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.
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)
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?
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.
"Spell damage" does mean "damage from a spell". Damage can arise from a weapon, spell or monster ability. It can only critical if there was an attack roll from that source.
Thus, if you believe that True Strike's Radiant damage can critical, you must necessarily believe that the Radiant damage is from a weapon attack since the only attack roll associated with True Strike is a weapon attack roll. On the other hand, if you believe that True Strike's Radiant damage is from a spell, then you must accept it cannot critical since there is no spell attack roll for True Strike.
I’m really sorry, but I feel like I’m missing part of the puzzle here. Where does this necessity to distinguish weapon and spell damage come from in the rules and why does it apply to critical hits? I can’t find it.
The damage rolls section identifies three distinct categories of damage: weapon, spell and monster. A hybrid "weapon/spell" damage roll would need special rules permitting it in the same way that an attack can't be melee and ranged at the same time.
The various attack rules in both the combat and spells chapters also make it clear that weapons and spells occupy distinct categories and are not merely individual properties that can be applied in any combination. Indeed, if you read the 'damage rolls' section, the final line explicitly points out that different rules (in different chapters) are applied depending on whether the damage is weapon damage or spell damage. To resolve these two different rules sets would require equally explicit rules permitting some sort of "weapon/spell" hybrid - explicit rules which do not exist.
Alternatively, that sentence may be a non-exhaustive list of some common sources of damage: it omits, among others, damage from Unarmed Strikes, traps and environmental hazards. Also, bear in mind that “or” in English does not necessarily mean that the categories are mutually exclusive. That is, “A or B” can mean “either A or B, but not both” or it can mean “A, B, both or neither”.
Whether or not it is exhaustive isn't relevant. Also, squinting hard enough to misread that particular sentence doesn't somehow make every other sentence vanish.
If you honestly believed that "A or B" can mean "A, B, both or neither" for this sort of phrasing, then you'd be insisting that True Strike with a Dagger was both a Melee and Ranged attack, that you could have Radiant/Slashing attacks, that monsters could be Fey/Humanoid, and so forth. Essentially, you're trying to argue that every sort of exclusive categorization in D&D - all of which use the same phrasing - are actually just overlapping properties - all of which explicitly state that they are non-exclusive properties.
I can assure you that I am wearing my glasses, so no need to squint. 🤓
However, I haven’t seen any other sentences that change my reading. Which ones are you referring to?
How I read the situation for True Strike does not change how I would read the other situations you describe: that’s a false inference.
(Interestingly, though, WoTC did actually experiment with dual creature types in the UA article where they first presented the Centaur and Minotaur in 5e: they were both Humanoid/Monstrosity. Thus, creature types aren’t necessarily exclusive: they have chosen not to assign more than one to any creature.)
It's not just that particular sentence. It's that entire paragraph - which ends with explicitly calling out two different rules structures for the two different forms of attack. As well as every other sentence in the entirety of the rules which references attacks and damage. Heck, they even have charts display types of attacks as non-overlapping categories.
Can you find a single example, anywhere in the rules, of any statement that would lead you to believe something can be both a spell and a weapon? It would go a lot faster for you to find any rule, anywhere, that supports your interpretation rather than ask me to copy huge swathes of the PHB that support the idea that they're mutually exclusive categories.
True Strike: "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting". This is not 'ambiguous'. It is explicit text telling you it's a weapon attack.
If you had any remaining doubt: "The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity.". Since spell attacks use your spellcasting ability and weapon attacks use Strength/Dexterity, the only way this line makes any sense is if the attack was a weapon attack.
To make the argument that it's 'ambiguous', you need to come up with some sort of support - any support at all - for an interpretation that conflicts with the actual text of the rules. So far, you've come up completely empty on that front.
No disagreement: True Strike is a Weapon Attack. However,
Spell Attack
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also “Spells” (“Casting Spells”).
It also seems to meet that definition.
That might not be Rule As Intended. I fully accept that you might have inferred the intent of the rules and be playing it correctly. However, people carefully reading the rules can in good faith come to different conclusions that are supported by the text.