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
If the spell is countered, no attack happens. True strike isn't separate from the attack.
A better question would be: what happens if I use True Strike on a Rakshasa? If you're claiming that True Strike is a spell attack, it would automatically miss. If you're saying that True Strike merely grants you a modified weapon attack, Greater Magic Resistance would not apply.
Rules Glossary: "Spell Attack"
"A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
True Strike requires you to make an attack roll as part of the spell. True Strike is a Spell Attack.
Rules Glossary: "Weapon Attack"
"A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon".
True Strike requires you make an attack roll with a weapon. True Strike is a Weapon Attack.
I cannot see anything in the PHB that says an attack roll cannot be both.
Innate Sorcery
"You have Advantage on the attack rolls of Sorcerer spells you cast."
True Strike is a Sorcerer spell that uses an attack roll so it qualifies for Innate Sorcery advantage regardless of whether it is a spell attack or weapon attack or both.
Magic Items
Anything that increases Spell Attacks would apply to True Strike, such as the +2 from Robe of the Archmagi.
Anything that increases Weapon Attacks would apply to True Strike such as the weapon magic bonus (the +1, +2, +3).
A staff of Power wielded by somebody wearing a Robe of Archmagi and using True Strike would have +6 bonus to hit (robe spell attack bonus, staff spell attack bonus, staff +2 magic bonus). With +5 Charisma and +6 proficiency this can be +17 to hit.
This does seem like an oversight but does seem RAW to me. However, given this requires specific end-game magic items then it's pathetically trivial compared to the "destroy a town" and "warp reality" level things a Sorc can already do by this point. And the cantrip won't do anything at all against the various enemies able to nullify magic in some way (rakshasa, beholder, astral dreadnaught, anything with antimagic field or similar). Even the max stat with boosts is only on-par with some of the BBEGs type monsters and with less damage output.
So whether this was intended or an oversight - doesn't seem like a big deal either way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cool, strong, but not even close to being game-breaking.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
True Strike does not require an attack roll. It tells you to make a weapon attack. The only reason you're rolling a d20 is due to the weapon attack rules, not anything related to the spell True Strike or the spell attack rules. In the "Attack Roll" section, spell attacks and weapon attacks are outlined as mutually exclusive categories. Sage Advice also clarifies that the attack made as a result of True Strike is a weapon attack (as it can be used with Sneak Attack).
Same thing. Weapon attacks are attack rolls. So yes, it does make you do an attack roll. I will go by English language here and not whatever weird mental gymnastic you're doing.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't make them categories at all. These are not defined in this section in any way and are only defined in the Rules Glossary as I listed. Please refer to the the actual and updated PHB and not whatever it is you're imagining to invent this rule.
Right, so what? As I said, True Strike can be both and there is nothing in the PHB that says something cannot be both.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
1. It is not "same thing". If True Strike involved an attack roll, it would say it involved one. It does not. It gives you a weapon attack and the only reason you make an attack roll associated with that weapon attack is an entirely separate part of the rules that has nothing to do with spells.
2. The Attack Roll section of the rules clearly lays out the mutually exclusive possibilities for attacks. The Spells section describes spell attacks, again in terms that prohibit the possibility of hybrid weapon/spell attacks.
3. You've got it backwards. The rules are not an exhaustive list of things you can't do. They're a relatively simple list of things you can. Nowhere in the rules does it even imply that you can make an attack that is both a spell and a weapon. In fact, it says quite the opposite. If you're going to claim that True Strike involves a spell attack roll, you need to point to the specific text that says - despite the text of True Strike itself - that it is.
I think we're talking past each other a bit here because you're arguing from implied intent while I'm arguing from the actual glossary definitions in the 2024 PHB.
The Rules Glossary defines:
"Spell Attack" = "an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
"Weapon Attack" = "an attack roll made with a weapon."
True Strike instructs you to make an attack with a weapon as part of resolving the spell. That attack therefore fills both definitions:
it is an attack roll made with a weapon
it is an attack roll made as part of a spell
I cannot find any rule in the 2024 PHB stating that these categories are mutually exclusive. If you know of one, please quote the actual text.
You keep referring to the Attack Roll section as though it establishes exclusivity, but it doesn't actually say "an attack roll can only be one type" or "weapon attacks and spell attacks are mutually exclusive categories." It just discusses different kinds of attacks.
Also, saying "True Strike does not involve an attack roll" doesn't really work RAW. The spell instructs you to make an attack with a weapon. Under the combat rules, attacks use attack rolls unless something explicitly says otherwise. The attack roll is occurring as part of the spell's resolution, which is exactly what the Spell Attack glossary definition describes.
I do agree there is a reasonable RAI argument that WotC intended True Strike to behave primarily as a weapon attack, because unlike Fire Bolt or Inflict Wounds it does not explicitly use the phrase "spell attack." But that's an intent argument, not a RAW argument.
And notably, Innate Sorcery doesn't even require "spell attacks." It says:
"You have Advantage on the attack rolls of Sorcerer spells you cast."
True Strike is a Sorcerer spell and it contains an attack roll during the spell's resolution, so Innate Sorcery applying seems straightforward even under a conservative reading.
The Sage Advice/Sneak Attack point also doesn't contradict anything I said. An attack being a weapon attack does not prove it cannot also satisfy the glossary definition of spell attack unless there's an exclusivity rule somewhere in the text.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I agree with cybermind on this, but I wanted to point out that if you are going to use the D20 tests (attacks) section of the PHB that strictly, then it's NOT a weapon attack because it doesn't use STR. You cannot, in good faith, argue that it's a weapon attack and argue that it can't be both.
Well, the rules also say:
It was also explained in the 5e SAC using green-flame blade as example:
It is not "an attack roll made as a part of a spell or another magical effect". It is an attack roll made as part of a weapon attack - a completely unrelated section of the rules. It's akin to arguing that Sorcerers can use Innate Sorcery with attacks launched via the extra action from Haste. After all, Haste is a magical effect, so your argument for True Strike holds there as well.
That's... not a very good comparison. Haste gives you an extra action. The weapon cantrips have you make a weapon attack as part of casting the spell. If the spell is countered, no attack is made. The weapon attack is much more tightly bound to the spell. Indeed, I consider it to be inseparable.
If Haste is countered, no attack is made either.
or, you can multiclass devotion palidin and get +22 to hit.
Hello there! I have too many ideas. I am very impatient am sorry that I am rude sometimes. I love splatoon and obssess over any minmax. I'm sorry if anything I post is unkind or offends you. I'm well aware that I am very weird and I like it that way! call me adam or atomic. check out the never ending arena for good combat! No alts, there can only be one. My mottos:
goal number 1: be funny in all ways possible
goal number 2: be nice in all ways possible
goal number 3: have as much fun in life as you can!
Your analogy remains weak. If you can't see why, mechanically, there might be a differentiation between "you cast a spell, and then you have an action in future turns that you might use for an attack" and "you cast a spell, which causes you to immediately make an attack with special conditions and bonuses", then I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had.
You're trying to draw a distinction between two methods of gaining a weapon attack from a spell effect. Yet there is no reason within the game mechanics to draw this distinction. Couple this with the fact that there are numerous points in the rules where weapon and spell attacks are defined as inherently distinct from one another and I've yet to see any basis for your position.
Then I'm afraid I must insist in the opposite direction! x-D
Do you have references saying that the weapon used in delivering the spell does not strike if the spell is countered?
If my fighter crits with a warhammer embued with true strike but it is counterspelled, then it just...misses? I need to see the write up on this.
[Edit]
i found this (emphasis is mine):
You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended.
Well shit.
More generally, if a spell is countered, then you don't do anything it tells you to do in the spell's description. True Strike is not like Divine Smite -- it doesn't enhance an attack you already made. Instead, you cast the spell, taking the Magic action instead of the Attack action, and, as part of that spell, you make a weapon attack.
This is also relevant: "... the spell dissipates with no effect ..."
Since there's no spell's effect, no attack happens, as jl8e said.
EDIT: ninja'd by jl8e. I left (again) the tab open without sending the message for a long time...
thanks. i see that now, though i do not like it :(
As you said, i noticed true strike is worded differently than others like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade which involve spell components but clearly state take the normal attack.
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects,
It seems like an oversight on the True Strike spell wording.