I'm currently on 4 separate 2024 campaigns, and coincidentally, I'm using True Strike in all of them, albeit with completely different builds. All of my DMs treat True Strike like this:
- It's a cantrip, and they ask me to make a spell attack roll. - bonuses from magical weapons apply to both the attack and damage rolls. - weapon masteries work. - I'm however not allowed to use extra attacks after it as it's not part of an Attack action.
I didn't even need to argue this with them, even though most of them are very tight with the rules. Interestingly, one of these builds is an Hexblade Warlock, who uses True Strike through Magic Initiate. He does so because: - Shadow Blade doesn't make a spell attack with I use the Attack action with it. - Neither does any weapon conjured with Pact of the Blade. - But they do when I use True Strike with them.
Imo, the fact that you forgo any extra attack when using True Strike is what makes it obvious that it should be considered a spell attack, even though you still get some benefits from the weapon you're using. Sacrificing your extra attacks is a big deal, and using a spell attack roll when casting a cantrip is what makes sense, especially if the rules don't explicitly say which type of roll to make. One argument that you could also make is that because True Strike makes the weapon attack magical and changes its type to Radiant, that damage clearly comes from the spell through the weapon, and not the weapon directly. That argument doesn't apply to Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, though.
Imo, the fact that you forgo any extra attack when using True Strike is what makes it obvious that it should be considered a spell attack
In 2024 rules, you're not really "forgoing" anything. You use a Magic action* to cast True Strike, not an Attack action. It's not like you're using the Attack action, but then skipping any extra attacks just so you can cast a cantrip
That doesn't clarify whether it's a weapon attack, spell attack, or both, however
* - barring exceptions like EK's War Magic etc., which are an additional problem for any "it must be a spell attack if it requires a Magic action" argument
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In 2024 rules, you're not really "forgoing" anything. You use a Magic action* to cast True Strike, not an Attack action. It's not like you're using the Attack action, but then skipping any extra attacks just so you can cast a cantrip
I was speaking figuratively. As a player, you can choose to either make an attack action and get extra attacks, or cast True Strike and get the benefits of that spell instead. It's a choice that you make, so by choosing True Strike, you decide not to take attack action, and therefore renounce to the ability to make an extra attack that turn. That's all :)
I'm currently on 4 separate 2024 campaigns, and coincidentally, I'm using True Strike in all of them, albeit with completely different builds. All of my DMs treat True Strike like this:
- It's a cantrip, and they ask me to make a spell attack roll. - bonuses from magical weapons apply to both the attack and damage rolls. - weapon masteries work. - I'm however not allowed to use extra attacks after it as it's not part of an Attack action.
If you add your magic weapon bonuses and use weapon masteries, what exactly makes this a spell attack in the four games and not a weapon attack? All of these indicate that you are making a Weapon Attack. True Strike tells you to use your spellcasting modifier for the attack and damage bonuses when you attack with the weapon, so apart from that, what exactly can you only do with a Spell Attack that you can do with True Strike in your four games?
Shillelagh is apparently the only cantrip that you can use with extra attack... It looks like it's the only one of similar cantrips like Booming Blade, True Strike, and Green Flame Blade that can be used with extra attack and I suppose what sets it apart from the others is that you don't get extra dice roll damage at level 5.
I am guessing True Strike's extra damage at level 5, is what makes it a spell attack and prevents it from being used like Shillelagh at Level 5.
Shillelagh is apparently the only cantrip that you can use with extra attack... It looks like it's the only one of similar cantrips like Booming Blade, True Strike, and Green Flame Blade that can be used with extra attack and I suppose what sets it apart from the others is that you don't get extra dice roll damage at level 5. I am guessing True Strike's extra damage at level 5, is what makes it a spell attack and prevents it from being used like Shillelagh at Level 5.
The thing in True Strike (and Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade...) that makes it a spell attack is the spell description literally calling for you to make an attack (roll the dice and everything). The thing that makes it a weapon attack is that it tells you to make the attack with a weapon. Both are true, so both are true. (There are very few consequences of this, and there's no "trap" in the design that will break things when an attack is both.)
Shillelagh does neither. The spell description doesn't have you make an attack at all. It just magically modifies your weapon. So attacks with a Shillelagh weapon aren't spell attacks, and damage from Shillelagh-weapon attacks aren't spell damage.
Sometimes, telling the difference between "something as part of the spell" and "something as a later consequence of the spell" requires some nuance --- but basically it's a matter of whether or not the spell actually tells you to roll the dice / make the attack (rather than saying you could roll the dice later, or just giving you attack modifiers for later, or...) --- and none of that applies to Shillelagh.
I'm currently on 4 separate 2024 campaigns, and coincidentally, I'm using True Strike in all of them, albeit with completely different builds. All of my DMs treat True Strike like this:
[...] - weapon masteries work. - I'm however not allowed to use extra attacks after it as it's not part of an Attack action.
Are you allowed to use Nick when you take the Magic action to cast True Strike?
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon, * - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP), 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).
First, “* - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)” is a weapon you must be proficient with, meaning if your class only allows certain weapons to be proficient in, only those weapons can be used in the spells casting.
This weapon is the one used in making an attack that uses the casters spellcasting modifier instead of the weapons normal required ability score modifier.
if the attack made with the weapon from the casted spell deals damage, then the type of damage the weapon normally deals in an attack(PSB), can be replaced by Radiant.( or not, player choice.)
Et al, and extra.
In a nutshell, your casting a spell on yourself so you can shank a creature.
In case anyone wants a better understanding of why True Strike is a weapon attack not a spell attack. All it does is buff a melee weapon attack by allowing the caster to replace the normal weapon required ability score modifier with the spell ability modifier, and add a damage type modifier that is boosted at higher levels.
I certainly have never seen in the descriptive text of the spell that indicates it is a melee or ranged spell attack, only thing I see is an attack with a weapon.
I see something in "...the descriptive text of the spell..."
spell
And what’s the duration? Instantaneous. An instantaneous duration means the spell’s magic appears only for a moment and then disappears.
Somatic (S)
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.
Material (M)
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.
This makes the mentioned material component a part of the somatic action and is the “focus” of the Self Ranged Spell, which has a physical effect of a Melee (*-Weapon worth at least ??) attack that is instant.
It doesn’t consume the material component, but it does specifically define a specific material component that has a particular value associated with it. The “spell” is a Melee Ranged Weapon Attack that is a buff?/Damage Mod Alternate.
The rules are all over the place in attempts to understand how it’s supposed to work, ( not trying to make anything about this, but it does seem like the spell is designed for the reader to have to be familiar with the rules in general to “piece” together the intention/ intended purpose for what it does. ), and when former “Rullings” are used as a metric in attempting to understand a set of rules that are supposed to not associate with the “former rules, therefore former Rullings.” Then the ability to understand what the hell is going on is left to asking for another “Rulling” that may not be clear in actual clarification.
I can rip it apart, figure how it supposed to work, tweak the mechanic tolerances to fit better, and put it to better use than what the current mechanic offers.
It’s a melee weapon attack that has an instant effect if you cast as a bonus action a cantrip called “True Strike.(2024)” that might be buffed in attack and damage modifiers as well as damage type of a melee weapon used as part of the somatic and material components of the casting.
And all the rest, it’s not difficult to “read between the lines, …..”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Are you allowed to use Nick when you take the Magic action to cast True Strike?
This hasn't come up, but they would probably say no because Nick must be part of an Attack action. So this one probably wouldn't work because there's no ongoing Attack action to make the secondary attack a part of.
If you add your magic weapon bonuses and use weapon masteries, what exactly makes this a spell attack in the four games and not a weapon attack? All of these indicate that you are making a Weapon Attack. True Strike tells you to use your spellcasting modifier for the attack and damage bonuses when you attack with the weapon, so apart from that, what exactly can you only do with a Spell Attack that you can do with True Strike in your four games?
The idea is that it's both a spell attack (by virtue of being a cantrip) and a weapon attack (by virtue of using a weapon) at the same time. At least that's my understanding. Another thing I've been able to do, in the campaign where I play a Trickery Cleric, is cast True Strike through my duplicate by using Invoke Duplicity: Cast Spells.
If True Strike was a spell attack roll, it would not need to specify that you use spellcasting modifier for the roll. All spell attacks behave that way.
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
True Strike: " you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting"
It is a Weapon Attack and, unlike normal Weapon Attacks, applies the Spellcasting Ability Modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity to attack and damage rolls.
Generally, a spell attack uses the spellcasting modifier. In this case, however, there is an exception that the spell attack is also a weapon attack. That means that without this line, you would use strength or dexterity. At least, that's how you would interpret it according to the viewpoint apposing yours.
In general, the rule is that an attack made by a spell is a Spell Attack. In this case, it is an exception that the attack is a weapon attack. That alone creates a conflict that overrides the definition of a Spell Attack. Then, the spell description overrides the rules of a Weapon Attack by using the caster's Spellcasting Modifier for the attack and damage.
The argument that True Strike is a spell attack can only be made if you look at only the Spell Attack definition and ignore the other rules of the game, including that
Let's repeat the argument step-by-step.
In order to accept that an attack can both be a Spell Attack and Weapon Attack at the same time, you have to acknowledge that an attack can both be required to use the Strength or Dexterity based on the weapon as well as requiring the spellcasting modifier be used.
True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon which is a Weapon Attack.
The Rules Glossary is a general rule and True Strike's spell description creates an exception. "Exceptions Supersede General Rules" (Page 7, PHB; see Rhythm of Play).
The attack from True Strike is always a Weapon Attack because Exceptions Supersede General Rules.
In addition, I have already mentioned the Sage Advice Compendium for Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade. Given that the Legacy content is still valid until it is updated, these spells and the Sage Advice Compendium stands until a revision is published. The Sage Advice Compendium is a compilation of official rulings on how to interpret the rules of 5e.
...What about unusual cases like the green-flame blade spell? The spell, which appears in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, tells you to make a melee attack with a weapon. Look at the table above, and you see that, under normal circumstances, you use your Strength modifier when you make a melee weapon attack. It doesn’t matter that a spell told you to attack.(emphasis added)
Officially, a spell making a melee attack with a weapon is a Weapon Attack using your Strength modifier, unless an exception (Finesse Weapons and True Strike would both be exceptions) until a new ruling is made. It explicitly establishes the meaning of "melee attack with a weapon" within a spell description. True Strike removing "melee" from the phrase, does not remove the precedence.
I see something in "...the descriptive text of the spell..."
spell
I do too, "...make an attack with a weapon..." Exceptions supersede general rules. It is a Weapon Attack.
"In order to accept that an attack can both be a Spell Attack and Weapon Attack at the same time, you have to acknowledge that an attack can both be required to use the Strength or Dexterity based on the weapon as well as requiring the spellcasting modifier be used." As I wrote in the post you quoted, the idea is that this spell attack also being a weapon attack is an exception and means that you would use dexterity or strength without the line in true strike. Also, the rules glossary has provided a new definition of spell and weapon attacks, meaning that ruling you quoted is no longer relevant.
If you add your magic weapon bonuses and use weapon masteries, what exactly makes this a spell attack in the four games and not a weapon attack? All of these indicate that you are making a Weapon Attack. True Strike tells you to use your spellcasting modifier for the attack and damage bonuses when you attack with the weapon, so apart from that, what exactly can you only do with a Spell Attack that you can do with True Strike in your four games?
The idea is that it's both a spell attack (by virtue of being a cantrip) and a weapon attack (by virtue of using a weapon) at the same time. At least that's my understanding. Another thing I've been able to do, in the campaign where I play a Trickery Cleric, is cast True Strike through my duplicate by using Invoke Duplicity: Cast Spells.
Per Sage Advice, the fact that a spell told you to make an attack with a weapon doesn't matter, it still follows the rules for attacking with a weapon except where the spell tells you differently.
Also, Duplicity lets you cast spells as if you occupy a space but does not allow you to make attacks with weapons from a different spaces. It's cool that your table lets you do that, but it is not allowed RAW.
Another thing I've been able to do, in the campaign where I play a Trickery Cleric, is cast True Strike through my duplicate by using Invoke Duplicity: Cast Spells.
If your DM has ruled that True Strike is both a spell attack and a weapon attack, this shouldn't be possible because the illusory duplicate can't make a physical attack
I mean, you could cast True Strike through it, but it wouldn't do any damage until you were also within melee range of the target, in which case what would the point be
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"In order to accept that an attack can both be a Spell Attack and Weapon Attack at the same time, you have to acknowledge that an attack can both be required to use the Strength or Dexterity based on the weapon as well as requiring the spellcasting modifier be used." As I wrote in the post you quoted, the idea is that this spell attack also being a weapon attack is an exception and means that you would use dexterity or strength without the line in true strike. Also, the rules glossary has provided a new definition of spell and weapon attacks, meaning that ruling you quoted is no longer relevant.
The Weapon Attack and Spell Attack rules are the same in 2014 and 2024. The actual rules for attacking with spells and weapons are in the Spell and Combat chapters. There are no changes in 2024 that conflict the ruling. Therefore all Sage Advice rulings on how to interpret them still stand. If you want to argue your House Rules, fine, but if we're discussing the RAW and RAI, you can't discard inconvenient passages.
The fact that True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon is spell rule that conflicts with and overrides all rules regarding Spell Attacks. Without that fact, weapon properties don't apply, weapon bonuses don't apply, weapon masteries don't apply. All interpretations that True Strike is a Spell Attack requires willfully ignoring that the spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon.
Per Sage Advice, the fact that a spell told you to make an attack with a weapon doesn't matter, it still follows the rules for attacking with a weapon except where the spell tells you differently.
Also, Duplicity lets you cast spells as if you occupy a space but does not allow you to make attacks with weapons from a different spaces. It's cool that your table lets you do that, but it is not allowed RAW.
The reasoning is that while a weapon is involved, it's only involved as a component which adds to the magical attack. It is still considered a magical attack that deals radiant damage (I have never used it to do the normal damage tbh, and the DM might argue that I can't), and there's no reason to treat it any differently than Chill Touch.
"In order to accept that an attack can both be a Spell Attack and Weapon Attack at the same time, you have to acknowledge that an attack can both be required to use the Strength or Dexterity based on the weapon as well as requiring the spellcasting modifier be used." As I wrote in the post you quoted, the idea is that this spell attack also being a weapon attack is an exception and means that you would use dexterity or strength without the line in true strike. Also, the rules glossary has provided a new definition of spell and weapon attacks, meaning that ruling you quoted is no longer relevant.
The Weapon Attack and Spell Attack rules are the same in 2014 and 2024. The actual rules for attacking with spells and weapons are in the Spell and Combat chapters. There are no changes in 2024 that conflict the ruling. Therefore all Sage Advice rulings on how to interpret them still stand. If you want to argue your House Rules, fine, but if we're discussing the RAW and RAI, you can't discard inconvenient passages.
The fact that True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon is spell rule that conflicts with and overrides all rules regarding Spell Attacks. Without that fact, weapon properties don't apply, weapon bonuses don't apply, weapon masteries don't apply. All interpretations that True Strike is a Spell Attack requires willfully ignoring that the spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon.
Then can you quote for me the definitions of spell attack and weapon attack in the 2014 rules?
Your interpretation is willfully ignoring that nothing prevents true strike being both a spell and weapon attack.
Imo, the fact that you forgo any extra attack when using True Strike is what makes it obvious that it should be considered a spell attack
In 2024 rules, you're not really "forgoing" anything. You use a Magic action* to cast True Strike, not an Attack action. It's not like you're using the Attack action, but then skipping any extra attacks just so you can cast a cantrip
That doesn't clarify whether it's a weapon attack, spell attack, or both, however
* - barring exceptions like EK's War Magic etc., which are an additional problem for any "it must be a spell attack if it requires a Magic action" argument
By using a Magic Action to make an attack with your action, you are forgoing the use of an Attack Action to make more than one attack if you had the Extra Attack feature.
in other words: You must forgo using extra attack if you use true strike. What he said is perfectly true and accurate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The reasoning is that while a weapon is involved, it's only involved as a component which adds to the magical attack. It is still considered a magical attack that deals radiant damage (I have never used it to do the normal damage tbh, and the DM might argue that I can't), and there's no reason to treat it any differently than Chill Touch.
Hmm.
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
That's a lot more than just a material component
I mean, good on ya for having your cake and getting to eat it too there, but it wouldn't fly at my table, even if you're just using Radiant damage. You still need something to make an attack with -- and to actually hit your target! -- to make the spell work, and the illusory duplicate simply doesn't
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Does anyone even have a rules oriented counter-argument to the notion that it is both a weapon and spell attack?
It is both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Does anyone even have a rules oriented counter-argument to the notion that it is both a weapon and spell attack?
It is both.
Yea, no where in ether the 2014 nor the 2024 rules is a Melee Spell Attack defined. So the effect of this is a melee weapon attack that is spell enhanced. If used as a magic action, it’s a spell that allows a single weapon attack, and excludes extra attacks. Or if cast as a bonus action per rules, can be a one time attack that benefits from a spell enhanced melee weapon attack. Ether way, it’s a melee weapon attack that is magically enhanced, and does not function as if a spell is casted at a creature as a target. The weapon is the target of the spell, the weapon being used to both make an attack and be the “focus” of the spell.
All the spell does is enhance a melee weapon attack. It’s based all on just the rules alone. No implication or intent or context from the designer.
Toss 2014 SAC into 2024 and you get the same dam problem as before, where’s the clarification?
Without the 2014 SAC, what does the spell say and do based on nothing but the 2024 or 2014 rules as written? And again no SAC, what is the difference?
Both 2014/2024 rules, minus SAC makes it a spell that makes a melee weapon attack enhanced. No where in the 14/24 rules is a melee spell attack defined, only in SAC is a non official action somewhat explained. If it were a spell attack it would specifically say “ make a spell attack roll, “, and never mention a weapons properties or anything associated with a melee weapon.
And why would a specific material component be described if it can easily be replaced with a spellcasting focus ( possibly) or a component pouch? ( more than just a bag of herbs and spices, and other things, a mini blade might fit? )
I mean, are you going to smack a creature with a component pouch now?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Ether way, it’s a melee weapon attack that is magically enhanced, and does not function as if a spell is casted at a creature as a target. The weapon is the target of the spell, the weapon being used to both make an attack and be the “focus” of the spell.
The target is the target of the attack. Per the glossary, "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." And per the range rules, "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range." The range of "self" does not limit the target to the caster --- and the target is defined by the spell description (in this case, the target of the attack).
If it were a spell attack it would specifically say “ make a spell attack roll, “, and never mention a weapons properties or anything associated with a melee weapon.
Per the glossary, "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect." It doesn't need to explicitly call itself a "spell attack"; it simply is one by virtue of being made as part of the spell.
And why would a specific material component be described if it can easily be replaced with a spellcasting focus ( possibly) or a component pouch? ( more than just a bag of herbs and spices, and other things, a mini blade might fit? )
The weapon component has a cost (1 or more CP for true strike). This was added specifically to stop it being replaced by a focus or component pouch. However, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
I'm currently on 4 separate 2024 campaigns, and coincidentally, I'm using True Strike in all of them, albeit with completely different builds.
All of my DMs treat True Strike like this:
- It's a cantrip, and they ask me to make a spell attack roll.
- bonuses from magical weapons apply to both the attack and damage rolls.
- weapon masteries work.
- I'm however not allowed to use extra attacks after it as it's not part of an Attack action.
I didn't even need to argue this with them, even though most of them are very tight with the rules.
Interestingly, one of these builds is an Hexblade Warlock, who uses True Strike through Magic Initiate.
He does so because:
- Shadow Blade doesn't make a spell attack with I use the Attack action with it.
- Neither does any weapon conjured with Pact of the Blade.
- But they do when I use True Strike with them.
Imo, the fact that you forgo any extra attack when using True Strike is what makes it obvious that it should be considered a spell attack, even though you still get some benefits from the weapon you're using.
Sacrificing your extra attacks is a big deal, and using a spell attack roll when casting a cantrip is what makes sense, especially if the rules don't explicitly say which type of roll to make.
One argument that you could also make is that because True Strike makes the weapon attack magical and changes its type to Radiant, that damage clearly comes from the spell through the weapon, and not the weapon directly. That argument doesn't apply to Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, though.
In 2024 rules, you're not really "forgoing" anything. You use a Magic action* to cast True Strike, not an Attack action. It's not like you're using the Attack action, but then skipping any extra attacks just so you can cast a cantrip
That doesn't clarify whether it's a weapon attack, spell attack, or both, however
* - barring exceptions like EK's War Magic etc., which are an additional problem for any "it must be a spell attack if it requires a Magic action" argument
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I was speaking figuratively. As a player, you can choose to either make an attack action and get extra attacks, or cast True Strike and get the benefits of that spell instead.
It's a choice that you make, so by choosing True Strike, you decide not to take attack action, and therefore renounce to the ability to make an extra attack that turn. That's all :)
If you add your magic weapon bonuses and use weapon masteries, what exactly makes this a spell attack in the four games and not a weapon attack? All of these indicate that you are making a Weapon Attack. True Strike tells you to use your spellcasting modifier for the attack and damage bonuses when you attack with the weapon, so apart from that, what exactly can you only do with a Spell Attack that you can do with True Strike in your four games?
How to add Tooltips.
Shillelagh is apparently the only cantrip that you can use with extra attack... It looks like it's the only one of similar cantrips like Booming Blade, True Strike, and Green Flame Blade that can be used with extra attack and I suppose what sets it apart from the others is that you don't get extra dice roll damage at level 5.
I am guessing True Strike's extra damage at level 5, is what makes it a spell attack and prevents it from being used like Shillelagh at Level 5.
The thing in True Strike (and Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade...) that makes it a spell attack is the spell description literally calling for you to make an attack (roll the dice and everything). The thing that makes it a weapon attack is that it tells you to make the attack with a weapon. Both are true, so both are true. (There are very few consequences of this, and there's no "trap" in the design that will break things when an attack is both.)
Shillelagh does neither. The spell description doesn't have you make an attack at all. It just magically modifies your weapon. So attacks with a Shillelagh weapon aren't spell attacks, and damage from Shillelagh-weapon attacks aren't spell damage.
Sometimes, telling the difference between "something as part of the spell" and "something as a later consequence of the spell" requires some nuance --- but basically it's a matter of whether or not the spell actually tells you to roll the dice / make the attack (rather than saying you could roll the dice later, or just giving you attack modifiers for later, or...) --- and none of that applies to Shillelagh.
Are you allowed to use Nick when you take the Magic action to cast True Strike?
And what’s the duration?
Instantaneous. An instantaneous duration means the spell’s magic appears only for a moment and then disappears.
Somatic (S)
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.
Material (M)
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.
This makes the mentioned material component a part of the somatic action and is the “focus” of the Self Ranged Spell, which has a physical effect of a Melee (*-Weapon worth at least ??) attack that is instant.
It doesn’t consume the material component, but it does specifically define a specific material component that has a particular value associated with it.
The “spell” is a Melee Ranged Weapon Attack that is a buff?/Damage Mod Alternate.
The rules are all over the place in attempts to understand how it’s supposed to work, ( not trying to make anything about this, but it does seem like the spell is designed for the reader to have to be familiar with the rules in general to “piece” together the intention/ intended purpose for what it does. ), and when former “Rullings” are used as a metric in attempting to understand a set of rules that are supposed to not associate with the “former rules, therefore former Rullings.” Then the ability to understand what the hell is going on is left to asking for another “Rulling” that may not be clear in actual clarification.
I can rip it apart, figure how it supposed to work, tweak the mechanic tolerances to fit better, and put it to better use than what the current mechanic offers.
It’s a melee weapon attack that has an instant effect if you cast as a bonus action a cantrip called “True Strike.(2024)” that might be buffed in attack and damage modifiers as well as damage type of a melee weapon used as part of the somatic and material components of the casting.
And all the rest, it’s not difficult to “read between the lines, …..”
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
This hasn't come up, but they would probably say no because Nick must be part of an Attack action. So this one probably wouldn't work because there's no ongoing Attack action to make the secondary attack a part of.
The idea is that it's both a spell attack (by virtue of being a cantrip) and a weapon attack (by virtue of using a weapon) at the same time. At least that's my understanding.
Another thing I've been able to do, in the campaign where I play a Trickery Cleric, is cast True Strike through my duplicate by using Invoke Duplicity: Cast Spells.
"In order to accept that an attack can both be a Spell Attack and Weapon Attack at the same time, you have to acknowledge that an attack can both be required to use the Strength or Dexterity based on the weapon as well as requiring the spellcasting modifier be used." As I wrote in the post you quoted, the idea is that this spell attack also being a weapon attack is an exception and means that you would use dexterity or strength without the line in true strike. Also, the rules glossary has provided a new definition of spell and weapon attacks, meaning that ruling you quoted is no longer relevant.
Per Sage Advice, the fact that a spell told you to make an attack with a weapon doesn't matter, it still follows the rules for attacking with a weapon except where the spell tells you differently.
Also, Duplicity lets you cast spells as if you occupy a space but does not allow you to make attacks with weapons from a different spaces. It's cool that your table lets you do that, but it is not allowed RAW.
How to add Tooltips.
If your DM has ruled that True Strike is both a spell attack and a weapon attack, this shouldn't be possible because the illusory duplicate can't make a physical attack
I mean, you could cast True Strike through it, but it wouldn't do any damage until you were also within melee range of the target, in which case what would the point be
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The Weapon Attack and Spell Attack rules are the same in 2014 and 2024. The actual rules for attacking with spells and weapons are in the Spell and Combat chapters. There are no changes in 2024 that conflict the ruling. Therefore all Sage Advice rulings on how to interpret them still stand. If you want to argue your House Rules, fine, but if we're discussing the RAW and RAI, you can't discard inconvenient passages.
The fact that True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon is spell rule that conflicts with and overrides all rules regarding Spell Attacks. Without that fact, weapon properties don't apply, weapon bonuses don't apply, weapon masteries don't apply. All interpretations that True Strike is a Spell Attack requires willfully ignoring that the spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon.
How to add Tooltips.
The reasoning is that while a weapon is involved, it's only involved as a component which adds to the magical attack.
It is still considered a magical attack that deals radiant damage (I have never used it to do the normal damage tbh, and the DM might argue that I can't), and there's no reason to treat it any differently than Chill Touch.
Then can you quote for me the definitions of spell attack and weapon attack in the 2014 rules?
Your interpretation is willfully ignoring that nothing prevents true strike being both a spell and weapon attack.
By using a Magic Action to make an attack with your action, you are forgoing the use of an Attack Action to make more than one attack if you had the Extra Attack feature.
in other words: You must forgo using extra attack if you use true strike. What he said is perfectly true and accurate.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Hmm.
That's a lot more than just a material component
I mean, good on ya for having your cake and getting to eat it too there, but it wouldn't fly at my table, even if you're just using Radiant damage. You still need something to make an attack with -- and to actually hit your target! -- to make the spell work, and the illusory duplicate simply doesn't
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Does anyone even have a rules oriented counter-argument to the notion that it is both a weapon and spell attack?
It is both.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yea, no where in ether the 2014 nor the 2024 rules is a Melee Spell Attack defined. So the effect of this is a melee weapon attack that is spell enhanced. If used as a magic action, it’s a spell that allows a single weapon attack, and excludes extra attacks. Or if cast as a bonus action per rules, can be a one time attack that benefits from a spell enhanced melee weapon attack.
Ether way, it’s a melee weapon attack that is magically enhanced, and does not function as if a spell is casted at a creature as a target. The weapon is the target of the spell, the weapon being used to both make an attack and be the “focus” of the spell.
All the spell does is enhance a melee weapon attack. It’s based all on just the rules alone. No implication or intent or context from the designer.
Toss 2014 SAC into 2024 and you get the same dam problem as before, where’s the clarification?
Without the 2014 SAC, what does the spell say and do based on nothing but the 2024 or 2014 rules as written? And again no SAC, what is the difference?
Both 2014/2024 rules, minus SAC makes it a spell that makes a melee weapon attack enhanced. No where in the 14/24 rules is a melee spell attack defined, only in SAC is a non official action somewhat explained.
If it were a spell attack it would specifically say “ make a spell attack roll, “, and never mention a weapons properties or anything associated with a melee weapon.
And why would a specific material component be described if it can easily be replaced with a spellcasting focus ( possibly) or a component pouch? ( more than just a bag of herbs and spices, and other things, a mini blade might fit? )
I mean, are you going to smack a creature with a component pouch now?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The target is the target of the attack. Per the glossary, "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." And per the range rules, "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range." The range of "self" does not limit the target to the caster --- and the target is defined by the spell description (in this case, the target of the attack).
Per the glossary, "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect." It doesn't need to explicitly call itself a "spell attack"; it simply is one by virtue of being made as part of the spell.
The weapon component has a cost (1 or more CP for true strike). This was added specifically to stop it being replaced by a focus or component pouch. However, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.