True Strike now king of spells

[tivadar27]

A spell that was mediocre in 1st edition, and used for some corner case builds, has become a keystone to many builds in 2e, particularly Gish builds. A few reasons for this:
1. One action spells are *extremely* important, when many other spells, and power attacks, require two actions.
2. Magical striker combines extremely well with it.
3. Verbal-only component means no AoO's.
4. It combines with other spell bonuses, not being a conditional bonus.
5. It combines well with a lot of fighter abilities. Obviously Power Attack, but also consider Swipe, which essentially lets you use True Strike against two opponents for two actions.

I take no issue to this, and it's nice to see that, particularly in an edition where a lot of the buffing spells were severely nerfed (alas Heroism, we shall miss thee!), there are other advantages provided to Gish characters.

Either way, if you haven't seen True Strike, be ready to see a lot of it once 2e starts getting played in your area ;).

[master_marshmallow]

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits? Do clerics get it?

A human can take the ancestry feat to get it on any build that takes [caster] dedication.

[Xenocrat]

It's actually pretty required for maximizing the use of big ranged magic attacks like Envervation, Disintegrate, and Polar Ray.

[tivadar27]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits? Do clerics get it?

A human can take the ancestry feat to get it on any build that takes [caster] dedication.

I've done the math on previous (roll twice, take the better), and it's approximately equivalent to a +4, a bit over. You'll see this in 5e's numbers, where advantage equates to a +5 to your passive score.

[Blave]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Do clerics get it?

It's on the arcane and occult spell list. Clerics can get it if they worship Gozreh, Iomedae, Erastil or Gorum.

[RazarTuk]

Quote:

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits?

Using anydice, since convolutions are about as convoluted as they sound mathematically:

2d4b1 averages 3.13, compared to 2.5
2d6b1 averages 4.47, compared to 3.5
2d8b1 averages 5.81, compared to 4.5
2d10b1 averages 7.15, compared to 5.5
2d12b1 averages 8.49, compared to 6.5
2d20b1 averages 13.82, compared to 10.5

So as is probably to be expected, rerolling a die and taking the higher result is more useful the larger the die is, and for a d20, it's a little stronger than a +3 bonus.

[Zman0]

RazarTuk wrote:

Quote:

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits?

Using anydice, since convolutions are about as convoluted as they sound mathematically:

2d4b1 averages 3.13, compared to 2.5
2d6b1 averages 4.47, compared to 3.5
2d8b1 averages 5.81, compared to 4.5
2d10b1 averages 7.15, compared to 5.5
2d12b1 averages 8.49, compared to 6.5
2d20b1 averages 13.82, compared to 10.5

So as is probably to be expected, rerolling a die and taking the higher result is more useful the larger the die is, and for a d20, it's a little stronger than a +3 bonus.

Its more complicated than that, using the mean doesn't tell the whole story. Depending on what number you need it varies from ~+1 to ~+5. For instance, if you need to roll a 20 you get go from 5% to 9.75% or ~+1. If you needed an 11 on the attack, it pushes you from 50% to 75% or ~+5.

In that crucial 6-16 range on the diet you're getting a +~4-5.

[tivadar27]

Zman0 wrote:

RazarTuk wrote:

Quote:

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits?

Using anydice, since convolutions are about as convoluted as they sound mathematically:

2d4b1 averages 3.13, compared to 2.5
2d6b1 averages 4.47, compared to 3.5
2d8b1 averages 5.81, compared to 4.5
2d10b1 averages 7.15, compared to 5.5
2d12b1 averages 8.49, compared to 6.5
2d20b1 averages 13.82, compared to 10.5

So as is probably to be expected, rerolling a die and taking the higher result is more useful the larger the die is, and for a d20, it's a little stronger than a +3 bonus.

Its more complicated than that, using the mean doesn't tell the whole story. Depending on what number you need it varies from ~+1 to ~+5. For instance, if you need to roll a 20 you get go from 5% to 9.75% or ~+1. If you needed an 11 on the attack, it pushes you from 50% to 75% or ~+5.

In that crucial 6-16 range on the diet you're getting a +~4-5.

This is very true. And sorry, was wrong about average, it's a little over 3... as Razortuk said, but if your roll was going to be a 1, then you'll get a much higher result due to true strike, whereas if it was going to be a 19, you're unlikely to see improvement.

EDIT: The way to compute it exactly is to build a 20x20 table of all the possible combinations, and have each entry indicate how much larger the column is than the row (zero if it's equal or smaller). Sum those up, divide by 400. Average is 3.325.

[RazarTuk]

Zman0 wrote:

RazarTuk wrote:

Quote:

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits?

Using anydice, since convolutions are about as convoluted as they sound mathematically:

2d4b1 averages 3.13, compared to 2.5
2d6b1 averages 4.47, compared to 3.5
2d8b1 averages 5.81, compared to 4.5
2d10b1 averages 7.15, compared to 5.5
2d12b1 averages 8.49, compared to 6.5
2d20b1 averages 13.82, compared to 10.5

So as is probably to be expected, rerolling a die and taking the higher result is more useful the larger the die is, and for a d20, it's a little stronger than a +3 bonus.

Its more complicated than that, using the mean doesn't tell the whole story. Depending on what number you need it varies from ~+1 to ~+5. For instance, if you need to roll a 20 you get go from 5% to 9.75% or ~+1. If you needed an 11 on the attack, it pushes you from 50% to 75% or ~+5.

In that crucial 6-16 range on the diet you're getting a +~4-5.

Perhaps, but you could make a similar argument with static bonuses. It's an extreme example, but the +20 from the 1e version of the spell is much more useful to wizards than fighters. Looking at level 1, the wizard's probably lucky to have a +1 to attack rolls, he'd need an 11 to hit an average AC 12, but I can build a swashbuckler with +6 no problem, where I'd only need a 6. So even though that +20 is theoretically +100% (or more exactly +90% after natural 1s and 20s), it's equivalent to a +9 for the wizard, but a +4 for the swashbuckler.

Overall, I think the average is a helpful metric, even if it's not the entire story. And on a tangential note, for anyone who's wondering, the difference in averages for 1dN vs 2dNb1 is (N^2 - 1)/(6N)

[Cellion]

Yeah, I've noticed it too :>

Its particularly good because of how hard it is to stack a lot of bonuses in 2E. Even an optimized martial class has a very difficult time getting to 90% accuracy on their first attack, unless they're fighting things much weaker than them. As a result, it really is worth +4-5 to hit a lot of the time. The "ignores concealment and circumstance penalties" is just gravy.

Costing an action to use means that its not very effective in turns where you have to move (its better to make two attacks: +0/-5), but if you're sitting in place, its definitely worth trading out your -10.

It also works great with spell attacks vs. TAC (which are a lot less reliable in this edition).

[master_marshmallow]

Should bungle exist in core to counteract it?

In 5e blur worked like this defensively and was king of defensive buffs.

[John Teixeira]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Should bungle exist in core to counteract it?

In 5e blur worked like this defensively and was king of defensive buffs.

I would certainly argue blur wasn't king of defensive buffs in 5e. It required concentration which is WAY more limiting in 5e than it is in PF2e. Mirror Image on the other hand didn't, and that alone made it better because it could be utilized with a utility or debuff spell that required concentration. As for Bungle, sure, I'm all up for more spells!

[ENHenry]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits? Do clerics get it?

A human can take the ancestry feat to get it on any build that takes [caster] dedication.

Which feat is this? Adapted Spell or another one? (Adapted Spell is just cantrips.) Otherwise, a multiclass dedication won't pick this up until level 4 or so. To be honest, given the large number of D&D5 games I've played and observed, "best of 2d20" is pretty cool, don't get me wrong, but not something I'd go out of my way to cast once per day. I've rolled far too many "3, then 5" or "4, then 7" to depend on it the way people used to depend on PF1 True Strike to deliver a Disintegrate, or how Cleric X/Wizard 1 PCs used to deliver Harm.

[tivadar27]

ENHenry wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Has anyone done the math for how much it generally improves your odds? Does it statistically empower crits? Do clerics get it?

A human can take the ancestry feat to get it on any build that takes [caster] dedication.

Which feat is this? Adapted Spell or another one? (Adapted Spell is just cantrips.) Otherwise, a multiclass dedication won't pick this up until level 4 or so. To be honest, given the large number of D&D5 games I've played and observed, "best of 2d20" is pretty cool, don't get me wrong, but not something I'd go out of my way to cast once per day. I've rolled far too many "3, then 5" or "4, then 7" to depend on it the way people used to depend on PF1 True Strike to deliver a Disintegrate, or how Cleric X/Wizard 1 PCs used to deliver Harm.

You're correct on Adapted Spell. I was going to point that out as well. I think the only way to get it is pure or multiclass caster, though, you know, that could change in a final edition.

WRT better of 2d20. I don't want to make too many assumptions, but for all of us, we remember the exceptional cases, and "roll 3 then 5" is an exceptional case.

The analysis of why "better of 2d20" is so good has been done extensively for 5e, so it's well established there. In addition, beyond simple success or failure, you have degrees of success and failure to consider here, which makes it even better. Also note that it ignores circumstance penalties as well as miss chances so long as you know where they are (concealed or sensed).

[Davor Firetusk]

It is an interesting combination of getting powered down, but reducing it from a standard action is a big boost in its utility.

[ENHenry]

tivadar27 wrote:

You're correct on Adapted Spell. I was going to point that out as well. I think the only way to get it is pure or multiclass caster, though, you know, that could change in a final edition.

WRT better of 2d20. I don't want to make too many assumptions, but for all of us, we remember the exceptional cases, and "roll 3 then 5" is an exceptional case.

The analysis of why "better of 2d20" is so good has been done extensively for 5e, so it's well established there. In addition, beyond simple success or failure, you have degrees of success and failure to consider here, which makes it even better. Also note that it ignores circumstance penalties as well as miss chances so long as you know where they are (concealed or sensed).

With regard to confirmation bias, you're correct, but making it a bell curve still qualifies as "handy" to me rather than "so game breaking you'll see a large number of characters scheming to get it somehow."

The thing I like best about getting "advantage" (let's call it by it's popular name! :-) ) is that it does give a boost, but without pushing the result outside of the possible range. Basically, it just boosts your chance of getting a critical success a bit without putting it beyond your level's possible result, like just a simple +3 or +4 would.

[tivadar27]

ENHenry wrote:

The thing I like best about getting "advantage" (let's call it by it's popular name! :-) ) is that it does give a boost, but without pushing the result outside of the possible range. Basically, it just boosts your chance of getting a critical success a bit without putting it beyond your level's possible result, like just a simple +3 or +4 would.

Agreed. It really only works well if you have a good base bonus to start with. Still, there are plenty of ways to get a good boost (flanking, bard song...). To me, one of the biggest benefits is of all the spells, it's one of the few that *actually* stacks with other spells for improving your chances.

[shroudb]

due to the stacking rules, we can safely categorize conditions like:

common:
stuff that give conditional and circumstantial bonuses and penalties. There are various ways to give those bonuses and penalties, and I feel like in a good high level party, establishing said debuffs would be the priority

uncommon:
stuff that do the above PLUS something else. Those usually include stuff like drained, enervated, quick, slowed etc. Those add and subtract something more, be it abilities, actions, hp

True strike tier:
True strike. It's the only way to get "advantage"

obviously, the rarer the condition, the better, since it stacks with the above non-rare ones.

And since in true-strike tier there is only true strike, then it's one of the best :D

[Excaliburproxy]

All wizards should have wands of true strike as well as rings of wizardry that grant more castings of truestrike.

All hail truestrike: mitigator of disappointing accuracy and bringer of spell crits!

[Luminios]

Isn't Heroism even better? You don't have to spend an action every round, it helps with everything important except AC and spell DCs and it helps everyone in your party.

You get 15% more success for so many things for 10(!) minutes, not just one round. Sure it takes up one 8th level slot, but how many times can you use True Strike before you start using up valuable slots too?

I wouldn't try to get True Strike on every character, but if my party doesn't have access to Heroism yet I'd definitely get it.

[Tholomyes]

I don't think it's the end-all-be-all, since in this edition, low level spells are not quite as spammable (as wands cost resonance, max of 4 spells per spell level, ect), but I do think it's quite good, especially paired with magical striker. However, it's held back by the fact that it's only for a single attack, which makes it flashy, but compare it to bless, and it's comparing (approximately) +20% chance to hit and +5% chance to crit for one attack to +5% chance to hit for all attacks from your party in a fight and +5% chance to crit for most of those attacks (and bless isn't even all that good), I don't think it really starts being outrageous until higher levels, where resonance stops being as limited, and you can use wands with more abandon, and have enough spell slots that it might be worth it to even cast in your 2nd or 3rd level slots, ensuring you have it on most of your attacks, at limited opportunity cost.