# True Strike as a Swift Action



## Dimwhit (Oct 7, 2005)

Does anyone know where the exact text is that changes True Strike to a Swift Action? I've looked all over and can't find it, but I know I read it somewhere.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Oct 7, 2005)

... I certainly hope that isn't the case.

True Strike is already frontloaded as all get out.  Pretty much the only balance on it is that you have to give up a round before you can fire/cast.

--fje


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 7, 2005)

I don't think there is such text.  It's a standard action to cast.  If you want it to be a swift action use quicken spell (making it a level 5 slot).


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 7, 2005)

I've also never seen it changed to a swift action.  Is one of your players trying to pull a fast one on you?


----------



## Grogtar (Oct 7, 2005)

I hope not. That spell is a nightmare of D&D balance and item creation.

And if your player is pulling somthing on you .. damn. Guys got guts. I could whisper the words "True Strike" and my DM would be on me like white on rice.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 7, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I've also never seen it changed to a swift action.  Is one of your players trying to pull a fast one on you?



 Nope. I would swear that I specifically read that text in one of the recent books. I thought it was the book that introduced the Swift action, but I can't find it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 7, 2005)

You might be thinking of a Quickened True Strike, which is now a swift action, rather than a free action that can be performed once a round.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 7, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You might be thinking of a Quickened True Strike, which is now a swift action, rather than a free action that can be performed once a round.



 Where does it mention the Quickened True Strike being a swift action? That could be it, but I'd have to read it to know for sure.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 7, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Where does it mention the Quickened True Strike being a swift action? That could be it, but I'd have to read it to know for sure.




If it's mentioned at all, it's as an example.

A swift action is the name given to "like a free action, but only one per round," which is what the quicken feat does.  The sidebars on swift and immediate actions are pretty standard fare in every expansion book since they were invented, so it wouldn't surprise my if it's shown up somewhere.

Swift and Immediate actions are now in the SRD, in the Psionics section, where it specifically mentions quickened powers.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve psionics or the activation of psionic items; many characters (especially those who don’t use psionics) never have an opportunity to take a swift action.
> 
> *Manifesting a quickened power is a swift action. In addition, manifesting any power with a casting time of 1 swift action is a swift action.*
> 
> Manifesting a power with a manifesting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity.


----------



## boolean (Oct 8, 2005)

You could be confusing it with one of the other spells, such as Critical Strike from CAdv, which are swift action spells.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 8, 2005)

_True Strike, Swift_ is a spell that I beleive is located in the *Minature's Handbook*.


----------



## saucercrab (Oct 8, 2005)

RigaMortus2,
Nah, not there. Just checked.

I'm with most of the others, it's prob' listed as an example.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 8, 2005)

saucercrab said:
			
		

> RigaMortus2,
> Nah, not there. Just checked.
> 
> I'm with most of the others, it's prob' listed as an example.




I know I have seen it.  I have also seen _Expeditious Retreat, Swift_ which gives you a 30' boost in movement for 1 round.  I thought they were in the same book.  So find one and maybe you will find the other?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I know I have seen it.  I have also seen _Expeditious Retreat, Swift_ which gives you a 30' boost in movement for 1 round.  I thought they were in the same book.  So find one and maybe you will find the other?





Its in one of the Complete books. Either Adventurer or Arcane cant remember which


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 8, 2005)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Its in one of the Complete books. Either Adventurer or Arcane cant remember which



 Just checked, not in either of those.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 8, 2005)

_Expeditious Retreat, swift_ is in Complete Adventurer.
_True Strike, swift_ is in the Player's Handbook, it's called _quickened True Strike_. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2005)

I think Thanee is right. Theres a Swift expeditious retreat and I think a fly and invisibility, but no true strike.

Which is kind of sad.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Oct 8, 2005)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I think Thanee is right. Theres a Swift expeditious retreat and I think a fly and invisibility, but no true strike.
> 
> Which is kind of sad.



 Of course not,

The _swift_ brand of spells trade casting time (swift instead of standard) for a shorter duration (1 round instead of, well, _more_).

Since _True Strike_ must be used within a round, I don't see how you could balance it if you made it swift, apart from making it a 5th level spell .

AR


----------



## Anubis (Oct 9, 2005)

Why do you all fear _true strike_ so much and think it's so imbalanced?  It basically makes it so you automatically hit one time, more or less ,and you still have a 5% chance to miss.  No balance problems at all from what I can see.


----------



## Hammerhead (Oct 9, 2005)

Power. Attack.


----------



## blaine_evans (Oct 9, 2005)

a bladesinger can do it at second level once per day. but apart from that, a swift true strike is very powerful.

blaine.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 9, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Why do you all fear _true strike_ so much and think it's so imbalanced?  It basically makes it so you automatically hit one time, more or less ,and you still have a 5% chance to miss.  No balance problems at all from what I can see.




I'll go ahead and second Hammerhead on this one.

Do you think it's particularly broken for someone to get +20-+40 damage bonus from a 1st level spell on a single attack?


----------



## Anubis (Oct 9, 2005)

Nope, not broken at all.  It's only ONE attack.  It's no more powerful than being able to do 5d4+5 damage without making an attack roll or a saving throw.  Besides, even if you put it on an item, it still takes a standard action to execute.

Let's compare, shall we?

Level 20 Fighter uses an item (I'm assuming this is what you're talking about, because I'm not scared of a wizards melee attacks regardless of attack bonus) to use _true strike_.  In that same round, he could have done four attacks at likely +30/+25/+20/+15 (that's about par for the course I'd say).  In the next round, he uses Power Attack 20 and uses full attack at +30/+5/+0/-5.

If he would have full attacked both rounds (let's assume a standard weapon like longsword), he could have probably had six hits totalling about 100 points of damage on average (assuming a decent Str and Greater Weapon Specialization).  Using _true strike_, he's probably hitting only once, and even if he uses the weapon in two hands, he's only gonna do about 60 points of damage.

If we do this at lower levels, Power Attack isn't near as effective anyway, so the tradeoff, generally, isn't worth it.  It's for hitting hard to hit creatures more than anything.  Nothing imbalanced about that.  The Quickened True Strike is a 4th-level spell (and not as powerful _vampiric touch_ or _orb of force_ overall).

So again, what's imbalancing?  You allergic to high numbers?  It only works on a SINGLE attack.


----------



## Sledge (Oct 9, 2005)

5th level is what you mean right?


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 10, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> So again, what's imbalancing?  You allergic to high numbers?  It only works on a SINGLE attack.



Now make that single attack from the back of a charging mount, with a lance and the Spirited Charge feat.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 10, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Now make that single attack from the back of a charging mount, with a lance and the Spirited Charge feat.



For extra effectiveness, make sure you have 10 levels of Cavalier.  And, does Leap Attack work when mounted?


----------



## glass (Oct 10, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Does anyone know where the exact text is that changes True Strike to a Swift Action? I've looked all over and can't find it, but I know I read it somewhere.



The only place such a change could take place is in the PHB errata, so if it's anywhere it'll be there. I seriously doubt it is, though.


glass.


----------



## glass (Oct 10, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Where does it mention the Quickened True Strike being a swift action? That could be it, but I'd have to read it to know for sure.



Quickened anything is a swift action, if you are using swift and immediate actions which are an optional rule.


glass.


----------



## Krelios (Oct 10, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Now make that single attack from the back of a charging mount, with a lance and the Spirited Charge feat.



Don't forget the Diving Charge option and a flying mount! (Lance + (STR x 1.5)+Magic+(PowerAttack x 2))x4

If you don't see how terrible an advantage getting an automatic hit with something like that is, then there's no point in arguing with you.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 10, 2005)

Krelios said:
			
		

> Don't forget the Diving Charge option and a flying mount! (Lance + (STR x 1.5)+Magic+(PowerAttack x 2))x4



Diving Charge?  I know a Dive is treated _as_ a charge...  I haven't heard of a Diving Charge.  Are you combining a Dive and a Charge?  I'd always assumed the two couldn't be combined...  Is this spelled out somewhere?

My, that could make my griffon-mounted paladin even more awful than I'd thought...


----------



## mrtauntaun (Oct 10, 2005)

I don't see how Power Attack and True Strike is all that broken.  You can not exceed your Base Attack Bonus when using Power Attack, so by the time you are a high enough level to do a lot of damage with it, that damage will be on par with or beneath other types of damage you can dish out.
Barring the use of magic items of course, if you can cast a 5th level arcane spell as others have indicated it would be, your BAB wouldn't even be that high anyway.  
Even wielding a weapon with two hands, at 20th level, assuming you could get to 20 BAB, that's only +40 damage for ONE ATTACK.  Think of all the other spells that could put this one attack to shame.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 10, 2005)

+80 when mounted and using spirited charge. Possibly +120 with lance depending on rule semantics.


----------



## AuraSeer (Oct 10, 2005)

mrtauntaun said:
			
		

> Even wielding a weapon with two hands, at 20th level, assuming you could get to 20 BAB, that's only +40 damage for ONE ATTACK.  Think of all the other spells that could put this one attack to shame.



Ah, of course, there are plenty of other first-level spells that do >20 damage at caster level 1. I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure they are very common.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 10, 2005)

mrtauntaun said:
			
		

> Even wielding a weapon with two hands, at 20th level, assuming you could get to 20 BAB, that's only +40 damage for ONE ATTACK.  Think of all the other spells that could put this one attack to shame.




Lots.  But how many of those spells are 1st level, requiring no increase in caster level to be effect, with no xp cost, expensive materials, or somantic components?


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 10, 2005)

Quickened _true strike_ is balanced. _True strike, swift_ would not be, because you're not giving anything up--the "swift" line of spells offers "right now" alternatives to spells with significant durations. _True strike_ as written only lasts one round, which does not make it a good candidate for the "swift" line of spells, which are supposed to give up duration for immediacy. If it _were_ allowable, well hell, my next character idea would be a fighter/sorcerer/dragon disciple with Power Attack, Improved Critical, and a falchion. My new _true strike_ delivery system would be casting it 10+ times per day, which is essentially the same as all day long. What glorious munchkin fun that would be!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 11, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> Quickened anything is a swift action, if you are using swift and immediate actions which are an optional rule.
> 
> 
> glass.




Swift and Immediate actions aren't really optional rules.  It's more like, "you know all that garbage under Quicken Spell about free actions you can only use once per round?  Well, we cleaned up the language and now it's Swift Actions.  And Feather Fall?  Immediate Action."

Nothing's changed as far as the rules are concerned.  They just packaged some text into a glossary word...something they should have done in the first place.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 11, 2005)

mrtauntaun said:
			
		

> I don't see how Power Attack and True Strike is all that broken.  You can not exceed your Base Attack Bonus when using Power Attack, so by the time you are a high enough level to do a lot of damage with it, that damage will be on par with or beneath other types of damage you can dish out.
> Barring the use of magic items of course, if you can cast a 5th level arcane spell as others have indicated it would be, your BAB wouldn't even be that high anyway.
> Even wielding a weapon with two hands, at 20th level, assuming you could get to 20 BAB, that's only +40 damage for ONE ATTACK.  Think of all the other spells that could put this one attack to shame.



I had alluded to this combo in my earlier post, but I guess I should spell it out.

Start with a BAB of +20.

Power Attack gives 2 for 1 when used with a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon used in two hands. It doesn't matter which side you fall on in the old argument about whether a lance gives 2 for 1 Power Attack when used in one hand when mounted - just do whatever is necessary in your view to give the lance 2 for 1 Power Attack. This coverts the BAB of +20 to a damage bonus of +40.

Add in Leap Attack from Complete Adventurer. I can't find anything in the feat which would suggest that it cannot be used when mounted, and if a Medium sized humanoid jumping down on you at the end of a charge is going to make you hurt extra, a Medium sized humanoid mounted on a Large mount jumping down on you at the end of a charge is likely to make you hurt double extra. Leap Attack has been errata'ed to state that when you make a Leap Attack, "you deal +100% of the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat." Note that it's not a doubling. It's +100%, which in this case makes the bonus damage from Power Attack +80.

Now, throw in ten levels of Cavalier from Complete Warrior. The Unstoppable Charge ability allows a Cavalier to deal quintuple (5x) damage with a lance. The damage from this combo is +400 from the conversion of BAB to damage alone. That's enough damage to kill practically everything in the Monster Manual apart from the largest dragons and the Tarrasque.


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 11, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> That's enough damage to kill practically everything in the Monster Manual apart from the largest dragons and the Tarrasque.



As long as you don't roll the 1.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 11, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Now, throw in ten levels of Cavalier from Complete Warrior. The Unstoppable Charge ability allows a Cavalier to deal quintuple (5x) damage with a lance. The damage from this combo is +400 from the conversion of BAB to damage alone. That's enough damage to kill practically everything in the Monster Manual apart from the largest dragons and the Tarrasque.




What they need to do is errata the lance as a weapon that you can't use with Power Attack. Seems silly that you can.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 11, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> What they need to do is errata the lance as a weapon that you can't use with Power Attack. Seems silly that you can.



One person's "silly" is another person's "perfectly sensible."  Myself, I think Power Attack with a lance is imminently sensible.  It's a good way to represent a rider who has learned to use the added force provided by his charging mount.


----------



## mrtauntaun (Oct 11, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I had alluded to this combo in my earlier post, but I guess I should spell it out.
> 
> Start with a BAB of +20.
> 
> ...





I was only refering to the core of Power Attack and True strike.  You can break many things with all the other supplimental books out there.  But I can see your point when factoring in all of this.

In regards to the other posters who mentioned it's a bit much as a first level spell, please reread my post (no offense intended).  Again, by the time you have the feats and a large enough BAB to make this tactic even remotely useful, it will be on par with other spells of the current level.  And to make it even more useful, you would have to go up in a class that recieved BAB every level, such as a fighter, foresaking future Arcane Spells.  So the loss of high level powerfull spells is offset by this power attack.  Not a huge deal here.
It can even be countered in numerous ways as well.  Damage reduction/negating magics and the like.  Concealment.  Mischance.  
Even if you went with a PrC, it would only increase this marginally, IMO, but I have not seen every PrC, either, so that can be taken with a grain of salt.
Powerful?  Certainly.  Game breaking?  Certainly not.  Heck, IMO, I think Phantasmal Killer is more broken than this.  But those are just my thoughts.


----------



## AuraSeer (Oct 11, 2005)

mrtauntaun said:
			
		

> And to make it even more useful, you would have to go up in a class that recieved BAB every level, such as a fighter, foresaking future Arcane Spells.



This sentence illustrates the point you're missing. Future spells are irrelevant here because this tactic isn't useful for high-level casters. We're talking about dedicated warriors who have taken one level in an arcanist class, just to gain access to _true strike_. That's what "front-loaded" means.

_True strike_ is a first level spell, and has full effectiveness at caster level 1. A FrtX/Wiz1 can cast it just as well as a Wiz20. As written, the only reason for a warrior NOT to use it as often is possible is the opportunity cost-- the casting uses up a round.

If the spell were a swift action instead, it would be immensely stronger for multiclass warrior-mages. A Ftr19/Sor1 would be much more powerful than a Ftr20, because three attacks per day would get a free +40 damage (or much, much more).


----------



## Zimbel (Oct 11, 2005)

mrtauntaun said:
			
		

> I was only refering to the core of Power Attack and True strike.  You can break many things with all the other supplimental books out there.  But I can see your point when factoring in all of this.
> 
> In regards to the other posters who mentioned it's a bit much as a first level spell, please reread my post (no offense intended).  Again, by the time you have the feats and a large enough BAB to make this tactic even remotely useful, it will be on par with other spells of the current level.  And to make it even more useful, you would have to go up in a class that recieved BAB every level, such as a fighter, foresaking future Arcane Spells.  So the loss of high level powerfull spells is offset by this power attack.  Not a huge deal here.
> It can even be countered in numerous ways as well.  Damage reduction/negating magics and the like.  Concealment.  Mischance.




Okay, let's stay straight core:
LV 1 Wiz/LV 19 Fighter
Bab: +19
Feat: Spirited Charge
Weapon: lance (wielded w/ 2 hands)
Max power attack: +38 * 3 = 114 points of damage. (and +1 to hit, since it's only PA: 19)
Granted, there is a 5% miss chance, but there's also a 5-10% crit chance (for an extra 76 points). This reduces damage slightly at the low end, raises it at the high end.

Converting this damage to d6, this is roughly 32d6 worth of damage. That's more than the recomended amount for a LV 9 spell.

Concealment does not help. from the SRD: "Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target."


----------



## mrtauntaun (Oct 11, 2005)

Aura Seer said:
			
		

> If the spell were a swift action instead




If it were a swift action, and remaining a level 1 spell (not a 5th level as aluded to before) THAT would be abusive and game breaking.  However, as it stands, I do not believe it to be game breaking, even if 1 wiz/19 fighter.  Munchkiny, for sure. 
And I believe the future spells do matter, though it is not a 1:1 comparison.  A 20th level wizard can do close (but not quite, hence the lack of the 1:1) the same ammount of raw damage as now 1/19 fighter.  However, the Wizard can wish and fly and do all sorts of other equally, if not more, powerful things at such a level.  Both have an advantange, but neither substantially more than the other. 



			
				Zimbel said:
			
		

> Concealment does not help. from the SRD: "Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target."




I did not know that part of true strike, thank you.  

In your above example, that's Level 20!  At that high a level, I do not see it being that big a problem for 1 attack.  Especially with the types of mosters and encounters players will be facing at CR 20.  There is no garuntee that attack will succeed, and there are still many counters available, especially for CR 20 opponents.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 11, 2005)

So one common them I'm getting is that it's too powerful because a knight with a lance could do 9000 points of damage in a single strike. But what does that have to do with True Strike being a swift action or not? You can do that regardless. It's just a question of whether you have to cast the spell the round before or the beginning of the round. For that much damage, does it really matter?

All people are showing is that True Strike is a very powerful 1st level spell. None of that changes if it's a swift action or not.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 11, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> So one common them I'm getting is that it's too powerful because a knight with a lance could do 9000 points of damage in a single strike. But what does that have to do with True Strike being a swift action or not? You can do that regardless. It's just a question of whether you have to cast the spell the round before or the beginning of the round. For that much damage, does it really matter?
> 
> All people are showing is that True Strike is a very powerful 1st level spell. None of that changes if it's a swift action or not.



You don't seem to place the same value on 1 round's worth of actions that I do.

Consider that the knight with the lance can currently do *ahem* 9000 points of damage once every other round using this tactic.

If _True Strike_ were swift, he could do it _every round_.  That's *ahem* 18,000 points of damage.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 11, 2005)

For one, he can't do it all day. Maybe, what, three or four times? Plus, don't you need to wheel around before you make another charge? Seems like it would be tough to charge an opponent every round.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 11, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> For one, he can't do it all day. Maybe, what, three or four times?



That's quite enough. 


> Plus, don't you need to wheel around before you make another charge? Seems like it would be tough to charge an opponent every round.



No, you don't.  3.x has no facing.  "Wheeling around" is a free action.  Once you have Ride-By Attack (which you need for Spirited Charge) you can indeed, with enough space, charge an opponent every single round.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 12, 2005)

So horses, in mid stride, can turn 180 degrees as a free action and keep running? I know if the knight was on a Giant Eagle and flying, making the same charge, that would not be possible.

Sounds like something else is broken. No way should you be able to do a mounted charge on the same target every round.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 12, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> So horses, in mid stride, can turn 180 degrees as a free action and keep running?




So everyone, in mid-stride, in D&D, can turn 180 degrees as a free action and keep running?


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Oct 12, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> So horses, in mid stride, can turn 180 degrees as a free action and keep running?



No, because running and charging have movement restrictions.  A horse _can_ however, charge a foe, wind up on the other side of said foe, then charge straight back the other way the next round.  There is no facing, so the mount can be facing in any direction it chooses when it next moves.

If the horse is moving normally (hustling) then yes, it can turn 180 degrees as a free action at any point and keep on going, just like a human can.







> I know if the knight was on a Giant Eagle and flying, making the same charge, that would not be possible.



Unless the Giant Eagle had picked up Improved Flight, you would be correct.  That's a downside to flying, which is obviously a lot different from moving on the ground.







> Sounds like something else is broken. No way should you be able to do a mounted charge on the same target every round.



I've seen enough riders in enough movies and at enough RenFaires charge something, then come to a stop and wheel around in place, that I'd say they absolutely should be able to do so.  A horse is quite maneuverable.

And as far as balance is concerned, a high-level character is giving up all his attacks in a round for one charge attack.  Usually the damage works out as similar, save for very high AC critters, wherein a full attack wouldn't connect with all attacks, while a charge attack gets to apply all damage if the single highest-BAB attack hits.  Then again, unless the PC spends considerable resources to strengthen it, most mounts can be killed in a single round, either by a melee brute or a spellcaster (mounts pretty much have terrible saves.)  So that "charge every round" is a bit conditional.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Oct 12, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I had alluded to this combo in my earlier post, but I guess I should spell it out.
> 
> Start with a BAB of +20.
> 
> ...




So how unbalanced is it if the CA book material is removed from this equation?


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> So how unbalanced is it if the CA book material is removed from this equation?



If you remove Leap Attack, you halve the effectiveness. The damage bonus goes down to +200.

Without the Cavalier prestige class, the effectiveness drops by 40%: +240 damage with Leap Attack, or +120 for the core-rules only Spirited Charge with Power Attack.

Of course, without _true strike_, the difficulty is hitting anything at all when you are taking a -20 penalty to your attack roll.

Unless, of course, you're using material from the Expanded Psionics Handbook. The psionic feat Deep Impact allows you to make a single melee attack as a melee touch attack if you expend your psionic focus, which is effectively the same as a _quickened true strike_ against an enemy with high armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses. This requires the expenditure of three feats for a non-psionic character: Wild Talent (to take psionic feats), Psionic Weapon (prerequisite) and Deep Impact itself. Take another feat, Psionic Meditation, which allows you to regain your psionic focus as a move action (you still need to make a DC 20 Concentration check, though), and you get one happy horseman.


----------



## Zimbel (Oct 12, 2005)

mrtauntaun said:
			
		

> In your above example, that's Level 20!  At that high a level, I do not see it being that big a problem for 1 attack.  Especially with the types of mosters and encounters players will be facing at CR 20.  There is no garuntee that attack will succeed, and there are still many counters available, especially for CR 20 opponents.




Yep; I tried the worst example I could come up with in core  Note that this is the damage from the LV 1 spell; the base attack should be doing at least 50+ by itself.

However, i'ts 1 attack every time the PC is willing to spend a standard action for this effect (if they're willing to shell out a standard action and a charge off of a cheap wand/every other round - at this level, you could actually go Fighter 20 and just put a lot into UMD/Cha - or you could just buy a lot of potions).

I've run high-level adventures in 3.0; here are the defenses I can come up with:
1) Stay out of range. Difficult in 3.5, where you can't just be hasted and Dimension Door/ Teleport every round. Flying will do, if the player with the mount has no way to make it fly (unlikely at LV 20).
2) Displacement (assuming that the PC can't counter with Blindsight or True Seeing). Quite possible at LV 20.
3) Ethereal (assuming not a ghost-touch weapon).
4) High AC. Possible, but rare - the higher the AC, the lower the other defenses need to be to keep the same CR. At high levels, if a front-liner's primary attack misses (other than a nat 1), that likely means that they're fighting something well above their CR.
5) High HP. This is the most likely one. Of course, that dosen't mean it won't do 100+ points of damage, but at least the creature will survive that attack.
6) Leave after the casting of True Strike. Or just get out of range for 1 round.
7) DR. The problem is that in 3.5, this isn't all that high (heck, in 3.0, it isn't that high around CR 20). Sure, it negates some damage, but the vast majority will get through. For that matter, some damage from the base attack should get through. And, of course, the weapon may defeat the DR.

I agree with you that it's less of a problem than 3.0's Harm or Time Stop. I do think that it's significantly stronger than any other core LV 1 spell at high levels.

Edit: due to Hypersmurf's correction.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 12, 2005)

Zimbel said:
			
		

> (... or you could just buy a lot of potions).




True Strike is a personal-range spell.

-Hyp.


----------



## glass (Oct 13, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Swift and Immediate actions aren't really optional rules.  It's more like, "you know all that garbage under Quicken Spell about free actions you can only use once per round?  Well, we cleaned up the language and now it's Swift Actions.  And Feather Fall?  Immediate Action."



That's all true, but it doesn't make them not optional. The various splatbooks that feature them can't overwrite the PHB, unless you let them by agreeing to an optional rule. This is still true, even if the new rule changes very little and is eminently sensible.  


glass.


----------



## Malachi_rc (Oct 13, 2005)

*I think you've missed another thing*

I had a character using options from quentisential (yeah, I was stupid) that let you do true strike as a free action.  He made a fighter/wizard/prestige class (one that could ignore some spell failure) and then used disarm.  I never worried about disarm before, but he regularly disarmed my bosses using two handed weapons with LOCKING GAUNTLETS.  It wa a HUGE pain.  

I also saw one character who did truestrike/power attack/ sunder, for the same effect.  Only they couldn't pick it up again.


----------

