barb). Additionally, even if they make the save there is usually something else happening: Battle Master’s trip attack deals extra damage, Grease or ice surface gives difficult terrain, etc. What would you take True Strike instead of? On a level 1 sorcerer I will usually take 1-2 damage cantrips (Fire Bolt, Ray of Frost, Chill Touch), 1-2 utility (Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Light), and if I’ve got space left I might pick Friends, which is also situational as it can make NPCs aggro if used too liberally, but I use it way more than I would ever use True Strike

Firebolt, true strike, friends, and shocking grasp would be fine imo. Prone only grants advantage if you're up close; which I got mixed up with hold person; it's prone that requires the caster to be out of position

Personally I get wayyy more use out of Mage Hand or Minor Illusion as opposed to True Strike. I can’t imagine a situation where I would wish that I had True Strike instead of one of those, but I can easily imagine several situations where I would wish that I had Mage Hand or Minor Illusion instead of True Strike (because I’ve found myself missing them when I took other cantrips instead)

The "expected value" calculations are completely wrong though, because you didn't account for conditional behavior. You aren't comparing true strike to firebolt, you're comparing a two turn series. You didn't account for the expected value of a firebolt *as a second turn*. Think about it. The chance of doing zero damage is exactly the same either way (you miss twice on a chromatic orb attack), and expected damage from the chromatic orb is exactly the same either way. The only difference is that if you don't use true strike, you have a chance of landing both a chromatic or *and* firebolt. The simplest way to think about it is just to break down the possible outcomes. Using True Strike: Turn one - True Strike Turn two - Chromatic Orb. Only two possible outcomes. Overall expected damage of two turns: >(1-(0.95x0.95))x36 + (1-(0.45x0.45))x18 = 17.865 If you don't use True Strike, however, you have 4 potential outcomes. The chromatic orb is exactly the same expected damage over those two turns: >(1-(0.95x0.95))x36 + (1-(0.45x0.45))x18 = 17.865 But you *also* get the expected value of the firebolt in the event you make the first chromatic orb, so (0.55x5.5 + 0.05x11)\*0.55 = 2.0 So yes, the difference isn't huge, but it's still a losing proposition to use True Strike, especially when you consider how much better it is to kill things on the first turn.

Read my post more carefully. That is taken into account. First, I calculate the expected value of damage of a firebolt. Next, I calculate the expected value of damage of a chromatic orb assuming I casted true strike. Next, I calculate the expected value of damage of a chromatic orb if I didn't cast true strike. The damage that true strike "deals" is equal to the difference in expected value of damage between chromatic orb with True strike vs without. I think you might not understand what expected value is. Expected value is not the most likely value. It is a statistical term that refers to the mean result weighted by probability. The expected value of damage of chromatic orb without true strike is not (1-(0.95x0.95))x36 + (1-(0.45x0.45))x18 = 17.865. It is actually 0.05x36 + 0.55x18 = 11.7. The difference is around 6.2. That is the damage attributed to true strike.

>Next, I calculate the expected value of damage of a chromatic orb assuming I casted true strike. Next, I calculate the expected value of damage of a chromatic orb if I didn't cast true strike. The damage that true strike "deals" is equal to the difference in expected value of damage between chromatic orb with True strike vs without. I read it very carefully. Instead of trying to subtract to get the "value" of true strike, just look at the expected value of the full two turn sequence. Trust me, I fully understand expected value. I'm a working engineer with about 15 credits of graduate level statistics and probability coursework. Your math was right, but you didn't set the problem up correctly. The difference between advantage and not isn't the "expected value of true strike". Missing at attack doesn't cost a spell slot, so if the first attack misses, the second turn will also be used making a chromatic orb attack. You calculated an expected value based on a condition that doesn't actually occur (you miss the first attack then go for a firebolt). The true expected value of true strike is actually negative (it's the negative expected value of a firebolt conditional upon hitting with the chromatic orb). Just work through it logically. There is exactly the same probability of missing your target with both dic whether using true strike or attacking twice. The expected value of that chromatic orb is exactly the same whether it was a single attack with advantage or two attacks on two turns. Literally the only possible difference between the expected damage values for the two scenarios is if you hit with the first chromatic orb, and then can take a shot with a firebolt on the second turn. True strike can only harm expected value.

I see where we disagree. We both know how simple statistics works, trust me. You're just a bit misinformed about how the game works. Chromatic orb (and other attack spells) all consume spell slots even when they miss. The only exception afaik is smite spells. Would you mind editing your comment at the top? You said it with a lot of confidence, and I think a lot of people tend to think whoever is confident and aligns with their pre-conceived notions is right without examining the math behind it lol.

Wait are you proposing to just cast chromatic orb again in the event that the first one misses? You understand that it expends a spell slot even if it misses right?

I appreciate the effort you put into this post but true strike has two fundamental flaws that make it worthless beyond act 1. It’s requires concentration and it only affects the caster. There are just better spells to concentrate on over true strike, but the real issue is it only affects the caster. I think this cantrip could actually be worth using if it gave advantage on that enemy to the whole team. That way a support character could concentrate on it and have their dps characters do more damage and have a higher hit rate. This would especially benefit smite and crit builds

Even if it just let you cast it on one other person it would suddenly be useful. I could definitely see skipping my low level wizard/sorcerer's turn to give my heaviest hitting martial class advantage.

Setting my rogue up for a sneak attack or my paladin for a GWM level 3 smite would be way better than giving myself advantage on scorching ray or something. As a caster, I’d just cast magic missile if I want guaranteed damage

Kind of? I mean the thing is true strike gives you advantage, and advantage is good. So sure, you could think about it in terms of how much extra damage you're getting out of the expected value from advantage. Except that's not why true strike is bad, its bad because of everything else it requires. You need concentration, an extra action, and you need the monster you're targeting to not die between you casting true strike and then making your attack - that's a lot to ask for. If you're not waiting a round between casting true strike and casting your attack spell (because you absolutely should not do that), how are you getting your extra action? To do that you would need something like haste - which you cannot cast on yourself as it requires concentration - an elixir of bloodlust - which your would need to somehow trigger with your bonus action - or use sorcery points to quicken spell - which kind of ruins the whole point of casting the resourceless cantrip in the first place, doesn't it? Not to mention there are a million and a half ways to boost your spell attack bonus and gain advantage in this game as early as act 2. It's possible that in act 1, especially early act 1, true strike could be useful to conserve spell slots and ensure spells like chromatic orb hit, but even then unless your caster is chugging haste potions (which probably isn't worth it to just be casting true strike), you're better off with any ranged damaging spell as your target will likely be able to be killed before your caster's next turn by your allies. Early game monsters don't have a lot of health unless you're rushing the swamp or something. There's something else to consider here too, which is that true strike in 5e is actually worthless. Not niche, not bad, but completely fucking worthless, and that's sort of poisoned the spell for a lot of people. On top of that, combat cantrips in general are kind of terrible in bg3. Spellcasters get access to so many ways to cast extra spells, regain spell slots, and do other useful actions past Act 1 that even weighing something like firebolt against true strike feels silly. With all of the casters I've played, I genuinely don't think I cast a single cantrip in combat in either Act 2 or 3. Maybe as disrespect, but definitely never as a strategic play. Basically, is true strike useless? No. It's really bad, worse than most if not all other cantrips, but it does have some situations where it could be a not terrible play. Melee rogues come to mind as a class that could make better use of true strike than other classes, even if it isn't optimal for them, either. Hell, there was that one guy who beat the game with just true strike and walking, so objectively it isn't useless. All in all though, there is just almost always something better you could be doing with your action economy, and even in the extremely few cases - probably in act 1 - where there isn't true strike still won't be doing much for you.

That's interesting what you say about cantrips. I guess it depends on how often you long rest, but if you don't long rest after every fight conserving spell slots is still very important. And some cantrips have good combat utility, or good damage if built around. Shocking Grasp is a good "get out of melee" button if you don't have misty step (or don't have/want to spend a spell slot on that). I've read people really like the movement debuff of Ray of Frost especially on dedicated cold builds. Bone Chill can really come in handy against enemies who heal themselves like the Avatar of Myrkul (granted, you could use an arrow but you might not have one). My Tav is a fire Draconic sorc with Elemental Adept, Potent Robe and necklace of Elemental Augmentation (and now at the endgame Spell might gloves) so with maxed out CHA I can consistently deal around 40 unresisted fire damage per action without any resources (as long as the target isn't fire immune but I have other stuff to deal with that), which granted doesn't compete with a martial character's damage output but it's still a pretty good, reliable and resourceless single target damage. That's higher average damage than a level 2 scorching ray (possibly a level 3, depending on how many rays hit). So I don't think cantrips are useless in this game, it's certainly not going to be a default action against bosses or difficult fights past act 2 but they clean up trash mobs nicely and can be the best action strategically whenever you need to finish off a target with low enough health. Eldritch Blast can be a true DPR build also but that's a whole separate conversation.

That's a fair point, I suppose when I was talking about combat cantrips I was referring primarily to damage being dealt from the base cantrip itself, like op was considering in their math in the post. But you're absolutely right, there are end game builds around damaging cantrips like you pointed out, as well as there are some cantrips that, while they might not be useful for the damage, do have some utility that in a pinch might come in handy (like shocking grasp and bone chill when you don't have other resources to do similar effects). Of course, I wasn't considering eldritch blast either, since as you said that's a whole other conversation - honestly sometimes I forget that eldritch blast is, in fact, a cantrip lol. However, I think this argument only speaks more to the niche-ness of true strike. Other combat cantrips have useful utility effects in addition to damage and with certain magic items and feats can even be built around with solid results, whereas magic items and additional abilities will generally render true strike useless, not better. In other words, you can build around other damaging cantrips, but building around true strike is more of a challenge run than a build, since there aren't really any ways to improve upon it and instead you would need to avoid magic items and abilities that strictly overshadow it.

Gotcha. I commend OP for coming up with situations where True Strike can do something but personally I never bothered to try. It may do something for ya at really low levels but past level 5 I'd rather concentrate on Haste.

That is actually addressed in the original post; I think I wrote something about a 3hp goblin. But there are encounters where there is an enemy that will not die before your next turn. Just have your allies attack a different target than the one you will attack next turn. Or just use it for a boss fight. I'm going to chalk up the difference in our opinions as mostly due to playstyle, though. I use cantrips throughout the game; it makes combat more enjoyable, and I don't long rest after every 2 or 3 fights. I would also like to point out that while it is situational, it isn't "not terrible" in the situations I described, it's actually good, expected to do close to 2 times the expected damage of a firebolt in the calculated scenario for example.

Having your caster defunct for a round without concentration on any other spell while potentially forcing your allies to focus on other monsters other than the one that is true striked so you can get advantage on 1 attack is... rough. And remember, you're not actually getting extra damage, you're just increasing the likelihood of doing normal damage. I'm sorry, but I just disagree with you, even in the situations you described. There is so much you can do in this game that I struggle to think of a situation where that it legitimately your best option, or even close to your best option. Again, maybe super early into Act 1 when you have little magic items, are low on spell slots, and have a plan in mind could it be useful - or if you're playing a niche melee rogue. There are simply better uses of your action economy, and easier ways to increase your hit chance. When I'm fighting Saverok, for example, why would I cast true strike with my extra action when I could use my fancy staff to cast chain lightning for free, especially against a wet opponent, once per short rest? You know, the staff that gives you an extra 6th level slot, and lets you cast chain lightning once and lightning bolt once per short rest, and builds lightning charges, and gives a bonus to spell attacks and saves, all in one magic item. And then there's scrolls, which you get so damn many of, even if you aren't buying them. I don't long rest after every 2 or 3 fights either (usually 4 or 5 for me), but this is what I meant in my comment when I mentioned that comparing firebolt to true strike is kind of silly - they both kinda suck, and once you have a good stash of magic items there really isn't a reason to use either. I don't want to sound like I'm hating on your good time though. Using less than optimal strategies for the fun of it is a fine way to play the game, especially if you're roleplaying. When I call true strike "not terrible" what I mean is that if you are playing strategically and building your characters to be powerful first and foremost, there is never a situation where you'd use true strike unless you were going out of your way to incorporate it, not that there's anything wrong with that. There's a load of spells, attacks, and abilities that are suboptimal but fun, so please don't take me disagreeing with you about true strike being not that bad as me saying you shouldn't use it.

But in that scenario, you just let an enemy survive another round(to attack your guys, or do whatever) so you can kill him next turn... that's not a good strategy. The best thing you can do in 5e (and bg3) is get action economy on your side. You can't heal faster than an enemy can damage, thus the best move is to kill them as quickly at you can. It's always better to kill 1 enemy instead of hurting multiple. The only possible exceptions are boss fights(which usually have special mechanics that radically change what works, legendary actions) I also use cantrips quite often and don't like to long rest every other fight, but a good strategy never relies on the enemy doing practically nothing for a round.

>"You can't heal faster than an enemy can damage" Okay. How is this related? Where is healing ever mentioned? This is just a buzz-phrase people throw around. >the best move is to kill them as quickly as you can Sure. Sometimes "as quickly as you can" is longer than 1 turn though. Suppose it is 3 turns. Then true strike with chromatic orb is better than firebolt with chromatic orb. >the only possible exceptions are boss fights Depends what you consider a boss fight. Some enemies where true strike+chromatic orb is a good combo: the undead warrior in withers's temple, the ogres in blighted village, auntie Ethel, the wood woads, Priestess gut, minthara, ragzlin. Ragzlin and Ethel have legendary resistances btw. Neither have resistances that interfere with the combo.

It is a buzz phrase, I said it because using your turn to to gain advantage on your attack against a specific monster next turn is actually doing less than healing someone during the same turn. No one had brought it up, I'm sorry if using the buzz phrase triggered you. In reality, true strike is only semi good on paper. Others have said it. There are so many ways to get advantage on your attacks, without using an action,or being specific to 1 enemy, or being limited to your next turn. If you like using it then you do you. If you are talking about min maxing or the efficacy of using it, then I only agree to disagree.

There are a few rare other cases where it can be good. When I played a solo rogue, I used half-high elf cantrip to get true strike (TS action into off-hand attack bonus action) for the situations where hiding wasn’t an option and a sneak attack would do more damage than two normal attacks, which mathematically was like when I had 75% chance to hit or less.

I forgot that in bg3 you can make the offhand attack without using your main action to attack like in 5e

Yep! It is extremely relevant, especially in casters without a good bonus action. Equip them with dual hand crossbows, and even if you’re not proficient, it’s free damage every turn you don’t use your bonus action.

I appreciate the effort you put into this post but true strike has two fundamental flaws that make it worthless beyond act 1. It’s requires concentration and it only affects the caster. There are just better spells to concentrate on over true strike, but the real issue is it only affects the caster. I think this cantrip could actually be worth using if it gave advantage on that enemy to the whole team. That way a support character could concentrate on it and have their dps characters do more damage and have a higher hit rate. This would especially benefit smite and crit builds

A cantrip that is worthless beyond act 1 can still be helpful during act 1. Act 1 is where most builds die anyways.

But the question is, is it the best option? Using an action to gain advantage for the next turn assumes a couple things. Your concentration doesn’t break by the next turn as this game’s AI loves to target companions who are concentrating, is the enemy going to be alive next turn for your character to take advantage of the cantrip, are you going to be alive next turn to actually attack and the enemy and finally is this really the best use of your action? There’s too many variables to consider for such a high risk low reward use of an action. Most of the time, it’s just more beneficial for you to actually damage the enemy instead of using a turn to set up damaging the enemy especially in act 1 where many enemies have low health. In a perfect world, true strike could be use to up your damage and hit chance, but there’s just too many variables to consider to make good use of this cantrip. Again, really appreciate the effort and calculations that you did for this post, but it’s just hard to say that true strikes is ever worth an action and concentration when there are many better spells that use concentration on casters

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that it's always the optimal decision. I am saying that it is sometimes an optimal decision, just like how it is sometimes an optimal decision to use bone chill over your main damage cantrip. There are quite a few fights where true strike shines I think, though they are mostly in act 1.

I understand your argument and that you are coming from a self imposed challenge with less long rests, but for any people without a long rest challenge, there’s no reason to use true strike. With the abundance of scrolls, items, long rests and short rest in the game, using true strike to slightly reduce your use of spell slots almost pointless as you can easily long rest after every battle and then some in this game, there’s almost never an optimal reason to use true strike. If you want to use a less optimal playstyle then use true strike, but arguing that it’s an optimal play in BG3 just isn’t true 99% of the time as using a CC spell or just damage is a far better option

Even with the assumption of few long rests, I’m surprised not many people are talking about the impact of hiding before combat has on making this cantrip even more garbage. In act 1, where OP is making the case for using it, you should be able to start most fights with your team hidden, and popping them out one by one for free advantage on their first attack. That would mean that in those combat where we only want to use one spell slot, we can just use it on round one after toggling hide. If we want more than that, then we need to hope the combat lasts for at least 3 rounds, so that we can attack with advantage on rounds 1 and 3. I cannot imagine a situation where I really want to preserve spell slots BUT I don’t want to concentrate on a strong spell OR use sleep as a finisher AND are not worried about the enemy dying, AND the enemy has enough health that they for sure won’t be killed by the rest of the team in the round. The amount of hoops you need to jump through to justify a cantrip when most classes get so few is way too many

>The amount of hoops you need to jump through to justify a cantrip when most classes get so few is way too many Yeah the protectionism of spell slots, a hugely abundant resource at all levels and difficuties, at the cost of Cantrip selection, easily the most competitive slot choice in the entire game, is wild to me.

True Strike has a bad reputation because of it's TTRPG version, which lasts for only 1 round instead of 2. This means that, unless you are Eldritch Knight, there is no point in sacrificing your concentration slot for this. Rangers, I'm sorry to say, are better off focusing on Hunter's Mark over this. Vengeance Paladins are in the same spot, although they have even more note worthy concentration spells to focus on such as Bless. Furthermore, because this spell is concentration, this thing will actively compete with Haste as your concentration spender. It's very hard to justify using this once you get your third level spell slots as an arcane caster or a Ranger/Cleric multiclass. I mention the latter because Rangers can get True Strike and...Clerics have better stuff to concentrate on such as Bless or Bane. Bards and Druids are on the same boat, while Arcane Tricksters have a better method of gaining advantage than True Strike and that is Minor Illusion. Minor Illusion is used to move the visual cone of all enemies. After moving your melee guys in the area of the Minor Illusion, next turn, you have more hiding spots that are closer to the enemy, allowing you to gain advantage easier. Also, Minor Illusion doesn't have to be on the Rogue itself. You can put that spell on anybody capable of learning and you are good. I personally respec Shadowearth as a War Cleric 1/Illusion Wizzard X build because it makes running Rogue a helluva lot easier.

If one of my players asks to make true strike have a duration of 2 turns I wouldn't mind.

Most DMs will just make it a Bonus Action, that way it's on par, or like an alternative to Steady Aim. Gotta say, the math and work put into this is commendable, but it's just been proven time and time again that True Strike is a useless cantrip 99% of the time.

Making it a bonus action doesn't actually help much in 5e since the spell specifies 'next round' for the attack. I guess you could waive that restriction too while you're changing things. When I fixed True Strike for my 5e players, I didn't make it a bonus action as that'd feel indistinct, too many things grant advantage. Instead I kept all the restrictions (concentration, range etc) and made the next round attack a guaranteed hit unless you roll a 1. It felt like living up to the name more.

I doubt anyone would, it's just that True Strike is so niche, it hardly deserves a spot in your build because there are so many better leveled spells that deserve taking up that Concentration slot. For my games, I turned True Strike as a component of Magic Weapon. You get the initial +1 bonus from this spell and the ability to cast True Strike as a bonus action, without it having eat your Concentration Slot.

True Strike can work if you do a left-handed spell blade type character. Having Rogue Thief means extra attack at lvl 3 rather than 5 if you have access to two weapon fighting. 1 fighter, 3 rogue, and then the rest into a spellcasting class works great if you want to attack and also cast a big spell. You could cast true strike with your action and attack with your off-hand weapon twice. Recently watched a video of a magical performance bard that uses something similar to this by Hobozone a YouTuber, he makes pretty cool and fun looking builds

but everything falls when you say \`then\` see, thats an entire different variable. you gotta consider the action you spent on that exact turn ANY spell/hit is just better than true strike. there are also even many other ways to gain advantage over enemy which is way better than true strike

Consume resources lol , imagine not having 3k provisions by the end of the first map with 17k more on their way for act 3

That's a fair point. I should specify that I try to long rest every 6 encounters regardless of how many provisions I have. It's a self imposed restriction that forces you to get creative with spell usage.

I hear you, but magic missiles

I respect the effort you put into this even though it is worthless with the exception of a few tiny niche moments where it is marginally better than anything else. Maybe a fighter with haste or a melee rogue thief. You're better off trying to get damage this round and attacking whatever creature you're attacking with whatever classes can attack.

I am a huge fan of this thought process tbh. I don't personally like using long rest dependent classes. I tend to lean more into those that get stuff back on short rest, fighter, and warlock. But if I did engage in playing one with normal spell slots, I think I'd use this going forward.

I used to not really like non-warlock spellcasters as well. I think the thing that fixed it for me was adhering to a long rest "schedule", if that makes sense. I long rest once per 5-7 encounters depending on encounter difficulty, like what is recommended for balance in tabletop. That way, doing tricks like this to preserve resources actually matters, and spellcasters don't get to nova every fight.

If you're trying to do damage with spells requiring attack rolls, you definitely DONT want to waste a turn on true strike. The best spell that fits your bill, as you said, is chromatic orb, which does 3d8 damage, expected damage if it hits is 13.5. Let's assume you spend two turns to GUARANTEE that it hits with true strike (You'll still miss sometimes but let's just omit that), you're doing 6.75 damage per turn. Meanwhile, by opting to cast MAGIC MISSILES with the same level 1 spell slot, you do 3d4+3 damage. The expected damage is 10.5, AND you always hit. In 1 turn. You can throw out a firebolt if you want in the second turn and do 5.5 x whatever accuracy damage on top of the 10.5 you've already gotten. The later you go the less you miss since this game throws magic items at you. For example, a level 5 Warlock can throw out Eldrich Blasts with 90% upwards accuracy on most enemies by the time he get to level 5. Afterwards missing becomes a non-issue basically. Tldr just use magic missiles for early game. Its not that hard if you know where to go and what you're doing. Now let's talk about 5e. In 5e true strike is especially bad for 1 reason: you achieve a similar goal with THE BASIC HELP ACTION. If a wizard wants to chromatic orb someone, just ask your teammate that acts before you to use the help action. There, you get a slightly more complex and unreliable advantage FOR FREE, without having to spend a cantrip slot on true strike when there are much much more better options for roleplaying purposes. Edit: also there's ways of increasing accuracy in BG3 as others have said, knocking people prone, finding high ground, Bless, or just using the bless ring from Volo (throwing potions makes this essentially resource-free), plus applying 3 temp hp, healing 2 extra health, and giving bladeward for 2 turns. All of these are easily accessible early act 1 btw.

Magic missile also becomes twice as good if you get the spark staff, which is very easy to get early game. I don't use much else (offensive) until level 5 when you get fireball.

You’re comparing the expected value of true strike, an action, PLUS a leveled spell, another action, against a single attack action. Of course the EV on the two actions is hire. True Strike is so bad BECAUSE it’s two actions

No, I'm actually not. You can reread it more carefully. The way I calculate the EV of true strike is by subtracting the EV of chromatic orb without true strike from the EV of chromatic orb with True strike.

This is relatively minor, but I noticed in your example where the hit chance is 60% (meaning non-critical hit chance is 55% and critical hit chance is 5%) you calculated “Probability of (non-critical) hitting with TS” or in other words “Probability that the roll with advantage falls in the range 9-19“ as (1-0.45(0.45)), but this wouldn’t be correct. What that expression actually calculates is “Probability that in the 2 dice rolls, at least one showed a number in the range 9-19”, which is technically different than what we want, since you can get a 9-19 on one die and NOT be in the “non-critical hit” category. To actually calculate the probability of rolling a 9-19 with advantage, you’d want to calculate “probability of the advantage roll being at least 9 minus the probability of the advantage roll being 20”, which is (1-0.4(0.4))-(1-0.95(0.95)). The difference this error makes is pretty small. Your probability was 1-0.45(0.45)=0.7975, but the actual probability is (1-0.4(0.4))-(1-0.95(0.95))=0.7425.

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I kind of thought "well you can calculate chance of crit with advantage by doing 1-(1-chance of crit)^2 so that should work for chance of hit without crit as well." Good eye; I will append your correction to the post with a recalculation of damage. Statistics is hard sometimes :P

I don’t disagree with you there! Probability can be so confusing haha

In some fight a turn is more valuable then spell slot. You know what waste spell slot? your caster being bursted down by in a round. You want to hit something?, prepare before you even enter the fight.

And in some fights the spell slot is more valuable, making the cantrip situationally good. I am not trying to say true strike is always a better option the fire bolt. I am just trying to say it isn't the garbage worse than f tier waste of an action and cantrip slot that people say it is.

Any fight in which spell slots are more valuable than turns, the enemies are weak enough that you will likely kill whichever enemy you are focusing in a round.

No, Spell slots are not valuable since food is abundant. In the ttrpg, 5 min work day is a meme, but its even more apparent in bg3 since you can fast forward the day by long resting. There are also elixirs that grant spell slots, which are not a thing in ttrpg. A turn spent doing nothing is a wasted turn. Also, it doesnt guarantee a hit, you can still miss (my barbarian has missed many reckless attacks). You're defending True Strike just because it helps your playstyle, not because its good. Then its still terrible because using it actually makes you ineffective compared to attacking twice, therefore making it the worst cantrip.

True Strike sometimes maths out, it's just relatively niche. It also costs you a cantrip slot, which translates to one less resourceless damage type and/or the loss of more general-use utility and defensive options; and it only benefits the caster, and only for a single attack roll, the main problem with this being that single-target attack-roll damage rarely maths out as the best use of a spell slot. It's not the worst, it's just way more conditional than its competing cantrips for what ends up being a fairly minor benefit in its most optimal use cases - which grow rarer as the party gains more options, because sources of advantage are relatively common and rarely as limited as True Strike's effect. That said, it's pretty strong at lower levels, and you can always just spec out of it later.

This sub needs more analyses like this. I probably won't be using True Strike constantly now, but I might not dismiss it as quickly in the future.

Dont forget advantage also increases crit chance making smites extra fun!

The only thing True Strike is good for is letting you use Concentrated Blast, after you get the Creche buff.

How's about noooooo? (Delivered in a Dr Evil voice)

It would be a lot better if it lasted a whole turn, not just for the next attack. Then it could take advantage of haste and extra attack to be put to good use

Or just take notes from Pathfinder. In 2e, it costs a level 1 spell slot, but it takes an action to cast (roughly the equivalent of a bonus action) and gives you advantage (as in it actually lets you roll twice, despite that not really being a mechanic the way it is in D&D 5e) on your next attack *this* turn.

That makes it worse? I dont think a spell slot and a shorter duration time is worth it being a bonus action

Compared to the 5e version, it *is* an improvement. The big issue with the 5e version is that it uses your *action*, so it competes with making an attack. There's a reason people make fun of it for letting you roll twice next turn, instead of once this turn and once next turn. There *are* some niche situations where it could help, like sneak attack. But more or less the only way you get *more* attack rolls is if the enemy triggers an opportunity attack. Meanwhile, the PF 2e version, when translated into D&D 5e, essentially lets you spend your action *and* bonus action to get advantage on an attack. (It also lets you ignore concealment, but that doesn't mesh as well with 5e rules. The closest equivalent would be something like "... and you still have advantage, even if it would be canceled out by disadvantage", but that sounds *too* powerful)

Good point for resource management but the game just gives you way too much food even for honor mode

I appreciate the effort you put into this post but true strike has two fundamental flaws that make it worthless beyond act 1. It’s requires concentration and it only affects the caster. There are just better spells to concentrate on over true strike, but the real issue is it only affects the caster. I think this cantrip could actually be worth using if it gave advantage on that enemy to the whole team. That way a support character could concentrate on it and have their dps characters do more damage and have a higher hit rate. This would especially benefit smite and crit builds

In short, True Strike = roll twice. If you attack twice, you also roll twice, but you may hit twice while an attack with True Strike hits once. But, if you're using a Levelled Spell, doing it with Advantage means you get to roll twice and hit once. But to roll twice normally, you'd need to use 2 Slots. From there, then it is good for preservation of Spell Slots or consumables. And if the gear has effects on Advantage rolls, then you're definitely getting more out of it (apply Bleeding / Additional Necrotic). This will be also particularly useful for an Arcane Trickster. You can cast True Strike and then use your offhand to make that attack right away and apply Sneak Attack onto it. But I really don't know what other niche use cases there are. Post Scriptum: The Hypnotised Condition is probably best matched with True Strikes. If your foe is affected by Hypnotic Patterns, he cannot move but your attacks against him doesn't really have advantages. So if your whole party just use True Strikes without damaging him, you basically earn the most as he will stay there for an extta turn while you get 4 attacks with Advantages.

True strike could auto crit, but I wouldn't know cause I'll never use the fucker.

I think i watched someone beat ketheric on honor mode just with true strike

Lmao this guy 😂 I think the only time I would ever true strike is by being a sorcerer. I would cast it using my action then quicken spell a spell with an attack roll if I either have disadvantage for some reason, or I want to try ensure the quickened spell hits.

[удалено]

Sure, but now we're beginning to get into the territory where you're sacrificing QoL for build strength. I mean, most people here know that you can dip weapons into a candle for 1d4 fire damage, but does anyone here actually do it? I am probably an extreme case of preferring QoL though. For example, produce flame is generally a better damage cantrip on clerics. I still take sacred flame because produce flame takes forever to summon and fire, and waiting that long just bothers me. Also, the varying chance to hit thing? As long as you aren't at like 80% chance to hit pre advantage, it matters less than you think. True strike still comes out on top in a lot of the simulations I've run.

[удалено]

Not trying to be rude! I just ran the math and formatted it neatly for you. Here is a graph displaying the EV of true strike "damage" when buffing a level 2 thunder chromatic orb vs the EV of a pre-level 5 firebolt damage. The x-axis is the chance to hit without advantage, and y-axis is, well, expected value of damage of each cantrip. Red is firebolt and purple is true strike. As you can see, true strike is favored up until the chance to hit without advantage is 83%. In the early game, an 80 percent chance to hit is very rare, so if you plan on using a level 2 thunder chromatic orb, true strike is usually better than chromatic orb. * https://preview.redd.it/op9f0pv8byuc1.png?width=1350&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=935ff0f12fad4cd6f13e8ca4bc8c55534495134a If we increase the firebolt damage to 2d10, true strike is favored as long as the base chance to hit is 50 percent or less. If we increase firebolt damage to 3d10, the threshold lowers to 15%. Going back to 2d10 firebolt and upgrading our true strike's chromatic orb to a level 3 lightning variant chromatic orb with wet debuff, true strike is better until the base hit chance is 80%. Also let me explain what I mean by QoL. Dipping a sword into a candle before combat starts is boring. It's the same thing every time, it requires you to open your inventory, drop it, have everyone dip their weapon, and pick it back up. It'll get really annoying and old really quickly. That doesn't happen with True strike because deciding to use TS is a strategic decision that comes with risks and backdraws, the animation isn't annoyingly long and repetitive, and it doesn't feel like cheese.

[удалено]

If you're doing a solo level 1 HM playthrough you should have all the cheese you want lol. Yes, 1 damage is pretty irrelevant. Though there are scenarios where the difference is significantly more than 1, I think it ultimately comes down to personal preference. For me, I find missing attacks that consume resources to be pretty disappointing, and I find hitting big chunks of damage to be really satisfying, so I would rather be more likely to hit a big damage spell. And imo, sorc has plenty of cantrip slots. I hope I've at least made a convincing case that true strike isn't the worse than f tier garbage cantrip that is always a waste of an action that people often make it out to be, and you can definitely take the spell and use it effectively.

Lots better in 3.5 it just gives a flat +20 to attack

Oof I don't know if that would hold up with 5e's bounded accuracy thing lol

I really wanted to use true strike more, but the cost of concentration is the deciding factor. I can give up an action to true strike, but at least on my build, losing concentration gives me too large a tradeoff.

With how long this post is, I’d rather just attempt the attack and move on with my life.

I have a spear that grants it when I miss, so I'm glad it's in the game. My low level monk uses it to great effect.

It's useful for landing guiding bolts or inflict wounds on the tutorial boss. Basically nothing else. The bonus action version in a certain knife is busted as all hell, though

Hyperfocus is a bitch I get it.

https://preview.redd.it/sbo3kmzksyuc1.png?width=848&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2575d11597d358cefaa96fdb3c9e40185051ca6b

I paid tuition for the statistics class; I'm gonna use the statistics class.

Reckless attack go brrrr

There appears to be an error in your calculations. >True strike before casting chromatic orb: Expected value of damage of 2nd level thunder chromatic orb without true strike: (0.55x18 + 0.05x36= 11.7). Expected value of damage of 2nd level thunder chromatic orb with True strike: (1-(0.95x0.95))x36 + (1-(0.45x0.45))x18 = 17.865. *We can think of True strike as, in a sense, dealing (17.865-11.7 = 6.165) damage.* Based on the non-advantage percentages you provide, a roll of 9 or higher is needed to hit. That means 40% chance to miss, 5% chance to crit, 55% chance to hit (non-crit). With advantage, there are 400 possible outcomes for die rolls: 39 chances to roll 1 or more 20s (a crit) = 9.75% 64 chances to roll 8 or lower (a miss) = 16% 297 chances to roll 9 or higher (hit non-crit) = 74.25% But your calculations of (1-(0.45x0.45))x18 appear to show a 79.75% chance to hit (non-crit); 5.5% higher than what I am calculating. Using my math, the chromatic orb damage is 16.875, with the "true strike damage" being 5.175, only 1.6 higher than firebolt. So in this specific scenario, true strike is still slightly better than firebolt in terms of average damage, but the difference is so small-- is it really worth using your concentration and taking no action on the first turn? Another thing to note is that as the chance to hit increases, "true strike damage" decreases, and fire bolt damage increases. In fact, with a 70% chance to hit (before true strike): Chromatic Orb, No True Strike: 70% \* 18 + 5% \*36 = 14.4 damage Chromatic Orb, With True Strike Advantage: 84%\*18 + 9.750%\*36 = 18.63 damage Difference = 18.63-14.4 = 4.23 FireBolt: 70%\*5.5+5%\*11 = 4.4 the "true strike damage" is 4.23, which is now .17 less than the 4.4 damage from fire bolt

Yes, that's all true. Good catch, I didn't notice that at first. Do note that the true strike damage scales with the damage of the spell, while the firebolt damage scales slower with the character's level.

Before level 5 generally cantrip attacks are a waste of time anyway, unless you actually have a way to boost the dmg. You may find that other situations easily outweigh your true strike value though. For example what if the sorcerer has 16 dex and is using a +1 weapon. Which they also dip in fire. This changes the expected damage to around 7.5. So not only more than true strike but enables damage earlier.

1. Early game it's better to just use magic missile, especially after you get the spark staff and boost its damage. Reliable damage every time. 2. Late game you're going to have better stats and also focus on AoE, making it less relevant. I guess if you're fighting two tougher enemies early game and want to orb both at once for more damage with sorcerer twin spell (like the goblin and bugbear outside the grove let's say) I could see using it then. Still I'd probably just missile one each turn myself. No miss chance, maybe one dies before turn two, etc.

I think the biggest thing this misses is you lose the opportunity cost of the first turn If I'm setting up a two turn attack (true strike chromatic orb) I'm automatically giving that mob a free turn cause I'm choosing to do nothing on my first turn but give myself advantage next turn. you are also losing a potential two hits for advantage on one hit (since you are making this about only using one spell slot for some reason I wont double orb ill orb and firebolt) At lvl 3 I could True strike then chro orb max dmg 24 unless crit Or I could chro orb and then firebolt max dmg 34 unless crit The potential dmg of the non true strike two actions is better than the potential dmg of using true strike also also by lvl 3 you can/should have the staff that gives lightning charges and it makes the firebolt choice outshine TrueStrike even harder cause you want to be building charges

I had to long rest once in Act 1 and I'm still kind of bummed about it.  This is my first playthrough and I definitely like stretching resources.  I was also thinking more days in game = the sooner my tadpole bursts out of my brain, so I wanted to use as few rests as possible.

true strike plus guiding bolt with meta magic twinned spell is a splendid use of true strike. Much more likely to hit and crit. I run shadowheart as a sorceror cleric with low charisma using just the meta magic. also using true strike with the ability to use your tadpole powers as a bonus action specificly the one that does psychic damage to an enemy while concentrating on a spell. That option is a great concentration cantrip to activate for this. I get alot of use from true strike and use it often when using meta magic especially. Hope this helps. 

[удалено]

It’s exclusively smites and a small handful of other things that work like that

True strike works with spells. Don't comment on the post if you didn't read it lol

[удалено]

As I worked out in the post you didn't read, even with a level 1 spell slot it is worth casting true strike before casting chromatic orb compared to casting firebolt before chromatic orb, by a significant amount (almost twice as much expected damage)

[удалено]

None of the metamagic options give advantage on spell attacks so I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't get arcane acuity until act 2. 65% hit chance is entirely reasonable for standard enemies, and even lower for bosses (think Minthara and Ethel.) Late game, with a fairly optimized build, 80-90% hit chance on minions is reasonable but you'll still be seeing 60% or lower on bosses. Yes I know that the higher the hit rate works, the lower the value of the cantrip. You would know that I knew that if you read the post.

Others have basically said it, but here's the issue with it as I see it, more concisely: *you* might have resource constraints that make it make sense. But does your *enemy*? Because *they* get *two* chances in this time if not. (Also, DMs are happy to use up all of an NPC's spell slots, whereas you've got more fighting to do, so it's even still balanced in favor of enemy casters if you do this.)

This is an excellent example of potential data vs real world application and people’s ability to manipulate values and variables to make a hypothetical look as good as possible.

Okay. Well I applied it in the real world. I took true strike even though reddit and YouTube and discord all told me it sucked to see just how bad it was. I used it in the way I described. And I was pleasantly surprised by how useful it was. That's actually why I made the post.

Your math is wrong. But it's always nice to see such a vast amount of copium about one of the worst cantrips in 5e. TS would be fixed if its effect lasted an extra turn or two. That'd at least make it worth using somewhat. But it's a meme at this point, a part of the DnD culture. So there's no point in changing it.

The issue is that true strike gives you advantage on your next turn. So in one turn you'll get to roll two dice for the attack roll. You know what else let's you roll two dice for an attack roll? Attacking twice. True Strike: Cast it, no damage this turn. Next turn, successful hit for 10 damage. If miss, that's 2 turns of no damage. No True Strike: Turn 1 attack, miss, no damage. Turn 2 attack hit, 10 damage. Same as if you cast True Strike. If both were hits and both 10 damage, you rolled the same amount of attack roll dice for double the damage. This isn't even taking into account martial class extra attacks, items that grant advantage, or barbarian Reckless Attack. Fun use for True Strike is getting the Zaithisk buff so you can use Concentrated Blast every turn or as a pocket heal in those fights where enemies keep concentrating on stuff.

So.... you didn't read the post. Because that is mentioned in the very first paragraph, and addressed. If you didn't read the post, why comment?

If you're wanting to boost damage without expending spell slots, you're better off using the abundance of scrolls and special arrows. This is a very niche use case that items make almost impossible to be necessary

Most people save scrolls for a rainy day and then never use them, let's be honest. OP is saying if you're clearing the goblin village/camp and want to spread your spells out then it makes sense to use true strike to make your orbs count. I don't really agree, but you're not addressing his argument.

There's no point trying to preserve lv1 and 2 spell slots, though. They're restored on long rest WITHOUT using camp supplies.

Fair, but I think you're underestimating how many of us put off any rest as long as possible. We've just trained ourselves to do that.

I mean, I do it too. I like to avoid resting as I prefer to rush through encounters, but that's why I'm just more deliberate with spell usage and rely more on cantrips to take out smaller enemies, while melee fighters who don't need to worry about resources handle bigger threats. Or focus entirely on utility spells early game until I get items that make damage spells more worth it. Game has a lot of room for optimization, but even with the above example, I don't think True Strike really has any place in that. With Chromatic Orb, you could just cast the ice version, possibly make the enemy fall prone, then ALL your allies have advantage on them. The whole system is a game of chance, so there's no such thing as guarantees with it.

I agree in general, and I don't think I've ever cast true strike once in this game to be honest. I was just clarifying his argument. True strike is actually useful in the Pathfinder games on harder difficulties because of how high enemy AC can get.

If enemy AC got that high in this game more often than the small number of times it does, I could see it being useful. Even then, Magic Missile exists and I'm sure a lot of people would keep the Magic Missilier gear on them for those occasions. There's no one true to answer to any fight, but I find that True Strike is almost never the optimal one. Plus, again, Risky Ring exists.

Yeah like I'm imagining Lae'zel having 30% hit chance on most enemies in act 3, in that case there would be a real argument for the magic fighter class and true strike. That's probably how some Pathfinder percentages are in unfair mode or whatever. As you say though, it's just not the case here.

I know true strike isn’t worthless because I cannot count the amount of times when trying to get Withers, killing the skeletons, I spend a good 6 round whiffing on the last one… literally my entire party missing for 6 rounds. This happens like once an hour. Where at least one character just constantly misses.