truestrike is not melee only in PHB, but shows as melee in DnDBeyond

In D&D Beyond, truestrike as the "Attack/Save" field listed as melee.

The original printing of this spell in PHP and SRD do not mention melee anywhere in the RULES TEXT. Spells like booming blade do call out melee.

Is this just an oversight because the field "Attack/Save" can only support one value? 

Is the spell intended to work both ways (based on original rules text it should)

Quote from fractal_wolf >>

Is this just an oversight because the field "Attack/Save" can only support one value? 

Is the spell intended to work both ways (based on original rules text it should)

The spell itself works with both melee and ranged weapons according to the actual rules.

That "Attack/Save" feature is part of D&D Beyond's presentation of the spell and is not part of the actual rules. The fact that it says "melee" is a data entry error on D&D Beyond's part.

Same thing with Shillelagh. It says "Melee" but the spell itself is not a Melee attack...or ANY attack at all.

While I understand the intent, some people assume this restricts the spells mode or way its executed. I think WotC should improve/clarify these 'extra' fields.

Our DM insists that the addition of melee under the "attack/save" feature actually makes it a rule. He says that because dndbeyond is the official toolset, it does represent the actual rules (and it rolls out eratta and such). We disagree. Is there any source you can point us to that shows this is a data entry error or otherwise incorrect (beyond the plain text in the PHB, which has obviously not been the subject of errata)? 

Quote from J_Michael_Hamilton >>

Our DM insists that the addition of melee under the "attack/save" feature actually makes it a rule. He says that because dndbeyond is the official toolset, it does represent the actual rules (and it rolls out eratta and such). We disagree. Is there any source you can point us to that shows this is a data entry error or otherwise incorrect (beyond the plain text in the PHB, which has obviously not been the subject of eratta)? 

 Your DM is incorrect—the final source of truth is what's in the books. There's no other source for that, but your right that there's been no errata. 

I concur, but he can dig in and prove a bit stubborn. Would love a source I could point him to that says exactly this - the rules are in the published (digital or print) books + errata and not the toolset.

Quote from J_Michael_Hamilton >>

Our DM insists that the addition of melee under the "attack/save" feature actually makes it a rule. He says that because dndbeyond is the official toolset, it does represent the actual rules (and it rolls out eratta and such). We disagree. Is there any source you can point us to that shows this is a data entry error or otherwise incorrect (beyond the plain text in the PHB, which has obviously not been the subject of eratta)? 

Your DM is wrong here, but I don't think there's any other "source" I can offer. The source is the Player's Handbook, which is the definitive source of D&D rules.

You might point out to your DM that the actual PHB, even the digital version on D&D Beyond, does not say anything about restricting the spell to only melee weapons. You can see that here. It's only the details page for the specific spell that says the word "melee", and it still doesn't actually say that the material component is limited to melee weapons; it just has the word "melee" in a superfluous "attack/save" field.

If the intent were for the spell to be limited to melee weapons, the actual text of the spell description would say "you make one melee attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting" and/or the material component would say "a melee weapon with which you have proficiency". It doesn't say either of these things in either the physical or digital version.

Yeah, that's where we started. Pages and pages of Discord argument followed. He sees the PHB text, but believes the "melee" designation in the summary field on dndbeyond was an intentional decision. He asserts that no other spell in the game is both melee and ranged, so True Strike couldn't stand alone as such. He points to Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade as examples of what he believes True Strike is meant to be modeled after. He says absent evidence of a coding error, it's an intentional change to the spell. He does not treat the tool set search engine fields or tags as superfluous (the way I see them), but as rules content themselves. He says the books and dndbeyond are "the same" and "both are the rules." We're pulling our hair out.

Quote from J_Michael_Hamilton >>

I concur, but he can dig in and prove a bit stubborn. Would love a source I could point him to that says exactly this - the rules are in the published (digital or print) books + errata and not the toolset.

Potentially it might be useful to point out other places where the toolset's implementation differs from what the rules actually say. For instance:

• The rules specify that the Eldritch Invocation "Agonizing Blast" can be used with any Warlock cantrip that deals damage, but the toolset only allows it to be used with Eldritch Blast
• The rules say that the spells granted by Paladin subclasses are "always prepared", but the toolset doesn't do that for 5e subclasses
• The rules say that spells granted by feats like Magic Initiate or Fey Touched can be cast using spell slots, but the toolset doesn't allow that for some of them

Quote from J_Michael_Hamilton >>

Yeah, that's where we started. Pages and pages of Discord argument followed. He sees the PHB text, but believes the "melee" designation in the summary field on dndbeyond was an intentional decision. He asserts that no other spell in the game is both melee and ranged, so True Strike couldn't stand alone as such. He points to Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade as examples of what he believes True Strike is meant to be modeled after. He says absent evidence of a coding error, it's an intentional change to the spell. He does not treat the tool set search engine fields or tags as superfluous (the way I see them), but as rules content themselves. He says the books and dndbeyond are "the same" and "both are the rules." We're pulling our hair out.

You might also ask: if the intent were for the spell to be limited to melee weapons, how would someone who only has the physical books and doesn't use D&D Beyond know that?

This isn't errata or a change that was made after the fact. The metadata field has been that way since the spell was originally published on D&D Beyond in August of 2024.