You’re Using True Strike Wrong
This is a quick blog post, and it needs to be because this is a quick idea.
The Problem
True Strike sucks on paper. There’s no two ways about it. In the 5e SRD, where the spell is literally given away by Wizards, the spell is both incredibly simple, and deceptively terrible: “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 advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn’t ended.” What this means is that you point at someone, and have advantage if you immediately attack them on your next turn, and only your next turn.
The problem with this is that True Strike, as its worded, precludes any basic scenario where you cast it and then attack. Even if you had a bonus action to let you attack someone (like a fighter perhaps) it only lets you gain its benefit on the next turn, meaning that the turn you cast it cannot be the same turn you take advantage.
The long and short of it is that it makes no sense to cast True Strike during combat except in very extreme scenarios where there is almost no other option. Meaning that True Strike, as it has been known thus far, is only useful in very niche circumstances.
This perception is untrue.
The Solution
The thing about True Strike, and really all cantrips in D&D, is that it is intended to be used a lot, and therefore the DM should allow its use as long as the spells basic requirements are met. True Strike requires no words, and no materials, and True Strike does nothing except grant the caster advantage on the next attack they make at what they are pointing at. So, unless the things that they are pointing at are violently sensitive to being pointed at, there is nothing notable about casting it (and most spells will state if the target is aware they are having a spell cast on them if that is an intentionally relevant mechanic).
So, an argument can be made that True Strike is always setting up for something later. You don’t know when you will need True Strike, but when it happens, True Strike should have already been in place. In that since, True Strike is more like a Warlock invocation or fighting style, in that its intent is that it should be on at all times, rather than used strategically.
What I’m saying here is that if you choose True Strike, you should tell your dungeon master that there is never a situation where you are not casting it.
In other words, by selecting True Strike, you are saying that you are someone who looks with your hands.
No, seriously, that’s it.
I know.
This seems abusive. Which is why even I am surprised that this works based on the rules as written.
The action economy of D&D allows for this sort of abusive casting since, unless you have to do something goes beyond basic interactions with objects or talking (i.e. something that you must roll for), there is nothing that precludes casting this or cantrip at all times as long as you have the basic requirements met, and the effect of the cantrip doesn’t change the world or other characters in such a way as to make it impossible to cast.
So, yeah. That’s it. True Strike is meant to be cast nonstop. You can cast it during combat, of course, but there’s no reason to do so. True Strike should have been on at the start, and its intent is really to make your first attack in combat the only one you needed.
To hear the comedic conversation where we found this out: check out our podcast. Or play it below!