Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
When you cast true strike cantrip can you apply either divine strike or potent spellcasting to it?
"Divine Strike. Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with an attack roll using a weapon, you can cause the target to take an extra ld8 Necrotic or Radiant damage (your choice)."
"Potent Spellcasting. Add your Wisdom modifier to the damage you deal with any Cleric cantrip."
"True Strike. Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting...."
True strike is casting a spell, but you are also hitting a creature with an attack roll with a weapon, which also fits the description for divine strike.
Divine strike can apply for sure. Whether or not features like potent spellcasting apply to the cantrips that have you make a weapon attack is a matter of some debate. Personally, I would rule that these features don't work with spells like True Strike, but ask your DM to see how they want to rule it.
Divine Strike 100% works, because the only requirements needed are "Attack Roll" and "Weapon is used." True Strike follows each of those criteria, and what you just described is exactly how I'm building my War Cleric.
Potent Spellcasting however, DOESN'T work, because it specifically states it needs to be a CLERIC cantrip to apply, which True Strike naturally isn't, and the only way to get that cantrip is through means that involves working around the Cleric class itself.
Although there isn't an updated version for 2024 yet, the Arcana Domain subclass allows you to take two cantrips from the Wizard list (which True Strike is on) and explicitly says that these count as Cleric cantrips for you. So it is possible to get True Strike as a Cleric cantrip in some cases. I'm inclined to say Potent Spellcasting does work with it in this case, but I know this is a big debate at the moment.
pronouns: he/she/they
Good catch on potent spellcasting. I assumed the new magic initiate feat made cantrips part of your class spell list, so i also assumed potent spellcasting would work with true strike. After reading that feat again it does not say any such thing.
There's an argument that magic initiate when taken through the ASI feature counts as a class spell but it's not a good argument. The spellcasting feature says that if another class feature grants you a prepared spell, then it counts as a class spell. The counter is that the feat not the ASI feature is granting the spell. Your DM may allow it but as long as you're using true strike or any of the weapon cantrips divine strike is better for damage.
If True Strike is being considered a Cleric Cantrip through the means of Arcane Domain, then Potent Spellcasting will absolutely work on it. The spell itself is doing the damage, thus someone with a mace is hitting for Prof + WIS, and doing damage as 1d6 (Mace) + 1d6 Radiant(Lv 5 True Strike) + WIS (from True Strike) + WIS (from Potent Spellcasting). For Divine Strike, at that point, you're taking off one WIS and replacing it with 1d8 (at lv 7) which... is kind of a wash. Later, it would either be extra damage (for Divine Strike) or Temp HP (for Potent Spellcasting)
While I'm generally on team "the spell is doing the damage", I also think it's fair to acknowledge that it's far from clear that that's the intended interpretation.
pronouns: he/she/they
One way to approach this sideways is to ask: "Can True Strike damage crit?". If you answer "yes", you're implicitly stating that it's weapon damage. If you answer "no", then you're claiming it's spell damage instead.
Note that your answer would need to be the same for a Paladin's Smite.
I’m not sure that I understand the argument here. Critical hits can be made with any attack roll, whether the attack is made with a weapon, an unarmed strike or a spell. The additional d6s of damage inflicted (when your character level is 5 or higher) would be rolled twice too
Critical Hit
If you roll a 20 on the d20 for an attack roll, you score a Critical Hit, and the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. A Critical Hit lets you roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers. See also “Playing the Game” (“Damage and Healing”).
Critical Hits
When you score a Critical Hit, you deal extra damage. Roll the attack’s damage dice twice, add them together, and add any relevant modifiers as normal. For example, if you score a Critical Hit with a Dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage rather than 1d4, and add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you also roll those dice twice.
When you make an attack roll, the critical effect only doubles the dice from that attack. It does not double damage dice that also occur from some other effect.
The attack roll on True Strike is explicitly a weapon attack roll. So it can only double weapon damage. It cannot double any additional spell damage dice applied to the attack.
Why would the extra dice from True Strike be treated differently from the extra dice of Sneak Attack?
The extra damage effect from True Strike explicitly says "the attack deals extra damage", which seems pretty clear.
pronouns: he/she/they
They wouldn't be - which is the whole point. If you can double the True Strike dice from a critical hit using the weapon attack roll, that means those damage dice must be weapon attack dice. Not spell damage dice.
Essentially, there are some players who want treat True Strike's damage like a spell when its convenient and like a weapon attack when it's convenient. However, the rules require you to pick one or the other and used it consistently throughout.
I think some of the confusion here is coming from your use of the phrase "spell damage". I think most people would parse that as "damage from a spell", which absolutely can get doubled on a critical hit if it's damage from a spell attack (e.g. the damage roll from Fire Bolt) but it seems like you are using it to mean "damage from some other add-on effect" which might or might not be depending on how that effect is defined.
pronouns: he/she/they