D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Vaalingrade]

True Strike is a decent spell, but isn't really a 'you strike true' spell.

Like, congratulations, you are as highly likely to miss as anyone else meant to make attacks are. It's like the kind of thing that was a rider to the old Mordenkaenin's Sword that let you attack at fighter BaB.

TRUE strike should still provide a bonus that makes you pretty likely to hit.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

True Strike is a decent spell, but isn't really a 'you strike true' spell.

Like, congratulations, you are as highly likely to miss as anyone else meant to make attacks are. It's like the kind of thing that was a rider to the old Mordenkaenin's Sword that let you attack at fighter BaB.

TRUE strike should still provide a bonus that makes you pretty likely to hit.

The bonus is that they can use their primary casting ability score rather than Dex or Strength. That can easily be up to a +6 difference for a staff-wielding Wizard with an 8 Strength and 20 Intelligence.

 

[Incenjucar]

True Strike could instead be a bonus action that allows you to roll an additional time on your next attack using your casting stat, without being involved with advantage.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

True Strike could instead be a bonus action that allows you to roll an additional time on your next attack using your casting stat, without being involved with advantage.

I'm fine with it being limited to helping with weapons only, and not being able to help with spells. Bonus Action True Strike on a high-level targeted attack spell cast with an Action? Nah.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The bonus is that they can use their primary casting ability score rather than Dex or Strength. That can easily be up to a +6 difference for a staff-wielding Wizard with an 8 Strength and 20 Intelligence.

Yes. I know this.

And that +6 doesn't actually get them 'striking true' any more than those guys built to use weapons. It's a 'single serious punch' for someone who isn't Saitama.

It's a 'Basically Competent Strike'

 

[CleverNickName]

How often do you actually have this conversation for every spell of every character that you make?

And would you need to monopolize the DM's time so much if there was an expectation that DM would be the one to explain to you if they were diverging from the standard everyone can understand?

I dunno, I like having a phillips head screw driver work on most screws and don't see it as a 'feature' when some 'brilliant' company decides to put little star shapes on their screw heads.

You're making this sound a lot more onerous than it is. There is no "monopolizing the DM's time," because the players and the DM and I are all in the same email chain (and text message chain, and Discord channel, etc.) We're always talking, so we ask questions back and forth between gaming sessions whenever something comes up. I can't imagine that we're the only ones who talk about D&D between games.

It's not a burden for someone to just ask "Hey Bob, I'm thinking about taking this cantrip but the rules are vague/confusing/too mathematically laborious/over-defined to the point of uselessness/etc., how would you handle it?" and for Bob to reply "I'd handle it like this..." in a day or two. (Although to be fair to Bob, he'd be just as likely to respond "How do you want to handle it?" as anything else.) We got pretty good at this during the 3.5E/Pathfinder days, when every rule and character option seemed to require an in-depth statistical analysis.

 

[Kurotowa]

You know who this True Strike is really good for? Clerics. They don't lose out on an Extra Attack, it stacks with Blessed Strikes - Divine Strike, they get to go SAD on Wis, it's pure upside. And all you have to do to get it is be a High Elf or take Magic Initiate as your starting feat.

But let's go further. If we're doing a SAD Wis build we don't have the Str for Heavy armor or Heavy weapons. But True Strike works with ranged weapons! Also we're only making one attack a turn, so weapons with the Loading property are no deterrence. Of course, Heavy Crossbows are a Heavy weapon, which would require investing in Str 13. You know what isn't a Heavy weapon, though? Muskets. And they're on the default weapon list now.

So we've got our Cleric with True Strike. They take Divine Order - Protector to get Martial Weapons. With the War subclass we'd get a Weapon Mastery trait, but the Mastery for muskets is nothing special. So why not take Light for the artillery spells, or Trickster for the extra utility? You're still primarily a spellcaster, after all. In fact, if the musket gets vetoed by the DM, you could just use a Light Crossbow and take Divine Order - Thaumaturge instead.

It's not exactly turning the Cleric into a gish or a weapon focused build, but it's certainly an interesting build that wasn't possible before.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Yes. I know this.

And that +6 doesn't actually get them 'striking true' any more than those guys built to use weapons. It's a 'single serious punch' for someone who isn't Saitama.

It's a 'Basically Competent Strike'

• If a L5 Wizard has a 10 Str and 18 Int, they have a +3 to attack and deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage (2-handed) with a quarterstaff they are proficient with, as an Action. That sounds like a basically competent strike.
• If True Strike just gave Heroic Advantage as a Bonus Action, that L5 Wizard would still have to use their Action to attack, and only get a +3 to attack, and deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage. That's still not good.
• With the current playtest version of True Strike, that same Wizard would get a +7 to attack, and deal 1d8+1d6+4 (3-18) radiant damage. They still have their Bonus Action for shenanigans (maybe even shenanigans that can further enhance their effectiveness). That is way more accurate and hits harder.

Are you saying that they should get all of that, and advantage? That would be +7 to attack with advantage, dealing 1d8+1d6+4 radiant damage, as an Action, and still have a Bonus Action? Every weapon-using character that can get an arcane cantrip will take this spell. Every Arcane Trickster will always have advantage.

I think it's fine as-is.

 

[Amrûnril]

Overall, I really like these changes and hope the underperforming leveled spells will get a similar treatment. Especially when it comes to choosing attack cantrips, I think the updates do a good job of making more options competitive Firebolt while also avoiding power creep beyond it.

I do think that, while the playtest version of True Strike is a good option, it isn't the same spell as 2014 True Strike in any meaningful sense. I'd prefer to treat it as a new spell with a new name and then consider whether there's a way to make a cantrip that fills True Strike's original accuracy-boosting niche viable.

As for Friends, with the catastrophic drawback removed, I think it's worth asking how large a bonus to social interactions it's really appropriate for a cantrip to give. My answer would be something on the order of +1d4 to a roll, which is of course what you can already get by casting Guidance before the interaction.

 

[Mistwell]

Man, if I do absolutely know that someone used magic to influence my opinion of them, even if they treated me well, or didn't take advantage of me, I don't know how I don't have an immediate and strong negative reaction as a result. There's a reason the modern consensus on love potions is that they're pretty evil.

It depends on how common such a thing is, and if it's perceived in that society on roughly the same level is a very attractive and/or charismatic person talking a cop out of a ticket or a hostess into a table faster. They might be slightly embarrassed later but it's not on the level of a violation. In a world where magic is fairly common, is it really meaningfully different in perception than mundane persuasiveness? I mean, it's not mind control. Nobody lost their free will, you're just "emanating a sense of friendship" and getting advantage on your charisma checks.