the interpretation you advocate fails the litmus test of is it reasonable that a Cantrip doubles up on those modifiers? At level 20 with a 20 Charisma, a Warlock could have a + 16 to hit with True Strike, Wand of the War Mage +3, and +3 Weapon.
They'd have a +11 to hit (+5 for CHA, +3 for the weapon, +3 for the wand), and +8 to damage (+5 for CHA, +3 for the weapon).
+17.
+6 for proficiency bonus. I'm sorry, that's +17. It would be +13 damage if the Warlock took Agonizing Blast, a common Invocation that only requires 2 levels of Warlock. Note that the double dipping only is possible because Weapon Attacks inherently add an attribute modifier to damage and Spell Attacks do not.
+6 for proficiency bonus. I'm sorry, that's +17. It would be +13 damage if the Warlock took Agonizing Blast, a common Invocation that only requires 2 levels of Warlock. Note that the double dipping only is possible because Weapon Attacks inherently add an attribute modifier to damage and Spell Attacks do not.
The only "double dipping" is getting the extra +3 to hit (only to hit) from the wand. Not all that interesting, especially for a level 20 character with a maxed casting stat and 2 Very Rare magic items. Still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast / Agonizing Blast. Also, compare to a Devotion Paladin using Sacred Weapon to add their CHA bonus to attack rolls ("double dipping" two whole stat bonuses).
Even the most permissive tables I've been on wouldn't have allowed me to stack spell attack modifier and weapon attack modifier on True Strike... I love minmaxing, but even I wouldn't have the balls to make such a claim. That's way too far-fetched. In every single case where the game allows you to roll a spell attack with a weapon, the spell attack modifier replaces the weapon attack modifier. Pact of the Blade Warlock, Battle Smith Artificer, it always replaces it. Exploits are okay sometimes when they're still interesting to play. Coffeelock comes to mind. But this just breaks Bounded Accuracy. It breaks the game.
+6 for proficiency bonus. I'm sorry, that's +17. It would be +13 damage if the Warlock took Agonizing Blast, a common Invocation that only requires 2 levels of Warlock. Note that the double dipping only is possible because Weapon Attacks inherently add an attribute modifier to damage and Spell Attacks do not.
The only "double dipping" is getting the extra +3 to hit (only to hit) from the wand. Not all that interesting, especially for a level 20 character with a maxed casting stat and 2 Very Rare magic items. Still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast / Agonizing Blast. Also, compare to a Devotion Paladin using Sacred Weapon to add their CHA bonus to attack rolls ("double dipping" two whole stat bonuses).
I think that is the crux of the whole thimg for me. An extra +3 to hit IF your DM gives you the tools to do it. For a single attack that does 1d8+3d6+13 (maybe +1d6 for Hex) damage at level 17. Not exactly the best Warlock build ever.
Try looking at the Valor Bard with the Warlock Dip and replace True Strike with Eldritch Blast.
The only "double dipping" is getting the extra +3 to hit (only to hit) from the wand. Not all that interesting, especially for a level 20 character with a maxed casting stat and 2 Very Rare magic items. Still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast / Agonizing Blast. Also, compare to a Devotion Paladin using Sacred Weapon to add their CHA bonus to attack rolls ("double dipping" two whole stat bonuses).
I think that is the crux of the whole thimg for me. An extra +3 to hit IF your DM gives you the tools to do it. For a single attack that does 1d8+3d6+13 (maybe +1d6 for Hex) damage at level 17. Not exactly the best Warlock build ever.
Yeah, exactly.
Also compare to a high-level wizard casting Fire Bolt with a +3 Wand and a Robe of the Archmagi. Getting a whopping +5 to hit from two combined epic magic items. No-one would bat an eye. (well, other than maybe thinking it's odd to get that stack of items, but)
Now, if Warlock had some new invocations like "Hurtful Blast" (add CHA bonus to damage to your spell attacks) and "Painful Blast" (add CHA bonus damage to your weapon attacks), then, sure, this would all be a problem, because they could get triple-CHA bonus damage with True Strike for only 3 invocations. But they're not gonna do that. (<tiny> even though it still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast at high levels </tiny>)
+6 for proficiency bonus. I'm sorry, that's +17. It would be +13 damage if the Warlock took Agonizing Blast, a common Invocation that only requires 2 levels of Warlock. Note that the double dipping only is possible because Weapon Attacks inherently add an attribute modifier to damage and Spell Attacks do not.
The only "double dipping" is getting the extra +3 to hit (only to hit) from the wand. Not all that interesting, especially for a level 20 character with a maxed casting stat and 2 Very Rare magic items. Still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast / Agonizing Blast. Also, compare to a Devotion Paladin using Sacred Weapon to add their CHA bonus to attack rolls ("double dipping" two whole stat bonuses).
Agonizing Blast only takes a 2 level Warlock Dip for double dipping on damage. Access to True Strike only takes a Magic Initiate Feat. 2 Very Rare magic items is very reasonable for a level 20 character and the exploit starts and Uncommon with +1 Weapons and Wands of the War Mage +1. Sacred Weapon is a limited use ability, Cantrips are not.
+17 with the most basic incarnation is a relatively lower limit for the exploit.
Paladin of Devotion 3/Warlock 2/Anything 15 uses True Strike with a +3 longsword, +3 Wand of the War Mage +3, +5 Charisma, +5 Charisma, +6 Proficiency Bonus for +22 to hit and 1D8 + 5 (Charisma) + 5 (Charisma) + 3D6 (True Strike) + 3 (Weapon ) + 2 (Dueling Fighting Style).
What do you want to fill the remaining 15 levels with? Paladin? Warlock? College of Valor Bard so we can use True Strike as part of the Attack action and add the 1d12 Bardic Inspiration Die to damage or a further 1D12 to the attack roll? We are still synergizing with Charisma spellcasting and attack/damage rolls.
This is obviously not correct and a violation of the good faith guidelines. That is, again, in addition to needing to ignore the rules and guidance of the Principal Rules Designer.
+6 for proficiency bonus. I'm sorry, that's +17. It would be +13 damage if the Warlock took Agonizing Blast, a common Invocation that only requires 2 levels of Warlock. Note that the double dipping only is possible because Weapon Attacks inherently add an attribute modifier to damage and Spell Attacks do not.
The only "double dipping" is getting the extra +3 to hit (only to hit) from the wand. Not all that interesting, especially for a level 20 character with a maxed casting stat and 2 Very Rare magic items. Still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast / Agonizing Blast. Also, compare to a Devotion Paladin using Sacred Weapon to add their CHA bonus to attack rolls ("double dipping" two whole stat bonuses).
Agonizing Blast only takes a 2 level Warlock Dip for double dipping on damage. Access to True Strike only takes a Magic Initiate Feat. 2 Very Rare magic items is very reasonable for a level 20 character and the exploit starts and Uncommon with +1 Weapons and Wands of the War Mage +1. Sacred Weapon is a limited use ability, Cantrips are not.
+17 with the most basic incarnation is a relatively lower limit for the exploit.
Paladin of Devotion 3/Warlock 2/Anything 15 uses True Strike with a +3 longsword, +3 Wand of the War Mage +3, +5 Charisma, +5 Charisma, +6 Proficiency Bonus for +22 to hit and 1D8 + 5 (Charisma) + 5 (Charisma) + 3D6 (True Strike) + 3 (Weapon ) + 2 (Dueling Fighting Style).
What do you want to fill the remaining 15 levels with? Paladin? Warlock? College of Valor Bard so we can use True Strike as part of the Attack action and add the 1d12 Bardic Inspiration Die to damage or a further 1D12 to the attack roll? We are still synergizing with Charisma spellcasting and attack/damage rolls.
This is obviously not correct and a violation of the good faith guidelines. That is, again, in addition to needing to ignore the rules and guidance of the Principal Rules Designer.
The existence of other hit and damage modifiers from classes and spells and abilities are all red herrings to the topic. Does min/max exist? Yes. Is it relevant to the question? No.
Is it powerful when you stack legendary magic items bonuses? Yes. Is that relevant to the question? No.
The simple fact is the spell causes both a weapon attack and a spell attack. Because it is an attack from a spell that uses a weapon.
And both the caster and whomever you attack are the target. Caster is target for the portion of the effect that targets Self. And attackee the target for the attack itself.
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 existence of other hit and damage modifiers from classes and spells and abilities are all red herrings to the topic. Does min/max exist? Yes. Is it relevant to the question? No.
Yes, it's a red herring, but if that's what kenclary and Lia_Black want to argue on, I will at least even the discussion.
Is it powerful when you stack legendary magic items bonuses? Yes. Is that relevant to the question? No.
The simple fact is the spell causes both a weapon attack and a spell attack. Because it is an attack from a spell that uses a weapon.
If you stack Very Rare magic items that give bonuses to different rolls, yes, it will be very powerful.
In 5e, WotC got rid of +4 and +5 items, lowered ACs, and proficiency bonuses as a design principle, but now there is a loophole that allows for a +6 item bonus to attack rolls. This is not possibly a good faith interpretation of the rules. No, even if it didn't conflict with the printed rules, it would fail this validation.
A spell attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifiers and a weapon attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + strength or dexterity. These are mutually exclusive and an attack roll cannot be both. Are you going to make a case for an attack roll to be both melee and ranged next? If I throw an axe at an adjacent enemy, it fits the description of melee and ranged attacks, so it must be both. No attack is both a Ranged Attack and a Melee Attack and no attack is both a Weapon Attack and Spell Attack.
True Strike is a Divination spell a range of self. It gives the caster a flash of insight that guides their next attack and potentially modifies their weapon's damage, much the same way that Shillelagh does. The caster then makes a Melee Attack against a creature or object. The target of the Melee Attack is not the target of the spell. Because WotC removed the careful spell target entries, this is determined by an interpretation of the natural language spell description.
Wands of the War Mage and Arcane Grimoires do not modify True Strike's attack roll. Agonizing Blast does not modify the damage.
The existence of other hit and damage modifiers from classes and spells and abilities are all red herrings to the topic. Does min/max exist? Yes. Is it relevant to the question? No.
Yes, it's a red herring, but if that's what kenclary and Lia_Black want to argue on, I will at least even the discussion.
Is it powerful when you stack legendary magic items bonuses? Yes. Is that relevant to the question? No.
The simple fact is the spell causes both a weapon attack and a spell attack. Because it is an attack from a spell that uses a weapon.
If you stack Very Rare magic items that give bonuses to different rolls, yes, it will be very powerful.
In 5e, WotC got rid of +4 and +5 items, lowered ACs, and proficiency bonuses as a design principle, but now there is a loophole that allows for a +6 item bonus to attack rolls. This is not possibly a good faith interpretation of the rules. No, even if it didn't conflict with the printed rules, it would fail this validation.
Using magic items is what we call "loopholes"? Huh. Ok. Still irrelevant to the question.
A spell attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifiers and a weapon attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + strength or dexterity.
Uh. No. That's not true. Spell attacks only use proficiency + spellcasting modifier if the spell effect needs to hit the target. But True Strike doesn't do that. it targets Self, the caster. The effect is that the caster immediately makes a weapon attack against a target. It is both a spell and weapon attack, but the attack is resolved with proficiency + str/dex as normal for a weapon attack.
These are mutually exclusive and an attack roll cannot be both.
Naw.
Are you going to make a case for an attack roll to be both melee and ranged next?
Naw.
If I throw an axe at an adjacent enemy, it fits the description of melee and ranged attacks, so it must be both. No attack is both a Ranged Attack and a Melee Attack and no attack is both a Weapon Attack and Spell Attack.
Naw.
True Strike is a Divination spell a range of self. It gives the caster a flash of insight that guides their next attack and potentially modifies their weapon's damage, much the same way that Shillelagh does. The caster then makes a Melee Attack against a creature or object. The target of the Melee Attack is not the target of the spell. Because WotC removed the careful spell target entries, this is determined by an interpretation of the natural language spell description.
Yep. As I've explained. this is all true.
Wands of the War Mage and Arcane Grimoires do not modify True Strike's attack roll. Agonizing Blast does not modify the damage.
Incorrect. It is a spell attack. An attack caused by a spell effect.
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.
Incorrect. It is a spell attack. An attack caused by a spell effect.
Incorrect. According to Sage Advice which is RAW, and there is nothing to indicate there is any change to this from 2014 to 2024, a spell will say if it is a spell attack or not. And so if it does not say it is a spell attack. It is NOT.
A spell attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifiers and a weapon attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + strength or dexterity.
Uh. No. That's not true. Spell attacks only use proficiency + spellcasting modifier if the spell effect needs to hit the target. But True Strike doesn't do that. it targets Self, the caster. The effect is that the caster immediately makes a weapon attack against a target. It is both a spell and weapon attack, but the attack is resolved with proficiency + str/dex as normal for a weapon attack.
Spell effects that needs to hit the target is called a Spell Attack. Which are resolved as proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifiers, as I described.
However, you're saying the quiet part out loud. True Strike is targeting the caster and not the target of the Weapon Attack. If you use the Attack action granted from Haste to attack with a weapon, it's not a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack. It is just a Weapon Attack. If you make a Weapon Attack as part of casting a spell, it is just a Weapon Attack.
You can "Naw. Naw. Naw." all you want. "It doesn’t matter that a spell told you to attack. If a spell expects you to make a spell attack, the spell’s description says so. For examples, take a look at fire bolt and ray of frost. Both say it—'spell attack.'" - Sage Advice Compendium
Is it powerful when you stack legendary magic items bonuses? Yes. Is that relevant to the question? No.
The simple fact is the spell causes both a weapon attack and a spell attack. Because it is an attack from a spell that uses a weapon.
If you stack Very Rare magic items that give bonuses to different rolls, yes, it will be very powerful.
In 5e, WotC got rid of +4 and +5 items, lowered ACs, and proficiency bonuses as a design principle, but now there is a loophole that allows for a +6 item bonus to attack rolls. This is not possibly a good faith interpretation of the rules. No, even if it didn't conflict with the printed rules, it would fail this validation.
Using magic items is what we call "loopholes"? Huh. Ok. Still irrelevant to the question.
I suppose anything inconvenient to your position is "irrelevant".
Manipulating the wording to justify applying an effect to a roll it is not meant to apply to is not just a loophole, it is an exploit. The rules have been cited. The designer's official ruling has been cited. The logic has been laid bare. The logic has been backed up with precedence in the form of other spells and design principles. Similar logical scenarios have been presented to demonstrate the flaws in considering the Weapon Attack also a Spell Attack.
Is it powerful when you stack legendary magic items bonuses? Yes. Is that relevant to the question? No.
The simple fact is the spell causes both a weapon attack and a spell attack. Because it is an attack from a spell that uses a weapon.
Believe me, I really wish it was true, but it's not. And yeah, it does mean that True Strike isn't as great a cantrip as we thought it was, but I think it can still be good with Finesse weapons, as many spell caster still rely a lot on DEX. You might have to compromise a bit on your CON stat, but I'd say it's still worth it.
If the RAW argument doesn't convince you. Try to use True Strike on your D&D Beyond character sheet. Notice anything missing? That's right, there's no attack button. You can only roll the extra damage. It's not a bug or an oversight, that's just how the spell was designed...
Is it powerful when you stack legendary magic items bonuses? Yes. Is that relevant to the question? No.
The simple fact is the spell causes both a weapon attack and a spell attack. Because it is an attack from a spell that uses a weapon.
Believe me, I really wish it was true, but it's not. And yeah, it does mean that True Strike isn't as great a cantrip as we thought it was, but I think it can still be good with Finesse weapons, as many spell caster still rely a lot on DEX. You might have to compromise a bit on your CON stat, but I'd say it's still worth it.
If the RAW argument doesn't convince you. Try to use True Strike on your D&D Beyond character sheet. Notice anything missing? That's right, there's no attack button. You can only roll the extra damage. It's not a bug or an oversight, that's just how the spell was designed...
Honestly, True Strike isn't all that great even with double dipping. You could take a Valor Bard 18/Warlock 2 and be doing 1d8+5 (Weapon Attack)+ 5d10+25 (Eldritch Blast)+1d8+5 (Weapon Bonus Action Attack) without any magic items, drop a 5th level spell slot on CME and you get to add an extra 28d8 (4d8 per attack) on top of that.
Honestly, True Strike isn't all that great even with double dipping. You could take a Valor Bard 18/Warlock 2 and be doing 1d8+5 (Weapon Attack)+ 5d10+25 (Eldritch Blast)+1d8+5 (Weapon Bonus Action Attack) without any magic items, drop a 5th level spell slot on CME and you get to add an extra 28d8 (4d8 per attack) on top of that.
Damage isn't what we're discussing. Let's say we're attacking ACs 23+. Let's ignore additional defensive abilities. AC could be naturally or via an effect like Shield without using any limited resources (bardic inspiration, leveled spells, consumables, etc,), A level 20 College of Valor Bard with a 20 Charisma, +3 Wand of the War Mage is going to hit AC 23 60% of the time, AC 24 55% of the time, and AC 25 50% of the time.
Allowing double dipping Wand of the War Mage with Magic Weapons (+3) changes that to hitting AC 23 75% of the time, AC 24 70% of the time, and AC 25 65% of the time. The discrepancy is magnified with disadvantage (such as via Blur) becoming 36% vs 56%, 30% vs 49%, and 25% vs 42%).
Throwing an Axe at an adjacent enemy is not a Ranged Weapon Attack and a Melee Weapon attack at the same time and making a Weapon Attack from as part of spell told isn't a Spell Attack at the same time.
Honestly, True Strike isn't all that great even with double dipping. You could take a Valor Bard 18/Warlock 2 and be doing 1d8+5 (Weapon Attack)+ 5d10+25 (Eldritch Blast)+1d8+5 (Weapon Bonus Action Attack) without any magic items, drop a 5th level spell slot on CME and you get to add an extra 28d8 (4d8 per attack) on top of that.
Damage isn't what we're discussing. Let's say we're attacking ACs 23+. Let's ignore additional defensive abilities. AC could be naturally or via an effect like Shield without using any limited resources (bardic inspiration, leveled spells, consumables, etc,), A level 20 College of Valor Bard with a 20 Charisma, +3 Wand of the War Mage is going to hit AC 23 60% of the time, AC 24 55% of the time, and AC 25 50% of the time.
Allowing double dipping Wand of the War Mage with Magic Weapons (+3) changes that to hitting AC 23 75% of the time, AC 24 70% of the time, and AC 25 65% of the time. The discrepancy is magnified with disadvantage (such as via Blur) becoming 36% vs 56%, 30% vs 49%, and 25% vs 42%).
Throwing an Axe at an adjacent enemy is not a Ranged Weapon Attack isn't a Melee Weapon attack at the same time and making a Weapon Attack from as part of spell told isn't a Spell Attack at the same time.
The end result is the damage that it deals. If the attack hits constantly but deals little damage, then it isn't considered broken. For example an 18th level Wizard can hit 100% of the time but the damage is so low that no one cares. That Valor Bard will hit those high AC targets more often for sure but they aren't showing up the rest of the party because the damage is not that high and the situation where super high attack bonuses make a difference are few. There is only one creature in the Monster Manual with an AC of 25 (2 if you count the Lich with Shield). The VAST majority of creatures are below 20 (Only 32 are 20+). At a certain point stacking attack bonuses becomes a waste of time so while someone may be able to do it, that doesn't make it worth while. People that really want to work the system to maximum effect have far better options than stacking attack bonuses on to True Strike.
Honestly, True Strike isn't all that great even with double dipping. You could take a Valor Bard 18/Warlock 2 and be doing 1d8+5 (Weapon Attack)+ 5d10+25 (Eldritch Blast)+1d8+5 (Weapon Bonus Action Attack) without any magic items, drop a 5th level spell slot on CME and you get to add an extra 28d8 (4d8 per attack) on top of that.
Damage isn't what we're discussing. Let's say we're attacking ACs 23+. Let's ignore additional defensive abilities. AC could be naturally or via an effect like Shield without using any limited resources (bardic inspiration, leveled spells, consumables, etc,), A level 20 College of Valor Bard with a 20 Charisma, +3 Wand of the War Mage is going to hit AC 23 60% of the time, AC 24 55% of the time, and AC 25 50% of the time.
Allowing double dipping Wand of the War Mage with Magic Weapons (+3) changes that to hitting AC 23 75% of the time, AC 24 70% of the time, and AC 25 65% of the time. The discrepancy is magnified with disadvantage (such as via Blur) becoming 36% vs 56%, 30% vs 49%, and 25% vs 42%).
Throwing an Axe at an adjacent enemy is not a Ranged Weapon Attack isn't a Melee Weapon attack at the same time and making a Weapon Attack from as part of spell told isn't a Spell Attack at the same time.
The end result is the damage that it deals. If the attack hits constantly but deals little damage, then it isn't considered broken. For example an 18th level Wizard can hit 100% of the time but the damage is so low that no one cares. That Valor Bard will hit those high AC targets more often for sure but they aren't showing up the rest of the party because the damage is not that high and the situation where super high attack bonuses make a difference are few. There is only one creature in the Monster Manual with an AC of 25 (2 if you count the Lich with Shield). The VAST majority of creatures are below 20 (Only 32 are 20+). At a certain point stacking attack bonuses becomes a waste of time so while someone may be able to do it, that doesn't make it worth while. People that really want to work the system to maximum effect have far better options than stacking attack bonuses on to True Strike.
If you are a devotion paladin 4, celestial warlock 6, valor bard 6, and champion fighter 4, you can attack with true strike with advantage to deal 2d6 + 3d6 + 1d6 + 1d4 + 6 + 6 + 6 on a normal hit, and 4d6 + 6d6 + 2d6 + 2d4 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 8d8 + 8d8 damage on a crit. You can still attack from valor bard extra attack dealing 2d6 + 1d6 + 1d4 + 6 on a hit, and 4d6 + 2d6 + 2d4 + 8d8 + 8d8 + 6 damage on a crit. EB with conjure minor elementals is better, but I expect that to be either banned or nerfed at most tables.
Incorrect. It is a spell attack. An attack caused by a spell effect.
Incorrect. According to Sage Advice which is RAW, and there is nothing to indicate there is any change to this from 2014 to 2024, a spell will say if it is a spell attack or not. And so if it does not say it is a spell attack. It is NOT.
What about those things actually being clearly defined? You know, in the rules?
+17.
+6 for proficiency bonus. I'm sorry, that's +17. It would be +13 damage if the Warlock took Agonizing Blast, a common Invocation that only requires 2 levels of Warlock. Note that the double dipping only is possible because Weapon Attacks inherently add an attribute modifier to damage and Spell Attacks do not.
How to add Tooltips.
The only "double dipping" is getting the extra +3 to hit (only to hit) from the wand. Not all that interesting, especially for a level 20 character with a maxed casting stat and 2 Very Rare magic items. Still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast / Agonizing Blast. Also, compare to a Devotion Paladin using Sacred Weapon to add their CHA bonus to attack rolls ("double dipping" two whole stat bonuses).
Even the most permissive tables I've been on wouldn't have allowed me to stack spell attack modifier and weapon attack modifier on True Strike...
I love minmaxing, but even I wouldn't have the balls to make such a claim. That's way too far-fetched.
In every single case where the game allows you to roll a spell attack with a weapon, the spell attack modifier replaces the weapon attack modifier.
Pact of the Blade Warlock, Battle Smith Artificer, it always replaces it.
Exploits are okay sometimes when they're still interesting to play. Coffeelock comes to mind.
But this just breaks Bounded Accuracy. It breaks the game.
I think that is the crux of the whole thimg for me. An extra +3 to hit IF your DM gives you the tools to do it. For a single attack that does 1d8+3d6+13 (maybe +1d6 for Hex) damage at level 17. Not exactly the best Warlock build ever.
Try looking at the Valor Bard with the Warlock Dip and replace True Strike with Eldritch Blast.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, exactly.
Also compare to a high-level wizard casting Fire Bolt with a +3 Wand and a Robe of the Archmagi. Getting a whopping +5 to hit from two combined epic magic items. No-one would bat an eye. (well, other than maybe thinking it's odd to get that stack of items, but)
Now, if Warlock had some new invocations like "Hurtful Blast" (add CHA bonus to damage to your spell attacks) and "Painful Blast" (add CHA bonus damage to your weapon attacks), then, sure, this would all be a problem, because they could get triple-CHA bonus damage with True Strike for only 3 invocations. But they're not gonna do that. (<tiny> even though it still wouldn't compete with Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast at high levels </tiny>)
Agonizing Blast only takes a 2 level Warlock Dip for double dipping on damage. Access to True Strike only takes a Magic Initiate Feat. 2 Very Rare magic items is very reasonable for a level 20 character and the exploit starts and Uncommon with +1 Weapons and Wands of the War Mage +1. Sacred Weapon is a limited use ability, Cantrips are not.
+17 with the most basic incarnation is a relatively lower limit for the exploit.
Paladin of Devotion 3/Warlock 2/Anything 15 uses True Strike with a +3 longsword, +3 Wand of the War Mage +3, +5 Charisma, +5 Charisma, +6 Proficiency Bonus for +22 to hit and 1D8 + 5 (Charisma) + 5 (Charisma) + 3D6 (True Strike) + 3 (Weapon ) + 2 (Dueling Fighting Style).
What do you want to fill the remaining 15 levels with? Paladin? Warlock? College of Valor Bard so we can use True Strike as part of the Attack action and add the 1d12 Bardic Inspiration Die to damage or a further 1D12 to the attack roll? We are still synergizing with Charisma spellcasting and attack/damage rolls.
This is obviously not correct and a violation of the good faith guidelines. That is, again, in addition to needing to ignore the rules and guidance of the Principal Rules Designer.
How to add Tooltips.
The existence of other hit and damage modifiers from classes and spells and abilities are all red herrings to the topic. Does min/max exist? Yes. Is it relevant to the question? No.
Is it powerful when you stack legendary magic items bonuses? Yes. Is that relevant to the question? No.
The simple fact is the spell causes both a weapon attack and a spell attack. Because it is an attack from a spell that uses a weapon.
And both the caster and whomever you attack are the target. Caster is target for the portion of the effect that targets Self. And attackee the target for the attack itself.
Both, are, true.
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.
Yes, it's a red herring, but if that's what kenclary and Lia_Black want to argue on, I will at least even the discussion.
If you stack Very Rare magic items that give bonuses to different rolls, yes, it will be very powerful.
In 5e, WotC got rid of +4 and +5 items, lowered ACs, and proficiency bonuses as a design principle, but now there is a loophole that allows for a +6 item bonus to attack rolls. This is not possibly a good faith interpretation of the rules. No, even if it didn't conflict with the printed rules, it would fail this validation.
A spell attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifiers and a weapon attack is resolved as proficiency bonus + strength or dexterity. These are mutually exclusive and an attack roll cannot be both. Are you going to make a case for an attack roll to be both melee and ranged next? If I throw an axe at an adjacent enemy, it fits the description of melee and ranged attacks, so it must be both. No attack is both a Ranged Attack and a Melee Attack and no attack is both a Weapon Attack and Spell Attack.
True Strike is a Divination spell a range of self. It gives the caster a flash of insight that guides their next attack and potentially modifies their weapon's damage, much the same way that Shillelagh does. The caster then makes a Melee Attack against a creature or object. The target of the Melee Attack is not the target of the spell. Because WotC removed the careful spell target entries, this is determined by an interpretation of the natural language spell description.
Wands of the War Mage and Arcane Grimoires do not modify True Strike's attack roll. Agonizing Blast does not modify the damage.
How to add Tooltips.
Clear Sage advice ruling that would apply to True Strike":
"A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do."
That is RAW according to Sage Advice.
So that means it is NOT a spell attack. And if it isn't a spell attack, the Grimoire buff does NOT apply, you only get your weapon bonuses.
Using magic items is what we call "loopholes"? Huh. Ok. Still irrelevant to the question.
Uh. No. That's not true. Spell attacks only use proficiency + spellcasting modifier if the spell effect needs to hit the target. But True Strike doesn't do that. it targets Self, the caster. The effect is that the caster immediately makes a weapon attack against a target. It is both a spell and weapon attack, but the attack is resolved with proficiency + str/dex as normal for a weapon attack.
Naw.
Naw.
Naw.
Yep. As I've explained. this is all true.
Incorrect. It is a spell attack. An attack caused by a spell effect.
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.
Incorrect. According to Sage Advice which is RAW, and there is nothing to indicate there is any change to this from 2014 to 2024, a spell will say if it is a spell attack or not. And so if it does not say it is a spell attack. It is NOT.
Spell effects that needs to hit the target is called a Spell Attack. Which are resolved as proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifiers, as I described.
However, you're saying the quiet part out loud. True Strike is targeting the caster and not the target of the Weapon Attack. If you use the Attack action granted from Haste to attack with a weapon, it's not a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack. It is just a Weapon Attack. If you make a Weapon Attack as part of casting a spell, it is just a Weapon Attack.
You can "Naw. Naw. Naw." all you want. "It doesn’t matter that a spell told you to attack. If a spell expects you to make a spell attack, the spell’s description says so. For examples, take a look at fire bolt and ray of frost. Both say it—'spell attack.'" - Sage Advice Compendium
I suppose anything inconvenient to your position is "irrelevant".
Manipulating the wording to justify applying an effect to a roll it is not meant to apply to is not just a loophole, it is an exploit. The rules have been cited. The designer's official ruling has been cited. The logic has been laid bare. The logic has been backed up with precedence in the form of other spells and design principles. Similar logical scenarios have been presented to demonstrate the flaws in considering the Weapon Attack also a Spell Attack.
How to add Tooltips.
Believe me, I really wish it was true, but it's not. And yeah, it does mean that True Strike isn't as great a cantrip as we thought it was, but I think it can still be good with Finesse weapons, as many spell caster still rely a lot on DEX. You might have to compromise a bit on your CON stat, but I'd say it's still worth it.
If the RAW argument doesn't convince you. Try to use True Strike on your D&D Beyond character sheet. Notice anything missing?
That's right, there's no attack button. You can only roll the extra damage. It's not a bug or an oversight, that's just how the spell was designed...
Honestly, True Strike isn't all that great even with double dipping. You could take a Valor Bard 18/Warlock 2 and be doing 1d8+5 (Weapon Attack)+ 5d10+25 (Eldritch Blast)+1d8+5 (Weapon Bonus Action Attack) without any magic items, drop a 5th level spell slot on CME and you get to add an extra 28d8 (4d8 per attack) on top of that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Damage isn't what we're discussing. Let's say we're attacking ACs 23+. Let's ignore additional defensive abilities. AC could be naturally or via an effect like Shield without using any limited resources (bardic inspiration, leveled spells, consumables, etc,), A level 20 College of Valor Bard with a 20 Charisma, +3 Wand of the War Mage is going to hit AC 23 60% of the time, AC 24 55% of the time, and AC 25 50% of the time.
Allowing double dipping Wand of the War Mage with Magic Weapons (+3) changes that to hitting AC 23 75% of the time, AC 24 70% of the time, and AC 25 65% of the time. The discrepancy is magnified with disadvantage (such as via Blur) becoming 36% vs 56%, 30% vs 49%, and 25% vs 42%).
Throwing an Axe at an adjacent enemy is not a Ranged Weapon Attack and a Melee Weapon attack at the same time and making a Weapon Attack from as part of spell told isn't a Spell Attack at the same time.
How to add Tooltips.
You probably meant to say it is.
The end result is the damage that it deals. If the attack hits constantly but deals little damage, then it isn't considered broken. For example an 18th level Wizard can hit 100% of the time but the damage is so low that no one cares. That Valor Bard will hit those high AC targets more often for sure but they aren't showing up the rest of the party because the damage is not that high and the situation where super high attack bonuses make a difference are few. There is only one creature in the Monster Manual with an AC of 25 (2 if you count the Lich with Shield). The VAST majority of creatures are below 20 (Only 32 are 20+). At a certain point stacking attack bonuses becomes a waste of time so while someone may be able to do it, that doesn't make it worth while. People that really want to work the system to maximum effect have far better options than stacking attack bonuses on to True Strike.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If you are a devotion paladin 4, celestial warlock 6, valor bard 6, and champion fighter 4, you can attack with true strike with advantage to deal 2d6 + 3d6 + 1d6 + 1d4 + 6 + 6 + 6 on a normal hit, and 4d6 + 6d6 + 2d6 + 2d4 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 8d8 + 8d8 damage on a crit. You can still attack from valor bard extra attack dealing 2d6 + 1d6 + 1d4 + 6 on a hit, and 4d6 + 2d6 + 2d4 + 8d8 + 8d8 + 6 damage on a crit. EB with conjure minor elementals is better, but I expect that to be either banned or nerfed at most tables.
What about those things actually being clearly defined? You know, in the rules?
sorcerous burst