True strike and Guiding Bolt

exsonic01
Level 10
9 months ago

In Solasta, it seems that the effect of True Strike is the same as Targeted by Guiding Bolt. But is this correct description by the rule? 

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 next turn, you gain an advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn’t ended.

Guiding Bolt: 

A flash of light streaks toward a creature of your choice within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 4d6 radiant damage, and the next attack roll made against this target before the end of your next turn has the advantage, thanks to the mystical dim light glittering on the target until then.

I thought True Strike advantage should be granted only to the caster because it says "you gain advantage". Guiding Bolt mentioned "the next attack roll made against this target before the end of your next turn has advantage", so I think it is natural for GB to grant advantage to all other allies towards the target. But for True Strike, other allies should not have the advantage over the target, only the caster should have. But in Solasta, TS is the same as GB... 

Is this the correct description? Or Am I wrong?

Skryia
Level 11
9 months ago

Well, in tabletop, True Strike is commonly considered the worst cantrip in the game, bar none. So if they want it to not be an utter trap, they kinda have to do something to make it worthwhile. As it is, there are several really good cantrip choices and I’ve never felt like I had a free cantrip slot to even take true strike to test if it was as bad as tabletop.😂

darnaths
Level 1
9 months ago

Truestrike used to be a good spell because it added 20 to the attack roll(so you were pretty sure to hit)...just gaining advantage is pretty meh

Skryia
Level 11
9 months ago

That was never the case in 5e. In 3.5e it was situationally useful, sure. But in 5e, the math has been done and settled for a while, it’s just not worth it.

TomReneth
Level 14
9 months ago

You're not wrong, per ce. It currently says that "caster has advantage on his next attack against the target" when you hold Alt for more details. So it technically shouldn't behave like the advantage granted by Guiding Bolt.

That said, True Strike is finally usable, so I'd be very torn on them fixing it. It effectively doubles as a Help Action at the moment, which seem to be absent otherwise.


Typos happen. More so on the phone.

exsonic01
Level 10
9 months ago

Hmm I thought many people around here wish to stick to pure 5e.  

Plus, the problem is, some mods, which also uses the true strike option, might be influenced by this decision in the future. 

I wish at least more options are given to choose this: advantage to caster only, or advantage to everyone. 

Skryia
Level 11
9 months ago

Yeah, it is a tough call, honestly. On the one hand, a large part of the appeal of Solasta is that the devs stayed really close to tabletop rules. But on the other hand, True Strike from tabletop may as well not exist because it’s just a trap for the unwary. So I think it’s a matter of degree, really. If they went overboard with mechanical changes, I’d be less pleased (not a fan of barrelmancy in BG3, for and didn’t like Solasta’s prior changes to lighting mechanics as a for-instance), but if they can tweak True Strike so it’s not a trap, I’m good with that (and probably *still* wouldn’t take it over a bunch of other cantrips).

TomReneth
Level 14
9 months ago (edited)

Hmm I thought many people around here wish to stick to pure 5e.  

Plus, the problem is, some mods, which also uses the true strike option, might be influenced by this decision in the future. 

I wish at least more options are given to choose this: advantage to caster only, or advantage to everyone. 

People want to stick to 5e to the extent it makes sense, no doubt, but I'm pretty sure that has more to due with faithfully implemented mechanics rather than not having any homebrew elements at all or not improving on the flaws that do exist in 5e. RAW True Strike being among them.

Consider RAW True Strike: On your next turn, the caster has advantage on 1 attack against the target. It has moderate range and takes up concentration. This means that RAW True Strike is literally worse than just attacking once on each of those turns with the sole exception of a Rogue (Arcane Trickster, High Elf, Magic Initiate or multiclass) that has run out of any other way of triggering Sneak Attack*. And that Rogue is only a "maybe" for using True Strike in that situation, because it comes at the cost of taking up one of your few cantrip slots, meaning this Rogue would be worse in every other situation.

Not using RAW True Strike will let you potentially double your damage (you attack twice instead of once and both could hit or crit), you can put up a Concentration buff (like Protection from Evil and Good, Blur or Bless etc.) and you can have a different cantrip of your choice. This means even Rogues will benefit from not using it more often than not.

*And I would say you need at least 4d6 or higher Sneak Attack damage for it to be worth it even then, since getting your ability score modifier to damage twice and get the option to off-hand attack twice is pretty nice.


The way Solasta's True Strike works makes it very valuable for Shadowcasters (and High Elf Rogues in general), since they can set up their own Sneak Attacks on the same turn they cast it if they are dual wielding, and let people with it take a "ranged Help Action", if they don't have anything more valuable to do that round. The cantrip finally has use as anything other than a joke and a trap for players unfamiliar with 5e mechanics.

If they revert True Strike back to RAW, they might as well remove it from the game entirely, because it is literally useless in all but the most niche and unlikely of situations. I do think that renaming it and giving it a more correct description would be a good idea, but the way it currently works finally makes it usable.


Typos happen. More so on the phone.

Skryia
Level 11
9 months ago

Tom has stated for more clearly than I did. Well dome, and agreed. 

mg666
Level 5
9 months ago (edited)

Why not simply rename True Strike to say Guiding Light, making it officially a homebrew spell, and copy description from GB?
"The next attack roll made against this target before the end of your next turn has advantage, thanks to the mystical dim light glittering on the target until then."

Later, if enough people complain there is no True Strike (I doubt anyone will, except for Larry and Daliat), they could add original spell, matching the description from SRD and what's currently in the game.

It's stronger than Help action, but not as strong as Mastermind Rogue's Master of Tactics ability. Balance is there, considering Shock Arcanist +1 level, Mountaineer +2 AC or Potent Cantrip feat for everyone.

I'm more surprised nobody complains about Charm Person being as strong as Dominate Person, a 5th level spell.

mg666
Level 5
9 months ago

since they can set up their own Sneak Attacks on the same turn they cast it if they are dual wielding

I consider this a bug (as in: current limitation of the engine, not allowing to add actions conditionally). D&D doesn't allow you to do offhand attack BA without first making normal attack action.

TomReneth
Level 14
9 months ago

since they can set up their own Sneak Attacks on the same turn they cast it if they are dual wielding

I consider this a bug (as in: current limitation of the engine, not allowing to add actions conditionally). D&D doesn't allow you to do offhand attack BA without first making normal attack action.

If it's a bug, I hope they never fix it. Making the off hand attack independent of the main hand attack is arguably the one thing making dual wielding a decent option worth considering alongside two-handed and weapon'n'shield. Dual wielding is already in a bad place, since it takes more out of your action economy than the other styles and ordinarily requires you to use weapons maxing out at d6, so I don't get why WotC made it conditional too.

It's also one of the reasons why True Strike works in this game. Change dual wielding to not allow independent off hand attacks and bye bye Improved True Strike. It's still arguably too niche without Rogues getting to use it to set up their Sneak Attacks on a single turn.


Typos happen. More so on the phone.

mg666
Level 5
9 months ago

How is it worse than 2H or S&B?

Greatsword is 2d6 + STR + 1.33 (avg) from Great Weapon Fighting
Longsword + Board is 1d8 + STR + 2 from Dueling (also +2AC bonus)
Two shortswords is 2d6 + STR/DEX + STR/DEX from Two-Weapon Fighting with an equivalent of advantage for half the damage.

How offhand attack works right now is weird. Shoot with a bow (or cast a spell), change to two swordswords, run to the nearest enemy and attack with your left hand. Why not with your right hand then? Two-weapon attack is what it is. You make your two attacks in a very short period of time, could say at the same time, or if the first strike kills one victim, you swing around to another enemy and hit them, without first fiddling with whatever you were holding.

TomReneth
Level 14
9 months ago (edited)

How is it worse than 2H or S&B?

Greatsword is 2d6 + STR + 1.33 (avg) from Great Weapon Fighting
Longsword + Board is 1d8 + STR + 2 from Dueling (also +2AC bonus)
Two shortswords is 2d6 + STR/DEX + STR/DEX from Two-Weapon Fighting with an equivalent of advantage for half the damage.

How offhand attack works right now is weird. Shoot with a bow (or cast a spell), change to two swordswords, run to the nearest enemy and attack with your left hand. Why not with your right hand then? Two-weapon attack is what it is. You make your two attacks in a very short period of time, could say at the same time, or if the first strike kills one victim, you swing around to another enemy and hit them, without first fiddling with whatever you were holding.

It's worse because it takes your Bonus Action. And because it scales worse once Extra Attack comes into the picture. 1d6 is ~3.5 damage on average.

Let's assume level 5 with 18 Str or Dex.

Greatsword is then 4d6 + 8 + 1.33 = 22.33 for 1 Attack Action
Sword'n'board is 2d8 + 8 + 4 = 21 (and 2 AC) for 1 Attack Action
Twin shortswords is 3d6 + 12 = 22.5 for 1 Attack Action and 1 Bonus Action

Dual wielding is a marginal DPS increase (0.17) over using a greatsword in return for giving up your Bonus Action that can only be achieved by Fighters and Rangers. Fighters will eventually get 3 main hand attacks, so they're limiting their potential if they pick dual wielding in any campaign that goes to level 11 or higher and a lot of the good Ranger spells added to 5e (all of which missing in Solasta) use your bonus action, so they're usually better off with greatswords even without the +1.33. They can get +1 AC instead, for example.

Once the casters can start buffing the party with stuff like Haste, dual wielding falls even further behind in usefulness.

This is, of course, ignoring the various feats available in the Player's Handbook. Polearm Master + Sentinel and Great Weapon Master makes dual wielding pretty bad in comparison. Of course, without feats, Dueling while using a shield is overal the best, because losing 1.33-1.5 damage is an insignificant loss of damage compared to the survivability a shield offers.

It's not that dual wielding isn't capable of putting out decent numbers (as long as they don't have to compete with feats), it's that you have to sacrifice your action economy to do so. To make it balanced with the other styles, I would say that it either 1) the off hand attack needs to be a free action if it is dependent on the main hand attack, or 2) the off hand attack needs to be independent from the main hand attack. Otherwise the added damage is too small compared to spending your Bonus Action when the other styles don't have to.

The class that uses dual wielding the best doesn't even get the fighting style; Rogue, whos damage is mostly done through Sneak Attack. Having 2 chances to trigger it is automatically better than having 1, and they're limited to finessable weapons anyway. Trading a d8 (~4.5 avg. dmg.) for a d6 (~3.5 avg. dmg.) is a pretty insignificant loss of DPS compared to simply having a second chance at Sneak Attack, even if you don't end up using your off hand attack all that often.


Typos happen. More so on the phone.

exsonic01
Level 10
9 months ago (edited)

I also enjoyed 5e TRPG, though it was 2 yrs ago and the amount of my experience is not that huge. My DM applied a lot of homebrewed contents and house rules as well, though his direction was usually tougher direction. So I can accept and understand the homebrewed TS. 

But the major demand of people during the dispute of the Solasta light system was to bring back the 5e light rule because they want 5e light rule. But after reading these opinions about TS, now I think, maybe, what people really want is easy and advantageous conditions to experience this game. Because people react differently. When the effect is good, "let's just go." When the effect is bad, "bring that back right now." 

Anyway, again, I can live with this homebrew TS. But my interest is some modding possibilities, and some options, which share the effect of TS or very similar with TS will be influenced by this. Some modded/homebrewed contents might too strong because of this TS. So if it is possible I wish to have an option of original TS. But again, if TA is not possible to resolve this issue, I can live with this. And if TA don't bring this, then I think some modders may create a new field/class I guess. Some people are waiting for full release... So let's see. 

TomReneth
Level 14
9 months ago

I also enjoyed 5e TRPG, though it was 2 yrs ago and the amount of my experience is not that huge. My DM applied a lot of homebrewed contents and house rules as well, though his direction was usually tougher direction. So I can accept and understand the homebrewed TS. 

But the major demand of people during the dispute of the Solasta light system was to bring back the 5e light rule because they want 5e light rule. But after reading these opinions about TS, now I think, maybe, what people really want is easy and advantageous conditions to experience this game. Because people react differently. When the effect is good, "let's just go." When the effect is bad, "bring that back right now." 

Anyway, again, I can live with this homebrew TS. But my interest is some modding possibilities, and some options, which share the effect of TS or very similar with TS will be influenced by this. Some modded/homebrewed contents might too strong because of this TS. So if it is possible I wish to have an option of original TS. But again, if TA is not possible to resolve this issue, I can live with this. And if TA don't bring this, then I think some modders may create a new field/class I guess. Some people are waiting for full release... So let's see. 

I don't think most people mind a gameplay challenge, as long as it doesn't feel unfair, counter-intuitive or poorly explained. The old rules for lighting was pushing for all three. The problem I had with the lighting prior to them changing it was that it disadvantaged the playable races without darkvision a lot more than the others, making them inherently less desirable in your party. Maybe I'm crazy, but punishing people for simply playing the character they want seems like poor game design. Each race can have their own strengths, but they should all be in the same rough ballpark of usefulness.

With the new buffs certain enemies have while in darkness, light management is now more important, not less, because simply having darkvision doesn't counter much of the negative anymore. If you don't manage light properly, the new Soraks are a lot more dangerous and equally so to both humans and elves. After all, now they get regeneration and a bonus to all saves, accuracy and damage in darkness.

True Strike is in a fairly unique position because it is useless without homebrew. They can revert it to the RAW version if they want to, but that means I won't have any use for the spell anymore because you get too few cantrips to spend one on a spell that I'll probably never benefit from. RAW True Strike is so bad that it might as well not be a spell. In the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar: "It's a TRAP!"

That's not to say I think every addition that makes the player characters more powerful are welcome additions. I don't think Potent Cantrip should be a feat, for example, because guaranteed damage at no resource cost is a bit too powerful to give to everyone with access to cantrips. It's not like Wizards and Clerics need help competing with other classes, so why give them this too? I also think Shock Arcanist seems overtuned, Sellsword background shouldn't give armor proficiency and that Darkweaver overlaps too much with Thief.


Typos happen. More so on the phone.