The new version of "True Strike" in the 2024 PHB states the spell has an "Attack/Save" that is "Melee". Does that mean the spell can only be used on a melee weapon attack and not a ranged attack? Ive been seeing a lot of talk about using the spell True Strike for a rogue assassin heavy crossbow build, but i feel like true strike is supposed to be limited to melee weapons only. The rules in Chapter 7 dont seem to clarify the "Attack/Save" part at all and the spell text , as well as the text at the bottom of the spell all seem to imply it works with any weapon, ranged or melee. "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting......A weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP".
Seems to be a bug in the site, nothing in the spell description limits it to melee weapons, but if you add true strike to a character, a melee weapon (i.e. a longsword) and a ranged weapon, it will add true strike to the melee weapon but not to the ranged weapon... maybe they just repurposed the code from green-flame blade or booming blade and didn't update it to apply to ranged weapons/attacks as yet, seems like a bug.
Seems to be a bug in the site, nothing in the spell description limits it to melee weapons, but if you add true strike to a character, a melee weapon (i.e. a longsword) and a ranged weapon, it will add true strike to the melee weapon but not to the ranged weapon... maybe they just repurposed the code from green-flame blade or booming blade and didn't update it to apply to ranged weapons/attacks as yet, seems like a bug.
Yeah i see that now, when i look at the text in the book there is no "Attack/Save" field or any mention of it, it only shows up in the like tool tip for the spell on D&D beyond i guess just to confuse me for no reason lol.
I think it can be used with any weapon, but be aware that you need a free hand to do the somatic component of the spell, which means it cannot be used with 2 handed weapons like light crossbow
I think it can be used with any weapon, but be aware that you need a free hand to do the somatic component of the spell, which means it cannot be used with 2 handed weapons like light crossbow
Since it also has a material component (the weapon), the somatic component can be performed with the same hand. (Though I wouldn't put any weight on this, you could imagine that attacking with the weapon is the somatic component --- but it works if the attack and the somatic comonent are different.)
I think it can be used with any weapon, but be aware that you need a free hand to do the somatic component of the spell, which means it cannot be used with 2 handed weapons like light crossbow
Since it also has a material component (the weapon), the somatic component can be performed with the same hand. (Though I wouldn't put any weight on this, you could imagine that attacking with the weapon is the somatic component --- but it works if the attack and the somatic comonent are different.)
A Somatic component is a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. A spellcaster must use at least one of their hands to perform these movements.
A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
So the Somatic component would probably need to be more involved than just attacking. Still, you should be able to perform the Somatic component even if you are using a two-handed weapon since the hand[s] being used to access the Material component (the weapon) would be the same hand[s] used to perform the Somatic components.
Technically, the spell's components are something you need to provide beforehand to cast the spell and get their Effect (emphasis mine):
A spell’s components are physical requirements the spellcaster must meet to cast the spell. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires Verbal (V), Somatic (S), or Material (M) components. If the spellcaster can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, the spellcaster can’t cast the spell.
There is also a related entry in the Sage Advice Compendium explaining that the component (V in this case) is a separate element from the spell's effect.
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
I think it can be used with any weapon, but be aware that you need a free hand to do the somatic component of the spell, which means it cannot be used with 2 handed weapons like light crossbow
Since it also has a material component (the weapon), the somatic component can be performed with the same hand. (Though I wouldn't put any weight on this, you could imagine that attacking with the weapon is the somatic component --- but it works if the attack and the somatic comonent are different.)
A Somatic component is a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. A spellcaster must use at least one of their hands to perform these movements.
A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
So the Somatic component would probably need to be more involved than just attacking. Still, you should be able to perform the Somatic component even if you are using a two-handed weapon since the hand[s] being used to access the Material component (the weapon) would be the same hand[s] used to perform the Somatic components.
I'd let it be some kind of flourish, like you spin the weapon and attack. But technically it is probably supposed to be some kind of gestures with the weapon that explicitly look magical, like you intone an incantation, wave your hand across the blade while red glowing runes appear on the blade and then you attack.
I think it can be used with any weapon, but be aware that you need a free hand to do the somatic component of the spell, which means it cannot be used with 2 handed weapons like light crossbow
No this is incorrect. As @TarodNet mentioned the components of a spell comes before the effect, so the handling of the somatic/material component and the attack are different things and happens at different times.
Also note that a Two-Handed weapon only needs to be handled with two hands while you are making an attack with it, the rest of the time one hand is enough so there are no issues casting spells while having a two-handed weapon.
Also note that a Two-Handed weapon only needs to be handled with two hands while you are making an attack with it, the rest of the time one hand is enough so there are no issues casting spells while having a two-handed weapon.
Can you point to any ruling that specifically states that? While I agree with the interpretation, there is still a world of difference to me between 'interpretation I agree with' and 'definitive statement by the designers', so if such a statement exists I would sure appreciate knowing where it was.
Can you point to any ruling that specifically states that? While I agree with the interpretation, there is still a world of difference to me between 'interpretation I agree with' and 'definitive statement by the designers', so if such a statement exists I would sure appreciate knowing where it was.
This is a case of the rules only doing what they say they do. As @Plaguescarred just posted the rules for the Two-Handed property it's easy to see that it only mentions it is a requirement when attacking with it.
And the 2014 rules said this:
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
Just because they took out the last part there is no need to think that the rule itself is meant to work any differently here, that part wasn't really needed anyway as the requirement only was to use two hands when attacking with it back then too but they added it as extra clarification.
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access Material component and two to attack with a Two-Handed weapon.
I don't think the rules specifically mention what it takes to remove or add an hand on an held object. A DM could opt for no action required or say it count as your free object interaction for example.
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access Material component and two to attack with a Two-Handed weapon.
I don't think the rules specifically mention what it takes to remove or add an hand on an held object. A DM could opt for no action required or say it count as your free object interaction for example.
In my case, as a DM, I follow this Dev's ruling for the specific case of removing or adding a hand to a Two-Handed weapon:
@calebrus44 Help resolve a debate. By RAI should a caster be able to prop a 2h weap against his shoulder in order to cast? @calebrus44 Or is the fact that this was not intended the reason that q-staves are now versatile instead of two-handed? @mikemearls it's fine - swapping around like that is part of the action IMO @JeremyECrawford Yeah, I would allow it too. A two-handed weapon needs two hands to be used, but not necessarily two to be carried.
@JeremyECrawford This isn't an open-ended object interaction. It's about using a 2-handed weapon. @calebrus44 He's basically saying that switching between 1 or 2 hands is a non-action. @JeremyECrawford That's correct.
Can you point to any ruling that specifically states that? While I agree with the interpretation, there is still a world of difference to me between 'interpretation I agree with' and 'definitive statement by the designers', so if such a statement exists I would sure appreciate knowing where it was.
This is a case of the rules only doing what they say they do. As @Plaguescarred just posted the rules for the Two-Handed property it's easy to see that it only mentions it is a requirement when attacking with it.
And the 2014 rules said this:
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
Just because they took out the last part there is no need to think that the rule itself is meant to work any differently here, that part wasn't really needed anyway as the requirement only was to use two hands when attacking with it back then too but they added it as extra clarification.
No worries. As I said, I agree with your position. I asked if there was a definitive statement rather than an interpretation for discussion with others (I suppose it would also make me feel absolutely certain rather than just confident in the position).
(edit: Ah! And as I am posting this TarodNet gives me pretty much exactly what I was looking for.)
No worries. As I said, I agree with your position. I asked if there was a definitive statement rather than an interpretation for discussion with others (I suppose it would also make me feel absolutely certain rather than just confident in the position).
(edit: Ah! And as I am posting this TarodNet gives me pretty much exactly what I was looking for.)
So you don't accept direct quotes from the rules but you treat any old tweet from Mearls or JC as gospel? Yea I can see why you have a hard time getting people to agree with you.
Everyone does as they like of course but around here random tweets from designers are barely treated as RAI and certainly not as RAW. More than once that they have posted stuff that is just straight up incorrect or things that have since been changed/errataed or just about how they would rule it in their own games. The stuff that ends up in the SAC is accepted by most (as RAI at least if not as RAW) as that is actually checked and considered in a controlled fashion.
And this isn't some "Listen to me, only meeeee" kind of moan. I just think that if you can't accept a rules answer (well a rule actually) when it is this short, clear and unambiguous they you will be looking for old tweets quite a lot. I mean the 2014 text was pretty much a wonder of clarity among 5E rules.
No worries. As I said, I agree with your position. I asked if there was a definitive statement rather than an interpretation for discussion with others (I suppose it would also make me feel absolutely certain rather than just confident in the position).
(edit: Ah! And as I am posting this TarodNet gives me pretty much exactly what I was looking for.)
So you don't accept direct quotes from the rules but you treat any old tweet from Mearls or JC as gospel? Yea I can see why you have a hard time getting people to agree with you.
Everyone does as they like of course but around here random tweets from designers are barely treated as RAI and certainly not as RAW. More than once that they have posted stuff that is just straight up incorrect or things that have since been changed/errataed or just about how they would rule it in their own games. The stuff that ends up in the SAC is accepted by most (as RAI at least if not as RAW) as that is actually checked and considered in a controlled fashion.
And this isn't some "Listen to me, only meeeee" kind of moan. I just think that if you can't accept a rules answer (well a rule actually) when it is this short, clear and unambiguous they you will be looking for old tweets quite a lot. I mean the 2014 text was pretty much a wonder of clarity among 5E rules.
I just wanted to say I agree with you. I also think the rules are clear about the Two-Handed weapon property.
The reply where I included the tweets was just because I remembered that conversation after reading @Plaguescarred's reply and the bit "I don't think the rules specifically mention what it takes to remove or add a hand on a held object".
Sorry if it had the opposite effect than intended.
No worries. As I said, I agree with your position. I asked if there was a definitive statement rather than an interpretation for discussion with others (I suppose it would also make me feel absolutely certain rather than just confident in the position).
(edit: Ah! And as I am posting this TarodNet gives me pretty much exactly what I was looking for.)
So you don't accept direct quotes from the rules but you treat any old tweet from Mearls or JC as gospel? Yea I can see why you have a hard time getting people to agree with you.
Everyone does as they like of course but around here random tweets from designers are barely treated as RAI and certainly not as RAW. More than once that they have posted stuff that is just straight up incorrect or things that have since been changed/errataed or just about how they would rule it in their own games. The stuff that ends up in the SAC is accepted by most (as RAI at least if not as RAW) as that is actually checked and considered in a controlled fashion.
And this isn't some "Listen to me, only meeeee" kind of moan. I just think that if you can't accept a rules answer (well a rule actually) when it is this short, clear and unambiguous they you will be looking for old tweets quite a lot. I mean the 2014 text was pretty much a wonder of clarity among 5E rules.
Once again, I do agree with you. I was asking because there are other individuals who want something more definitive, so having such information is useful when talking with them.
As far as 'direct quotes' go, people make mistakes. If they didn't, we wouldn't have anything to talk about. As a result, if I see the words 'Time to eat children,' I am not going to assume that the author is advocating cannibalism, even though the grammatical structure of what was written is unequivocal. Instead, I will try to look a little deeper and see if they forgot a comma.
No worries. As I said, I agree with your position. I asked if there was a definitive statement rather than an interpretation for discussion with others (I suppose it would also make me feel absolutely certain rather than just confident in the position).
(edit: Ah! And as I am posting this TarodNet gives me pretty much exactly what I was looking for.)
So you don't accept direct quotes from the rules but you treat any old tweet from Mearls or JC as gospel? Yea I can see why you have a hard time getting people to agree with you.
Everyone does as they like of course but around here random tweets from designers are barely treated as RAI and certainly not as RAW. More than once that they have posted stuff that is just straight up incorrect or things that have since been changed/errataed or just about how they would rule it in their own games. The stuff that ends up in the SAC is accepted by most (as RAI at least if not as RAW) as that is actually checked and considered in a controlled fashion.
And this isn't some "Listen to me, only meeeee" kind of moan. I just think that if you can't accept a rules answer (well a rule actually) when it is this short, clear and unambiguous they you will be looking for old tweets quite a lot. I mean the 2014 text was pretty much a wonder of clarity among 5E rules.
I feel that in this case, the designer tweets help. this isn't the first time a question like this has shown up here, and some folks seem to think that you should have to hold the weapon with both hands the whole time during the attack action, because you're using the weapon during the attack action. the designer tweets in this case, clarify their intent to help determine the faith with which their player might be coming from. Are they reading the rules correctly, or exploiting verbiage to game the action economy?
That said one can always try to acquire a ruby of the warmage to sort the issue out entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The new version of "True Strike" in the 2024 PHB states the spell has an "Attack/Save" that is "Melee". Does that mean the spell can only be used on a melee weapon attack and not a ranged attack? Ive been seeing a lot of talk about using the spell True Strike for a rogue assassin heavy crossbow build, but i feel like true strike is supposed to be limited to melee weapons only. The rules in Chapter 7 dont seem to clarify the "Attack/Save" part at all and the spell text , as well as the text at the bottom of the spell all seem to imply it works with any weapon, ranged or melee. "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting......A weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP".
AFAIK, True Strike can be used with any weapon.
I don't see that statement or limitation in the spell entry.
EDIT: maybe that text (the spell has an "Attack/Save" that is "Melee") is from the site tools?
Seems to be a bug in the site, nothing in the spell description limits it to melee weapons, but if you add true strike to a character, a melee weapon (i.e. a longsword) and a ranged weapon, it will add true strike to the melee weapon but not to the ranged weapon... maybe they just repurposed the code from green-flame blade or booming blade and didn't update it to apply to ranged weapons/attacks as yet, seems like a bug.
Yeah i see that now, when i look at the text in the book there is no "Attack/Save" field or any mention of it, it only shows up in the like tool tip for the spell on D&D beyond i guess just to confuse me for no reason lol.
I think it can be used with any weapon, but be aware that you need a free hand to do the somatic component of the spell, which means it cannot be used with 2 handed weapons like light crossbow
Since it also has a material component (the weapon), the somatic component can be performed with the same hand. (Though I wouldn't put any weight on this, you could imagine that attacking with the weapon is the somatic component --- but it works if the attack and the somatic comonent are different.)
So the Somatic component would probably need to be more involved than just attacking. Still, you should be able to perform the Somatic component even if you are using a two-handed weapon since the hand[s] being used to access the Material component (the weapon) would be the same hand[s] used to perform the Somatic components.
Technically, the spell's components are something you need to provide beforehand to cast the spell and get their Effect (emphasis mine):
There is also a related entry in the Sage Advice Compendium explaining that the component (V in this case) is a separate element from the spell's effect.
I'd let it be some kind of flourish, like you spin the weapon and attack. But technically it is probably supposed to be some kind of gestures with the weapon that explicitly look magical, like you intone an incantation, wave your hand across the blade while red glowing runes appear on the blade and then you attack.
No this is incorrect. As @TarodNet mentioned the components of a spell comes before the effect, so the handling of the somatic/material component and the attack are different things and happens at different times.
Also note that a Two-Handed weapon only needs to be handled with two hands while you are making an attack with it, the rest of the time one hand is enough so there are no issues casting spells while having a two-handed weapon.
Can you point to any ruling that specifically states that? While I agree with the interpretation, there is still a world of difference to me between 'interpretation I agree with' and 'definitive statement by the designers', so if such a statement exists I would sure appreciate knowing where it was.
The Two-Handed property specifically say:
This is a case of the rules only doing what they say they do. As @Plaguescarred just posted the rules for the Two-Handed property it's easy to see that it only mentions it is a requirement when attacking with it.
And the 2014 rules said this:
Just because they took out the last part there is no need to think that the rule itself is meant to work any differently here, that part wasn't really needed anyway as the requirement only was to use two hands when attacking with it back then too but they added it as extra clarification.
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access Material component and two to attack with a Two-Handed weapon.
I don't think the rules specifically mention what it takes to remove or add an hand on an held object. A DM could opt for no action required or say it count as your free object interaction for example.
In my case, as a DM, I follow this Dev's ruling for the specific case of removing or adding a hand to a Two-Handed weapon:
For other types of object/weapon interactions, I'm using the new rules for Equipping and Unequipping Weapons and Time-Limited Object Interactions/Interacting with Things.
EDIT (I forgot this part):
No worries. As I said, I agree with your position. I asked if there was a definitive statement rather than an interpretation for discussion with others (I suppose it would also make me feel absolutely certain rather than just confident in the position).
(edit: Ah! And as I am posting this TarodNet gives me pretty much exactly what I was looking for.)
So you don't accept direct quotes from the rules but you treat any old tweet from Mearls or JC as gospel? Yea I can see why you have a hard time getting people to agree with you.
Everyone does as they like of course but around here random tweets from designers are barely treated as RAI and certainly not as RAW. More than once that they have posted stuff that is just straight up incorrect or things that have since been changed/errataed or just about how they would rule it in their own games.
The stuff that ends up in the SAC is accepted by most (as RAI at least if not as RAW) as that is actually checked and considered in a controlled fashion.
And this isn't some "Listen to me, only meeeee" kind of moan. I just think that if you can't accept a rules answer (well a rule actually) when it is this short, clear and unambiguous they you will be looking for old tweets quite a lot. I mean the 2014 text was pretty much a wonder of clarity among 5E rules.
I just wanted to say I agree with you. I also think the rules are clear about the Two-Handed weapon property.
The reply where I included the tweets was just because I remembered that conversation after reading @Plaguescarred's reply and the bit "I don't think the rules specifically mention what it takes to remove or add a hand on a held object".
Sorry if it had the opposite effect than intended.
Once again, I do agree with you. I was asking because there are other individuals who want something more definitive, so having such information is useful when talking with them.
As far as 'direct quotes' go, people make mistakes. If they didn't, we wouldn't have anything to talk about. As a result, if I see the words 'Time to eat children,' I am not going to assume that the author is advocating cannibalism, even though the grammatical structure of what was written is unequivocal. Instead, I will try to look a little deeper and see if they forgot a comma.
I feel that in this case, the designer tweets help. this isn't the first time a question like this has shown up here, and some folks seem to think that you should have to hold the weapon with both hands the whole time during the attack action, because you're using the weapon during the attack action. the designer tweets in this case, clarify their intent to help determine the faith with which their player might be coming from. Are they reading the rules correctly, or exploiting verbiage to game the action economy?
That said one can always try to acquire a ruby of the warmage to sort the issue out entirely.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha