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?
I kind of think that in this case the tweets did absolutely nothing. That rule had one of the most clear and unambiguous clarifications in it already.
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.
If you read that and think that you need a JC tweet to be sure then you are way past checking for punctuation and well into just refusing to accept the rules territory.
I read people asking the same question regularly. Clearly, some folks do not understand.
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.
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?
I kind of think that in this case the tweets did absolutely nothing. That rule had one of the most clear and unambiguous clarifications in it already.
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.
If you read that and think that you need a JC tweet to be sure then you are way past checking for punctuation and well into just refusing to accept the rules territory.
I'm sorry, but if the designers were to turn around and say, 'We just meant you don't need to sheath the weapon when you want to open a door,' or something similar, it would hardly be the first time. Humans are fallible, and anyone who approaches the rules thinking there couldn't be errors in them is not in a very defendable position. While that particular statement is unambiguous, are you sure nothing else in the rules could be interpreted counter to that? This doesn't mean you should assume anything written is wrong, just that you acknowledge that it could be.
The tweet is helpful because it minimizes that last element of doubt.
At the end of the day, though, as I have maintained, I always agreed with your position. I was looking for something more specific, not because I needed to be convinced but to counter the things others might cite if they were to argue that the original statement was in error.
e.g., You cannot do that with a one-handed weapon and shield. Generally, in game design, the extra damage afforded by two-handed weapons is offset by the loss of other abilities, so the idea that you can do something with a two-handed weapon that you can't do with a one-handed weapon must be a mistake. (please note, I am not advocating this position, merely providing it as an example of something someone else might say)
Here’s my take on it, what does the general 2024 rules for Melee Attacks state?
Melee Attacks
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. ( thus, Ranged Weapons and Thrown Range Weapons count as a Ranged Attack, and do not qualify as an element of requirement of True Strike.) [...]
5e24 spell has an attack/save entry of Melee ( again DDB based), and the ability entry describes the ability to change the ability modifier ( ether Strength or Dexterity, both elements of a Melee weapon Attack. ) The physical description doesn’t give a specific explicit type of attack type( like the DDB header does, but the ability description does infer within the text the general ability modifier of a Melee Weapon Attack Roll), making the 5e24 spell restricted to a specific attack type but offsetting that restriction by way of additional damage addition, and or damaging type.
As for the Somatic Component, that can just be easily explained as the caster just making the attack itself, the Verbal being the caster shouting “yarr”, and the material being the Weapon.
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.
Well with all due respect, the physical text is the same as the DDB text, so that’s no bug, it’s the actual intent of the spell for 2024 True Strike to be just a Melee Weapon Attack.
This is incorrect. The physical book does not say melee anywhere within the spell description of True Strike. It only appears on DDB.
The "Attack/Save block" is not part of any spell in the physical book
Well with all due respect, the physical text is the same as the DDB text, so that’s no bug, it’s the actual intent of the spell for 2024 True Strike to be just a Melee Weapon Attack.
As for JC quotes and SAC, that is advice. Just because a designer decides to answer some questions with cryptic remarks, doesn’t mean it’s official rule. and besides he helped “revise” the stuff, if he meant for it to be a any type of attack, he would have used different terminology, but the very mention of the ToHit ability modifiers of both STR or DEX is a “hidden” intent as to the specific type of attack.( as mentioned in the section on Melee Attacks. )
Of, course anyone can run it anyway they want, but the Spells description of True Strike speaks for itself, without the designers intent considered.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say the physical text is the same as the DDB text
Casting Time: Action Range: Self Components: S, M (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP) Duration: Instantaneous
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity. If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).
Cantrip Upgrade. Whether you deal Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type, the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6).
The above is the verbatim text from the 2024 Free Rules. Nothing in there restricts True Strike to a melee weapon, only one that is worth at least 1 CP.
Are you saying that because the lower text field matches the physical text when you look here the upper table must be correct? That argument is easily refuted because the upper table doesn't agree with the lower text on another matter (damage from True Strike is not automatically Radiant).
Programmers entered the data in that upper table. Most likely, because of a desire for things like localization and to save memory, they probably didn't even enter the data as you see it. Because of how databases work, they probably chose something like 'entry 3 from table attacksave' for the Attack/Save and 'entry 8 from table damageeffect' for the Damage/Effect.
As a result, things that aren't quite correct can easily creep in. (e.g., It was late Friday and the programmer didn't want to create an extra entry in the damageeffect table just for the one spell, especially an entry that would need to say something like 'Radiant, or optionally the original damage type of the weapon, but only for the base damage, not for the additional damage done at level 5 and higher'. So they chose something close and figured that players would read the text and recognize that it could also be Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning if the caster wanted that)
Those tables are helpful, but in a disagreement between them and the text written in the book, I will take the book every single time.
edit: Now that I look at the Advanced Filters for the DDB spell lists, I am confident that is precisely what has happened. Each entry for a spell most likely has one column for Save that contains 3 bits, allowing for a number between 0 and 7, with 0 being 'No Save'1, 1 through 6 indicating an Ability, and 7 being an unused value. Each entry also most likely has a column for Attack Type that contains 2 bits corresponding to None, Melee, and Ranged (and an additional unused value).
For True Strike the Save value is set to 0 and the Attack Type is set to 1 (assuming 1 corresponds to Melee). They clearly don't have an option for Melee/Ranged because that is not a selectable option in the Advanced Filter.
When the server-side code generates the page for True Strike, it interprets that data to give an Attack/Save value of 'Melee'.
The spell text itself refers to the Str or dex ability modifier of the weapon used, and the spell can’t affect anything other than whatever the caster hits, and the caster has to use a weapon to make the attack. The fact that it mentions both strength and dexterity, and the range is now SELF, and it’s plainly obvious the spell is meant for melee weapon attacks only. [ as melee weapon attacks are limited by range of SELF( reach )].( otherwise the 2024 version would have a Range value in that part of the header, and the Attack/Save field would say Ranged.)
But I guess some just want to find any excuse. Have fun when even the dev comes out and plainly answers the question “is True Strike(2024) a melee weapon attack” and the answer is yes.
This is just plain wrong, the range of self is because the spell is cast on a weapon that you are holding, it is not a range of touch, which would be the correct range for if the range was restricted to melee weapon attacks. You will note that no target is given in the spell, because the target is in fact the weapon used in it's casting and as you need to be holding that weapon then the correct range is self and the weapon performs an attack, which uses the weapon's range, which can be melee or ranged, there is literally nothing in the spell description that limits it to melee. It's clearly just a re-use of code from either green-flame blade or booming blade and they have not put in an appropriate type for both melee and ranged weapons.
The spell header for DDB is a reflection of the spell description text, and also like the header that is in physical form contains relevant information about the spell function.
As far as the spell Attack/Save display, it’s correct. The display can show Melee, Ranged, the Save Ability Type, and None. ( and maybe others, can’t recall.)
As far as what programming method they are using to classify the what the Attack/Save type is, it’s a database, that method can be defined by a constant , and as far as how it’s saved, doesn’t matter.
The spell text itself refers to the Str or dex ability modifier of the weapon used, and the spell can’t affect anything other than whatever the caster hits, and the caster has to use a weapon to make the attack. The fact that it mentions both strength and dexterity, and the range is now SELF, and it’s plainly obvious the spell is meant for melee weapon attacks only. [ as melee weapon attacks are limited by range of SELF( reach )].( otherwise the 2024 version would have a Range value in that part of the header, and the Attack/Save field would say Ranged.)
But I guess some just want to find any excuse. Have fun when even the dev comes out and plainly answers the question “is True Strike(2024) a melee weapon attack” and the answer is yes.
Sure, the spell header is a reflection, but it clearly isn't an accurate one. You didn't bother to address that the Damage/Effect field was wrong.
You said that the Attack/Save field is correct and listed the various types it could be, but you didn't list an option for 'Melee or Ranged', so out of the choices you listed, what should they have chosen if both Melee and Ranged weapons were an option?
When you say that the value is defined by a constant, I think you mean Index or Key. Databases don't really do constants.
The spell has a range of Self because the spell only indirectly affects the creature being attacked (in the same way that Animate Dead is not cast on the creature that is attacked but is instead cast on a dead body that attacks the creature). It is important to note that Range and Target are no longer synonymous (a mistake I made earlier) so while the Range of a spell is Self it can still affect creatures a distance away (especially indirectly). Given that different weapons have different ranges, what do you think should have been put in there that would be clear and concise? You can only express it as a single number because of how the database is organized, so no Short/Long range and no text saying it depends on the weapon.
The spell text for True Strike, in both the book and dndbeyond, specifies "make one attack with the weapon" while different spells say things like "make a melee attack with it". If it were limited to melee, it would say so in the description.
dndbeyond could have gotten elite early access to errata and implemented the spell according to that (and somehow that errata would've included dndbeyond-only classification but not a text update)...but occam's razor suggests this is just a simple bug in dndbeyond.
An entry in a database is a constant( as in it is typically catalogued in a entry list by numerically sequential values starting at 1 or zero, and increasing by one.), and a “Key” is classified as a RDBM link to a specific entry list. ( oh, and i did mention Melee and Ranged values for the Attack/Save field.( which can also have a “Special” value, making the count now 10 different types)
Attack and Save are actually different fields. You can tell by going in to the advanced filters. As near as I can tell there is no 'Special' value for either since that is not a selectable option to filter by.
The damage/effect field reflects the Radiant damage add-on and possible weapon damage type modification that can occur. ( how many different types of damage/effects are possible, and what would be the bit-count on those? [ fyi, 4 bits is a nibble, 8 a byte, 16 a word, yada yada. So, you can save that for someone else.])
But it is incorrect. You want to maintain that you have to take the table as gospel, yet acknowledge that one of the entries is only partially correct (it fails to reflect the other possible damage). That calls into question the rest of the fields.
The spell has a range of Self because the spell affects the Weapon which is the Target of the 2024 version of the spell. All the spell does is modify the Weapons ability modifiers and adds at higher levels an additional amount of damage of a specific type regardless of which type of normal weapon damage is chosen ( whether that is B, P, S, or the optional Radiant). If the spell was meant to “Target” a creature, it would have a Range Field of Self and an AoE type.( sphere most likely, and an effective distance value.) [ yet the spell doesn’t “Target” a creature, it targets the caster’s weapon used in the material component of the spell, that is clearly mentioned in the spells effect description text, and nowhere in the description of the spell is a range distance even mentioned.]
Ok, but this can just as easily apply to a Ranged weapon.
Ranged Weapons typically have a Damage/Effect value of Piercing, ( except when the description states otherwise, example a Catapult where the Damage is Bludgeoning.) Whereas Melee weapons can have multiple Damage types depending on a number of situations. ( the Finesse property of melee weapons can allow a character to choose which ability modifier to use when attacking, whereas a ranged weapon typically uses just dexterity for the ability mod.) [ DM’s can make an exception, at will, but that is a separate and completely independent factor from the general context of what the spell is designed to do. ]
2024 True Strike is a completely different Spell from what was intended originally, and originally it was designed to aid in hitting a creature with an attack, any type of attack, by granting advantage to the attack against a target that was within a specified range of the caster.
It is, and I have not mentioned the 2014 version at all. I have said that the only support you have for the 2024 version not allowing ranged weapons is a rather dubious entry that could easily be the result of how information was stored in a supplementary database and there is nothing in the book itself that supports that position.
But I guess some just want to find any excuse. Have fun when even the dev comes out and plainly answers the question “is True Strike(2024) a melee weapon attack” and the answer is yes.
I'd recommend not being surprised when you find you're wrong. This is very clearly intended to be used with any weapon.
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.
I kind of think that in this case the tweets did absolutely nothing. That rule had one of the most clear and unambiguous clarifications in it already.
If you read that and think that you need a JC tweet to be sure then you are way past checking for punctuation and well into just refusing to accept the rules territory.
I read people asking the same question regularly. Clearly, some folks do not understand.
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
I'm sorry, but if the designers were to turn around and say, 'We just meant you don't need to sheath the weapon when you want to open a door,' or something similar, it would hardly be the first time. Humans are fallible, and anyone who approaches the rules thinking there couldn't be errors in them is not in a very defendable position. While that particular statement is unambiguous, are you sure nothing else in the rules could be interpreted counter to that? This doesn't mean you should assume anything written is wrong, just that you acknowledge that it could be.
The tweet is helpful because it minimizes that last element of doubt.
At the end of the day, though, as I have maintained, I always agreed with your position. I was looking for something more specific, not because I needed to be convinced but to counter the things others might cite if they were to argue that the original statement was in error.
e.g., You cannot do that with a one-handed weapon and shield. Generally, in game design, the extra damage afforded by two-handed weapons is offset by the loss of other abilities, so the idea that you can do something with a two-handed weapon that you can't do with a one-handed weapon must be a mistake. (please note, I am not advocating this position, merely providing it as an example of something someone else might say)
The Heavy property is pretty self explanatory.
That's a bug in DDB. Some people were reporting the problem in Player’s Handbook - Issues and Support Thread - Bugs & Support
True Strike can be used with any weapon.
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.
This is incorrect. The physical book does not say melee anywhere within the spell description of True Strike. It only appears on DDB.
The "Attack/Save block" is not part of any spell in the physical book
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say the physical text is the same as the DDB text
The above is the verbatim text from the 2024 Free Rules. Nothing in there restricts True Strike to a melee weapon, only one that is worth at least 1 CP.
Are you saying that because the lower text field matches the physical text when you look here the upper table must be correct? That argument is easily refuted because the upper table doesn't agree with the lower text on another matter (damage from True Strike is not automatically Radiant).
Programmers entered the data in that upper table. Most likely, because of a desire for things like localization and to save memory, they probably didn't even enter the data as you see it. Because of how databases work, they probably chose something like 'entry 3 from table attacksave' for the Attack/Save and 'entry 8 from table damageeffect' for the Damage/Effect.
As a result, things that aren't quite correct can easily creep in. (e.g., It was late Friday and the programmer didn't want to create an extra entry in the damageeffect table just for the one spell, especially an entry that would need to say something like 'Radiant, or optionally the original damage type of the weapon, but only for the base damage, not for the additional damage done at level 5 and higher'. So they chose something close and figured that players would read the text and recognize that it could also be Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning if the caster wanted that)
Those tables are helpful, but in a disagreement between them and the text written in the book, I will take the book every single time.
edit: Now that I look at the Advanced Filters for the DDB spell lists, I am confident that is precisely what has happened. Each entry for a spell most likely has one column for Save that contains 3 bits, allowing for a number between 0 and 7, with 0 being 'No Save'1, 1 through 6 indicating an Ability, and 7 being an unused value. Each entry also most likely has a column for Attack Type that contains 2 bits corresponding to None, Melee, and Ranged (and an additional unused value).
For True Strike the Save value is set to 0 and the Attack Type is set to 1 (assuming 1 corresponds to Melee). They clearly don't have an option for Melee/Ranged because that is not a selectable option in the Advanced Filter.
When the server-side code generates the page for True Strike, it interprets that data to give an Attack/Save value of 'Melee'.
This is just plain wrong, the range of self is because the spell is cast on a weapon that you are holding, it is not a range of touch, which would be the correct range for if the range was restricted to melee weapon attacks. You will note that no target is given in the spell, because the target is in fact the weapon used in it's casting and as you need to be holding that weapon then the correct range is self and the weapon performs an attack, which uses the weapon's range, which can be melee or ranged, there is literally nothing in the spell description that limits it to melee. It's clearly just a re-use of code from either green-flame blade or booming blade and they have not put in an appropriate type for both melee and ranged weapons.
Sure, the spell header is a reflection, but it clearly isn't an accurate one. You didn't bother to address that the Damage/Effect field was wrong.
You said that the Attack/Save field is correct and listed the various types it could be, but you didn't list an option for 'Melee or Ranged', so out of the choices you listed, what should they have chosen if both Melee and Ranged weapons were an option?
When you say that the value is defined by a constant, I think you mean Index or Key. Databases don't really do constants.
The spell has a range of Self because the spell only indirectly affects the creature being attacked (in the same way that Animate Dead is not cast on the creature that is attacked but is instead cast on a dead body that attacks the creature). It is important to note that Range and Target are no longer synonymous (a mistake I made earlier) so while the Range of a spell is Self it can still affect creatures a distance away (especially indirectly). Given that different weapons have different ranges, what do you think should have been put in there that would be clear and concise? You can only express it as a single number because of how the database is organized, so no Short/Long range and no text saying it depends on the weapon.
The spell text for True Strike, in both the book and dndbeyond, specifies "make one attack with the weapon" while different spells say things like "make a melee attack with it". If it were limited to melee, it would say so in the description.
dndbeyond could have gotten elite early access to errata and implemented the spell according to that (and somehow that errata would've included dndbeyond-only classification but not a text update)...but occam's razor suggests this is just a simple bug in dndbeyond.
Attack and Save are actually different fields. You can tell by going in to the advanced filters. As near as I can tell there is no 'Special' value for either since that is not a selectable option to filter by.
But it is incorrect. You want to maintain that you have to take the table as gospel, yet acknowledge that one of the entries is only partially correct (it fails to reflect the other possible damage). That calls into question the rest of the fields.
Ok, but this can just as easily apply to a Ranged weapon.
It is, and I have not mentioned the 2014 version at all. I have said that the only support you have for the 2024 version not allowing ranged weapons is a rather dubious entry that could easily be the result of how information was stored in a supplementary database and there is nothing in the book itself that supports that position.
2024 True Strike weapon and attack isn't limited to either melee or ranged meaning it can be any of them.
If limited somehow, it's a coding error from DDB or VT.
I'd recommend not being surprised when you find you're wrong. This is very clearly intended to be used with any weapon.
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
In a world without DnD Beyond, it'd be tough to demonstrate that True Strike is limited to melee weapons.
I also think what True Strike actually targets (your weapon or a creature?) is open to debate. Here's the latest thread about this topic: Is the attack from True Strike both a Weapon and Spell Attack? (since page #2)
Personally, I think it targets a creature, similar to how green-flame blade and booming blade work.