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.

Quote from fractal_wolf >>

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.

 Just want to point out that Shillelagh does indeed say that you only can use your spell modifier for melee attacks:

"For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8."

Yes - the issue fractal is pointing out is that it's not a spell attack (or any attack) itself. Yes, the weapon must be used in melee attacks. No debate there. But Shillelagh acts less like Booming Blade (which does involve an attack when you cast it) and more like Magic Weapon (which is a weapon buff and does not have the attack/save "melee" designation). Shillelagh buffs the weapon (for use in melee), but the spell itself is not a melee spell attack. So the designation seems misplaced. 

The metadata field is a version problem.
The 5.5e spell True Strike does involve a weapon attack, while the 5e spell does not.
Technically, this is not specifically a melee attack, just a weapon attack, according to the spell itself.

The 5e version says that "On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn't ended." It has the metadata field for attack/save set to "none".

The 5.5e version instead has the metadata field set to "melee", since it involves an actual attack: "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting."
I would assume that the specific "melee" designation is because DDB does not have a designation for general weapon attacks at this point and the classes that get it usually use melee weapons (especially since artificer for example did not exist in 5.5e when the spell was released in the basic rules).

You might want to check with your DM that you're using the same version to play with.
If you're playing in 5e, you might want to make sure you are actually using the corresponding spell cards, maybe you need to make sure to check the "legacy" (from before the 5e revisions that are not part of 5.5e) versions of spells, since a lot of the metadata in the non-"legacy" spell cards has intransparently been updated to the 5.5e spells.
Hope that helps you a little more.

Quote from JadeThrall >>

I would assume that the specific "melee" designation is because DDB does not have a designation for general weapon attacks at this point and the classes that get it usually use melee weapons (especially since artificer for example did not exist in 5.5e when the spell was released in the basic rules).

I think it's more likely that it says "melee" because whoever set it up was mimicking the setup of Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade, two pre-existing spells that work similarly to True Strike but are explicitly limited to melee weapons. This kind of data entry error is unfortunately very common with new releases on D&D Beyond.

Quote from spamandtuna >>

The field those spells use currently allows you to select “Melee” or “Ranged” — not both. It’s a current technical limitation, not a rule. The books are the source of truth for any rule questions.

I feel like it would cause a lot less confusion if it were just left blank; is that at all possible?