Does the True Strike cantrip and Spell Sniper feat combo? (5.5e)

Can Spell Sniper add 60 feet range to your True Strike?

Does it extend each range, short and long... or just short range but never exceed long range?

Please expound on any yes or no answers with more details, rules, ideas etc.

In short, i believe the answer is NO specific to the range increase. Because true strike states to make an attack with the weapon used in the spell casting and the spell does not have a range itself so for both reasons would not benefit from the range increase. The range would be subjected to the weapon used in the casting. Melee weapon = melee range, heavy crossbow = heavy crossbow range. 

The other benefits from spell sniper should apply regarding the casting in melee and ignoring cover portions. 

So in summary, the two can work together but the range of the weapon used will not be increased. However if your weapon is your spellcasting focus and cast a spell with a range of 10ft or more the range increase would be applied. 

Quote from Brian_Avery >>

Can Spell Sniper add 60 feet range to your True Strike?

True Strike has a range of Self, so no. The attack that true strike permits you to make has range, but true strike itself does not.

Quote from Brian_Avery >>

Can Spell Sniper add 60 feet range to your True Strike?

No. True Strike's Range is "self" which is not at least 10 ft.  (The weapon you use will define the range of the attack, not the spell, blah blah)

If you are using True Strike with a ranged weapon (like a crossbow), Spell Sniper will let it work in melee range without disadvantage, though. And let it ignore half or three-quarters cover. Because it's still one of your "attack rolls with spells."

Quote from kenclary >>

If you are using True Strike with a ranged weapon (like a crossbow), Spell Sniper will let it work in melee range without disadvantage, though. And let it ignore half or three-quarters cover. Because it's still one of your "attack rolls with spells."

Suffice it to say that this assertion is heavily disputed. I would say it's a weapon attack that is granted by a spell, not an attack with a spell.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from kenclary >>

If you are using True Strike with a ranged weapon (like a crossbow), Spell Sniper will let it work in melee range without disadvantage, though. And let it ignore half or three-quarters cover. Because it's still one of your "attack rolls with spells."

Suffice it to say that this assertion is heavily disputed. I would say it's a weapon attack that is granted by a spell, not an attack with a spell.

Hopefully the devs see how often this (and hiding) come up without satisfactory resolution on the forums, reddit, and their discord and update the SAC with a new batch of answers.

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from kenclary >>

If you are using True Strike with a ranged weapon (like a crossbow), Spell Sniper will let it work in melee range without disadvantage, though. And let it ignore half or three-quarters cover. Because it's still one of your "attack rolls with spells."

Suffice it to say that this assertion is heavily disputed. I would say it's a weapon attack that is granted by a spell, not an attack with a spell.

Hopefully the devs see how often this (and hiding) come up without satisfactory resolution on the forums, reddit, and their discord and update the SAC with a new batch of answers.

 I think 10+ years of "I/The DM decides rulings, not Crawford/SAC", feedback may have killed SAC & errata as priorities. People(Reddit mostly) are STILL seething over Crawford's Xitter rulings, and they fear a comeback of that kind of thing more than clarification of RAI...let alone being told what to do by someone at WotC.

It's also why there isn't a "Face" of DND from WotC anymore.