Consider the following scenario:
A level 10 Fighter with the Eldritch Knight (EK) archetype (PHB, p. 74-75) is facing a single opponent, and has hold person as a spell available.
- EK attacks with both attacks available. If both miss, they try again next turn. If either hits, Eldritch Strike (the level 10 archetype feature) triggers against the target, and EK will proceed to the next step.
- (a turn passes)
- On EK’s next turn, they cast hold person on the person targeted previously. The target has disadvantage on the save due to Eldritch Strike. If they still pass, EK goes back to square one. Otherwise, EK does the following:
- EK Action Surges (Fighter level 2 ability). They use the Attack action to get two attacks with advantage against the target. If either hits, it does critical damage (thanks to the paralyzed rider on hold person), and Eldritch Strike triggers.
The wording in Eldritch Strike is as follows:
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
Does the target have disadvantage on the save against hold person it makes at the end of its next turn, even though hold person was cast before the triggering of the Eldritch Strike event that would impose disadvantage?
Psychic Strike 6th-level Psionic Soul feature You have learned to channel additional psychic energy into your spells. Immediately after you deal damage to a creature with a sorcerer spell for which you expend a spell slot, you can roll your Psionic Talent die and also deal psychic damage to that creature equal to the number rolled. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
Does this work with an ongoing spell like witchbolt? Or something like Fire Shield?
So I have seen previous questions regarding this situation, but all of them appeared to be for fun and silly one shots. What’s different in this case is I’m trying to run a long and intense campaign. The monk of the party recently gained the feat magic initiate and took the Druid cantrip produce flame. He asked me about when he used an unarmed strike while his hand was on fire if the damage from the fire would be added. I wasn’t sure so I just added a small amount of fire damage at the time. After doing f some research I understand that the flaming hand can do other things like holding a sword or a shield, but I don’t know if I should allow him to add damage. By the way I am new to DnD so I’m sorry if I missed something obvious which would answer my question.
Thank you for your time.
My character is a Ranger with the spell Zephyr Strike, which increase my speed by 30ft after the attack. If I used all my movement to reach the ennemy, can I use the increased 30ft to move away after my attack?
In Path of War, can you use a Strike Maneuver with a Counter Maneuver?
For instance, can you initiate the strike Rippling Current (Mithral Current 3; melee att +3d6 dmg; if quick drawn, make target flat-footed) as part of the attack of the counter Mithral Flash (Mithral Current 5; opposed attack; if quick drawn, can attack with +5d6 dmg) ?
There are few things in D&D 5E on which the consensus is as overwhelming as on the fact that True Strike is an extremely poor cantrip. As discussed in many places, the main problem is the action economy. As this answer to a similar question puts it, casting True Strike is not so much a benefit as it is a trade off: You waste your action on one turn in order to gain advantage and thus use your action more effectively on your next turn. As has also been pointed out countless times, this is rarely optimal, as attacking twice without advantage still has a better chance of hitting at least once than attacking once with advantage.
The generic scenario in which True Strike actually helps is when a character needs to put all their focus into making sure that one crucial, strategically relevant attack actually hits. Putting it like that doesn’t let it sound particularly magical: the character just takes their time to aim.
Would it be balanced to introduce an Aim Action, that is available to everyone and does exactly what True Strike does (mechanically)?
I also noticed that the Unearthed Arcana Class Feature Variants include the "Cunning Action: Aim" for the rogue. Having a general Aim Action and allowing this feature variant would keep in line with the idea that the Cunning Action lets the rogue do things anyone can do, just quicker. It’s Unearthed Arcana, so this may not be a great argument, but I like how consistent it feels.
True Strike has been a popular discussion point. On one hand, it’s considered one of the weakest spells in the game, but on the other, balancing it as being a bonus action seems to make it overpowered.
My approach is based on its fluff text.
Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses.
I propose that, similarly to the Fighter’s Know Thy Enemy feature, True Trike would grant advantage on an attack in the next turn, as before, and, additionally,
The DM tells you if the creature is your equal, superior, or inferior in regard to two of the following characteristics of your choice:
- Intelligence score
- Wisdom score
- Charisma score
- Armor Class
- Current hit points
- Total class levels, if any
- Total spellcasting levels, if any
I’m not sure if two characteristics is too much, compared with the Fighter’s 7th level feature. This would be one of the few ways (if any?) to get information about a creature’s mental scores, and it clearly has more of a caster-vibe than Know Thy Enemy.
How balanced would this be?
So, while flipping through the PHB, I’ve noticed that multiple abilities can give you a buff on your unarmed strike, such as a monk’s Martial Arts ability or the Tavern Brawler feat or an Aarakockra’s claws. say if I were to make a monk with the Way of the Drunken Warrior archetype and give him the Tavern Brawler feat, does the d4 for unarmed strike from the feat be rendered useless?
The part of the True Strike spell I am concerned with reads:
Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses.
I’d always considered this to be flavor text. But a friend of mine disagreed. He argued that this meant that the DM should give the player some insight into the target’s defenses.
For example, the DM might say “You sense that the dragon is fortified against fire.”
The thing is, I’m not sure he is wrong. Is this interpretation correct?
The True Strike cantrip provides:
You 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.
There’s another thread on this site discussing the cases in which casting this spell might make sense. Implicit in these arguments seems to be the idea that the "brief insight" granted by the spell is not useful in itself. It occurred to me that such insight could be useful in itself if it granted knowledge of specific details that might be useful for higher-order tactical or strategic planning outside of just getting Advantage on the next turn.
Does the brief insight granted by True Strike provide access to specific details about the target’s defenses, or is the language simply an explanation of how the player gains Advantage? An example could be where I don’t particularly need to gain Advantage on my next roll, but I want to know whether that bandit over there is concealing any weapons or wands underneath his cloak.
If the first case is true, a DM might report,
Ok, you cast True Strike at the cloaked bandit. He has knives hidden in each of his boots, and is carrying two wands of Fireball and one of Magic Missile in the sack over his shoulder. The walking stick he is carrying conceals a three-foot double-edged sword. He is resistant to lightning damage though a spell that seems to have been cast on him, but you would need a more powerful spell than True Strike to identify the exact spell or source. If you still have concentration at the start of your next turn, you will have Advantage in attacking.