If magic worked in a realistic way, wouldn't a level 1 wizard just cast True Strike and then instantly crossbow headshot and kill even the Dragon...

If magic worked in a realistic way, wouldn't a level 1 wizard just cast True Strike and then instantly crossbow headshot and kill even the Dragon like the bard and Smaug?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If magic worked realistically it wouldn't work. Also looking at the version of True Strike you posted, the dragon wouldn't be within range, if it was it'd succeed in its Charisma saving throw, and if it failed then its AC would still be too high for that bonus to let a level 1 wizard reliably hit it. Maybe instead of wildly missing the wizard would manage to hit the dragon's scales, but that'd hardly matter.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What's this, half the effect of bless but need a saving throw?
    Just cast bless instead.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I assume you can cast cantrips forever while bless takes a slot
      but I don't know anything about DandDone

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, slots are resources, but so are actions in combat.
        This cantrip eats your actions like nothing else (if you hit them, or they pass the save, you're going to recast).
        It's terrible action economy, for a better slot economy.
        Be better at slot management, and you won't have to suffer this cantrip other than in corner cases.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Text says it reveals the weaknesses.
    Doesn't say it helps you hit them.
    So you know about Smaug's missing scales, but if you're a crap shot you still won't hit it.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If magic worked in a realistic way, it wouldn't work at all.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >he doesn't know

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >go into 30 feet range of a dragon
    >dont die in the process
    >cast spell
    >hope it succeeds
    >dont die in the process
    >aim and fire crossbow
    >dont die in the process
    >hope it hits
    >dont die in the process
    >dont make a lethal hit anyways
    >realize weakness doesnt mean one-shot
    >die in the process

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >you and your allies
    So if I get like 200 commoners with bows they can all benefit from it?

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >you and your allies
    >spell ends early if you
    Wait, so it ends early if I hit it, so if I want my allies to continue to benefit from it I should just not attack it?

    >add a d4
    Am I the only one who finds that cumbersome? Why not just give you a flat bonus? Or advantage? Did they get rid of advantage?

    >Casting time: 1 action
    For the benefit that is dwarfed by advantage, that's kind of a crock. I mean it sort of stacks with advantage, but why not just make advantage stack with other sources of advantage. It's clean, the math is easier, and it'd have a nifty diminishing return that...

    Who designed this?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >d4
      this has always been a weird thing for me in 5e, where they get bless, guidance, and a bunch of other spells to add a +1d4 instead of a regular +1, +2, or +3.

      Wasn't advantage introduced because the average player is a smoothbrain who hates math?
      I seeing a d4 instead of a +2 really better for their brain?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      you can get advantage from other sources and advantages don't stack, so in vacuum, making it advantage instead would be better but in practical use that d4 works just fine here

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        My question was, why not make them stack?

        It would produce an easier math scenario, and create "le epic lulz" when you get four sources of advantage and grip a fat load of d20. We're in the middle of an edition change, they could make that change.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Then just go play a game using Modiphius's 2d20 system. That's basically what it does. It's basically d20 but using an Xd20K1 core mechanic, and only d6s for everything else.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          If advantage/disadvantage sources stacked the game would be a bigger logistical nightmare to track than 3.5e since every other effect gives them

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What the fuck? Why did WotC fuck up True Strike like that?

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    A few problems with that pic (I'm aware that you are probably not the one who made it OP, but it's here, and you decided to use it as a conversation starter so):

    For those few people unaware of 5e's True Strike, it's bad. Just on math alone, it's bad. OP's pic is some kind of homebrew to - I assume - "fix" it. It's instead worse for a number of reasons.
    >Charisma saving throw
    Logically, the caster is being provided insight through divination magic. This re-work seems to want to expose the target like an enchantment spell, rather than give it's caster insight. The save being CHA, and allies reaping the benefits from the cantrip make a lickle bit more sense in this new context at least.
    Mechanically, however, True Strike's ONE utility is that it can be used for ambushes. It's only component is a Somatic one, the pointed finger the original flavors, and has zero saves involved. This is in large part because a save is a defense, and whether or not a character passes it, they now know something is up. Try getting a player to roll a save and have them not be paranoid as fuck when you reply "Oh, you got a sixteen? Good..."
    >Writing errors
    Ah, how to tell a homebrew from a miiiile away. This one isn't a nitpick, either, because there's no obvious intention to correct it to within the re-write itself, it needs re-re-writing.
    >Actual power level
    Heavily, massively, overwhelmingly outclassed in this regard by Bless, Bane, and Guiding Bolt, 1st level spells. The point of it being a cantrip is being something you can rely on when you don't have the comfort to blow spell slots, but it's worse than just attacking anyway, a problem the original True Strike had exactly.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >This is in large part because a save is a defense, and whether or not a character passes it, they now know something is up.
      [citation needed]

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Try getting a player to roll a save and have them not be paranoid as fuck when you reply "Oh, you got a sixteen? Good..."
        Also, in every case, if there's a save, it becomes obvious the defense has worked, or the spell outright says the target is unaware until the effect ends like in Charm Person's case.
        Fireball is kind of hard to know it's gone off in your fucking face, right?
        Any Spell Attack can also be ruled out, because if the attack misses, the target probably dodged it or something, right?
        Illusions are all about deception and specifically state their deceptive effects, and how people can see through them with a check or save, so EVEN ~ILLUSIONS~ come packaged with rules as written for this exact scenario. Alright.

        Heck, why don't we just read the rulebook.
        >A saving throw-also called a save-represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm.

        True Strike has no save, because if it had a save, implicit is the idea that a resisted save was reflexively contested by the victim's willpower, fortitude, focus, raw strength, the like. They would instantly know somebody tried to breach their mental defenses with magic. True Strike's lack of save makes it capable of targeting someone without alerting them, especially since it doesn't actually weaken the target in any way, only gives the caster the benefit of insight.
        If a spell would go unnoticed, even if it failed to aflict the target, the rules of the spell itself come in to mention as such. Otherwise, the intended target becomes aware.

        TL;DR: Read the rules.
        Oh, and True Strike is still a bad cantrip as it is.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Literally not how it works. If there's no indication of magic, you don't know that you're even making a save.

          Read the rules.

          • 1 week ago
            Rules Lawyer

            If there's no indication of magic, you don't know that you're even making a save.
            [citation needed]
            If you can provide anything actually solid, I'll have helped you make this board a better place, while also becoming a laughing stock of the board.
            Worth it in my opinion.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

              PHB p204.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Anything that requires gestures and incantation is going to be a dead give away though.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              It shouldn't need a fucking citation for something that makes basic sense. You're the kind of fucking autist that results in shit like 4e and PF2.

              • 1 week ago
                Rules Lawyer (fired)

                Look at this

                >Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

                PHB p204.

                THAT is the answer I wanted. It's uses the rules to counter argue, backing up something that should make sense on it's own, rather than just going off gut feeling, because one person's interpretation will run wild, while anothers will be restrained. If these two ideas but heads, say, a player's idea vs a DMs idea, it causes problems, problems that can pre-emptively be solved with rules.
                >You're the kind of fucking autist that results in shit like 4e and PF2.
                4e and PF2 are results of different design. 4e is acutally well designed for what it expects players to do, it's just a goddamn nightmare to play, and I wouldn't subject myself to it again unless a computer were involved.
                All that matters for rules is that there's something to agree on.
                >It shouldn't need a fucking citation for something that makes basic sense.
                It's ~MAGIC~
                A player in DM in a group I was part of argued for THREE HOURS over whether or not Subtle Spell removed both Vocal and Somatic components, or just one of them.
                The point that I was actually making about saves earlier is that, a player is going to know something is up when their character has to make a save out of the blue, so it would make sense for the character to feel something off as well. It's the character's save after all.
                But the rules do state that some spells go unnoticed, which a DM can use to ask for rolls in more subtle ways if they're clever, to avoid arousing suHispanicion.
                Common sense could arrive at either interpretation, but the rules clarify, given that it's literally ~MAGIC~, how it can work.

                >Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

                PHB p204.

                Thanks, buddy, I'll bookmark this page from now on.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You're throwing a splinter of wood at a giant living creature, not a photon torpedo at a finnicky space station reactor you dingus

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why would magic be more realistic if one of the simplest magic tricks (that any fledgling mage can cast) was much more effective? It's not realistic for people to develop useless but easy-to-learn magic?

    I can't tell if this thread is bait for people to continue shilling D&D or if it's some kind of meta joke about the awful state of /tg/. Verification not required.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Range: 30 ft.
    You're casting a lot of cantrips for a guy within breath weapon range.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If True Strike was that powerful, it probably wouldn't be a "first level" spell.
    But DnD has never been very good about verisimilitude.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      A non-terrible version of OP's question would be:
      >"Why isn't there a high-level version of True Strike that lets you instantly land headshots with a crossbow?"

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >"How do I fix True Strike?"
    >"I know! I'll DeeJay it!"
    >Removes power to give it a more 'versatile' use case
    >It's somehow worse

    You wanna know how to "fix" True Strike?
    Well, there's a few ways.
    Choose one:
    >The attack is also a critical strike if it hits.
    >If you guide another creature's hand with your own, pointing your finger with theirs, at a target, that creature is able to glimpse the target's weak points instead of you, gaining advantage on their next attack, as long as the spell hasn't ended.
    >Range: As far as the eye can see.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The way you fix True Strike is the same way you fix D&D spell list in general: cut 95% of it, and rewrite the rest in a less autistic way.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    True Strike is bullshit and shouldn't be a spell but a INT based skill anyone could learn provided they have the minimum INT baseline

Your email address will not be published.