Again, there are new definitions for spell attacks and weapon attacks that didn't exist at the time of the errata.
Spell attacks and weapon attacks were in the 2014 Player's Handbook. What's new for 2024 is the rules glossary but nothing about Spell Attacks or Weapon Attacks has changed in 2024. Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade are adjudicated the same way in 2024 as 2014 and the new version of True Strike is adjudicated in the same way in 2024 as those two spells were in 2014.
The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
Some spells also require an attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell attack depends on the spellcasting ability of the spellcaster.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
When making a melee weapon attack, a creature that doesn't have a swimming speed (either natural or granted by magic) has disadvantage on the attack roll unless the weapon is a dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident.
A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon's normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
Again, there are new definitions for spell attacks and weapon attacks that didn't exist at the time of the errata.
Spell attacks and weapon attacks were in the 2014 Player's Handbook. What's new for 2024 is the rules glossary but nothing about Spell Attacks or Weapon Attacks has changed in 2024. Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade are adjudicated the same way in 2024 as 2014 and the new version of True Strike is adjudicated in the same way in 2024 as those two spells were in 2014.
The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
Some spells also require an attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell attack depends on the spellcasting ability of the spellcaster.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
When making a melee weapon attack, a creature that doesn't have a swimming speed (either natural or granted by magic) has disadvantage on the attack roll unless the weapon is a dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident.
A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon's normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
None of those define weapon or spell attacks
The rules for weapon attack can conceivably be exceptions for the rules of spell attack while not making it no longer a spell attack
The relevant portion begins at about 4:44, and goes until about 18:05. It's about targetting, range, the "self (5ft sphere)" range designation, and related stuff, and includes explicit reasons why they rewrote Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. You need to pay attention to get all of it. "We definitely could have spilled more ink on this; this is why we get questions on it."
That section also provides very good insight into why they rewrote whole portions of the spellcasting rules. For range in particular, "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" and for targets, "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." They did, indeed, spill more ink, and simplified things. Which included newer/simpler definitions for "weapon attack" and "spell attack" that remove most of the now-outdated concerns about those terms.
...aaaand we keep going in circles here, but that basically means True Strike can be (and is) both a weapon attack and spell attack at the same time, and there are no meaningful exploits of that.
To me if True Strike was meant to be a spell attack it would have said;
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one spell attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
That's very understandable, but it's also redundant with the definition of spell attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
To me, if they wanted weapon attacks and spell attacks to be mutually exclusive, they would have said so anywhere in the book, especially chapter 1, chapter 7, or anywhere in the glossary --- perhaps made "Attack" a glossary entry and listed the different, mutually-exclusive types as sub-entries, like was done with "Action" or "Area of Effect" or "Attitude" or "Condition" or "Hazard."
To me if True Strike was meant to be a spell attack it would have said;
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one spell attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
That's very understandable, but it's also redundant with the definition of spell attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
To me, if they wanted weapon attacks and spell attacks to be mutually exclusive, they would have said so anywhere in the book, especially chapter 1, chapter 7, or anywhere in the glossary --- perhaps made "Attack" a glossary entry and listed the different, mutually-exclusive types as sub-entries, like was done with "Action" or "Area of Effect" or "Attitude" or "Condition" or "Hazard."
If it was a spell attack, it would not benefit from any weapon properties, including mastery. You could True Strike using a bow with no arrows.
It is exclusive in the same way melee attacks and ranged attacks are exclusive even if one attack meets the criteria for both. If you throw an axe at an adjacent foe, it's a ranged attack only.
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
The definition existed in 2014 and was merely reorganized in a different section in 2024. Any official rulings regarding the 2014 definition apply to the 2024 definition.
I don't understand your second argument. Weapon Attacks are not a subset of Spell Attacks. Every attacks is an Unarmed Attack, a Melee Weapon Attack, a Melee Spell Attack, a Ranged Weapon Attack, or a Ranged Spell Attack. I am not aware of any Ranged Unarmed Attacks.
To me if True Strike was meant to be a spell attack it would have said;
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one spell attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
That's very understandable, but it's also redundant with the definition of spell attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
To me, if they wanted weapon attacks and spell attacks to be mutually exclusive, they would have said so anywhere in the book, especially chapter 1, chapter 7, or anywhere in the glossary --- perhaps made "Attack" a glossary entry and listed the different, mutually-exclusive types as sub-entries, like was done with "Action" or "Area of Effect" or "Attitude" or "Condition" or "Hazard."
If it was a spell attack, it would not benefit from any weapon properties, including mastery. You could True Strike using a bow with no arrows.
It is exclusive in the same way melee attacks and ranged attacks are exclusive even if one attack meets the criteria for both. If you throw an axe at an adjacent foe, it's a ranged attack only.
No you couldn't.
Ammunition
You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from it. The type of ammunition required is specified with the weapon’s range. Each attack expends one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). After a fight, you can spend 1 minute to recover half the ammunition (round down) you used in the fight; the rest is lost.
To me if True Strike was meant to be a spell attack it would have said;
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one spell attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
That's very understandable, but it's also redundant with the definition of spell attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
To me, if they wanted weapon attacks and spell attacks to be mutually exclusive, they would have said so anywhere in the book, especially chapter 1, chapter 7, or anywhere in the glossary --- perhaps made "Attack" a glossary entry and listed the different, mutually-exclusive types as sub-entries, like was done with "Action" or "Area of Effect" or "Attitude" or "Condition" or "Hazard."
It's only redundant if you assume it is a spell attack by retroaction.
A spell attack definition also say See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”) which makes redundant to say you the "attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity" because spell attack normally does. What normally does is attack with a weapon.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target. Here’s how to calculate the attack modifier for your spells:
Spell attack modifier = your spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus
It's only redundant if you assume it is a spell attack by retroaction.
That's just how definitions work. It's "made as part of a spell." They made this really simple to cut down on all this nitpicking.
A spell attack definition also say See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”) which makes redundant to say you the "attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity" because spell attack normally does. What normally does is attack with a weapon.
A spell attack, by default, uses the casting stat. True Strike (or the older "blade cantrips") overrides this with the weapon attack rules, to use STR or DEX --- actually, if we're being real sticklers, "weapon attack" overrides it to use STR only, and the Finesse rules or the Ranged rules (etc) override that in turn to use DEX.
True Strike overrides it yet again --- the individual spell is more specific than calling the attack a weapon attack, which was in turn more specific than the general definition of spell attack --- to go back to being the casting stat --- which is the point of the new True Strike, anyway.
None of those specific rules change that it is, at its base, a spell attack. They just change (and re-change) the attribute bonus, and make it a weapon attack along the way.
It's only redundant if you assume it is a spell attack by retroaction.
That's just how definitions work. It's "made as part of a spell." They made this really simple to cut down on all this nitpicking.
A spell attack definition also say See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”) which makes redundant to say you the "attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity" because spell attack normally does. What normally does is attack with a weapon.
A spell attack, by default, uses the casting stat. True Strike (or the older "blade cantrips") overrides this with the weapon attack rules, to use STR or DEX --- actually, if we're being real sticklers, "weapon attack" overrides it to use STR only, and the Finesse rules or the Ranged rules (etc) override that in turn to use DEX.
True Strike overrides it yet again --- the individual spell is more specific than calling the attack a weapon attack, which was in turn more specific than the general definition of spell attack --- to go back to being the casting stat --- which is the point of the new True Strike, anyway.
None of those specific rules change that it is, at its base, a spell attack. They just change (and re-change) the attribute bonus, and make it a weapon attack along the way.
Now all that sounds way too complicated to be the case, i have more faith in the simpler explanation.
It's only redundant if you assume it is a spell attack by retroaction.
That's just how definitions work. It's "made as part of a spell." They made this really simple to cut down on all this nitpicking.
A spell attack definition also say See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”) which makes redundant to say you the "attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity" because spell attack normally does. What normally does is attack with a weapon.
A spell attack, by default, uses the casting stat. True Strike (or the older "blade cantrips") overrides this with the weapon attack rules, to use STR or DEX --- actually, if we're being real sticklers, "weapon attack" overrides it to use STR only, and the Finesse rules or the Ranged rules (etc) override that in turn to use DEX.
True Strike overrides it yet again --- the individual spell is more specific than calling the attack a weapon attack, which was in turn more specific than the general definition of spell attack --- to go back to being the casting stat --- which is the point of the new True Strike, anyway.
None of those specific rules change that it is, at its base, a spell attack. They just change (and re-change) the attribute bonus, and make it a weapon attack along the way.
Now all that sounds way too complicated to be the case, i have more faith in the simpler explanation.
That the rules glossary doesn't actually tell you anything?
If True Strike were both a weapon attack and spell attack at the same time, I guess then you would need to roll twice according to the Rules Glossary:
One roll as part of a spell: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect"
Another roll for the weapon: "A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon"
But this cannot be true, and it doesn't make any sense, because the spell says "... you make one attack with the weapon ..."
So you cannot make a weapon a attack as part of a spell?
Yes, as True Strike states.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying your original claim is illogical. You said that, in order to have an attack that is part of a spell and an attack that uses a weapon, you must do two attacks. How does that follow? If the first attack isn't a weapon/spell attack, I fail to see how making a second one would change that.
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
The definition existed in 2014 and was merely reorganized in a different section in 2024. Any official rulings regarding the 2014 definition apply to the 2024 definition.
I don't understand your second argument. Weapon Attacks are not a subset of Spell Attacks. Every attacks is an Unarmed Attack, a Melee Weapon Attack, a Melee Spell Attack, a Ranged Weapon Attack, or a Ranged Spell Attack. I am not aware of any Ranged Unarmed Attacks.
So we have two references to a term: one explicitly states what the term is, and the other implies what it probably is. You say we should look at the one that implies stuff about it rather than the actual defining one.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying your original claim is illogical. You said that, in order to have an attack that is part of a spell and an attack that uses a weapon, you must do two attacks. How does that follow? If the first attack isn't a weapon/spell attack, I fail to see how making a second one would change that.
People like to play "gotcha" on the internet. It's not always the most productive, nor the most accurate. :)
You misunderstand me. I'm saying your original claim is illogical. You said that, in order to have an attack that is part of a spell and an attack that uses a weapon, you must do two attacks. How does that follow? If the first attack isn't a weapon/spell attack, I fail to see how making a second one would change that.
It doesn't follow. That's the thing: it can't be both at the same time. If it could, you'd start having problems like that.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying your original claim is illogical. You said that, in order to have an attack that is part of a spell and an attack that uses a weapon, you must do two attacks. How does that follow? If the first attack isn't a weapon/spell attack, I fail to see how making a second one would change that.
It doesn't follow. That's the thing: it can't be both at the same time. If it could, you'd start having problems like that.
Problems like what? The problem that if it can't be both, it can't be both? Please clarify.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Spell attacks and weapon attacks were in the 2014 Player's Handbook. What's new for 2024 is the rules glossary but nothing about Spell Attacks or Weapon Attacks has changed in 2024. Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade are adjudicated the same way in 2024 as 2014 and the new version of True Strike is adjudicated in the same way in 2024 as those two spells were in 2014.
How to add Tooltips.
Crawford goes into how those spells were changed for Tasha's, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUOaQ_XY7wE
The relevant portion begins at about 4:44, and goes until about 18:05. It's about targetting, range, the "self (5ft sphere)" range designation, and related stuff, and includes explicit reasons why they rewrote Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. You need to pay attention to get all of it. "We definitely could have spilled more ink on this; this is why we get questions on it."
That section also provides very good insight into why they rewrote whole portions of the spellcasting rules. For range in particular, "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" and for targets, "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." They did, indeed, spill more ink, and simplified things. Which included newer/simpler definitions for "weapon attack" and "spell attack" that remove most of the now-outdated concerns about those terms.
...aaaand we keep going in circles here, but that basically means True Strike can be (and is) both a weapon attack and spell attack at the same time, and there are no meaningful exploits of that.
To me if True Strike was meant to be a spell attack it would have said;
That's very understandable, but it's also redundant with the definition of spell attack: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
To me, if they wanted weapon attacks and spell attacks to be mutually exclusive, they would have said so anywhere in the book, especially chapter 1, chapter 7, or anywhere in the glossary --- perhaps made "Attack" a glossary entry and listed the different, mutually-exclusive types as sub-entries, like was done with "Action" or "Area of Effect" or "Attitude" or "Condition" or "Hazard."
If it was a spell attack, it would not benefit from any weapon properties, including mastery. You could True Strike using a bow with no arrows.
It is exclusive in the same way melee attacks and ranged attacks are exclusive even if one attack meets the criteria for both. If you throw an axe at an adjacent foe, it's a ranged attack only.
How to add Tooltips.
1. This is the 2014 definition of a Spell Attack. It's not in a dictionary format, but it is the definition.
The definition existed in 2014 and was merely reorganized in a different section in 2024. Any official rulings regarding the 2014 definition apply to the 2024 definition.
I don't understand your second argument. Weapon Attacks are not a subset of Spell Attacks. Every attacks is an Unarmed Attack, a Melee Weapon Attack, a Melee Spell Attack, a Ranged Weapon Attack, or a Ranged Spell Attack. I am not aware of any Ranged Unarmed Attacks.
How to add Tooltips.
No you couldn't.
Do you have any proof for your claims? Mastery properties.
It's only redundant if you assume it is a spell attack by retroaction.
A spell attack definition also say See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”) which makes redundant to say you the "attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity" because spell attack normally does. What normally does is attack with a weapon.
If True Strike were both a weapon attack and spell attack at the same time, I guess then you would need to roll twice according to the Rules Glossary:
But this cannot be true, and it doesn't make any sense, because the spell says "... you make one attack with the weapon ..."
So you cannot make a weapon a attack as part of a spell?
That's just how definitions work. It's "made as part of a spell." They made this really simple to cut down on all this nitpicking.
A spell attack, by default, uses the casting stat. True Strike (or the older "blade cantrips") overrides this with the weapon attack rules, to use STR or DEX --- actually, if we're being real sticklers, "weapon attack" overrides it to use STR only, and the Finesse rules or the Ranged rules (etc) override that in turn to use DEX.
True Strike overrides it yet again --- the individual spell is more specific than calling the attack a weapon attack, which was in turn more specific than the general definition of spell attack --- to go back to being the casting stat --- which is the point of the new True Strike, anyway.
None of those specific rules change that it is, at its base, a spell attack. They just change (and re-change) the attribute bonus, and make it a weapon attack along the way.
Now all that sounds way too complicated to be the case, i have more faith in the simpler explanation.
That the rules glossary doesn't actually tell you anything?
Yes, as True Strike states.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying your original claim is illogical. You said that, in order to have an attack that is part of a spell and an attack that uses a weapon, you must do two attacks. How does that follow? If the first attack isn't a weapon/spell attack, I fail to see how making a second one would change that.
So we have two references to a term: one explicitly states what the term is, and the other implies what it probably is. You say we should look at the one that implies stuff about it rather than the actual defining one.
People like to play "gotcha" on the internet. It's not always the most productive, nor the most accurate. :)
It doesn't follow. That's the thing: it can't be both at the same time. If it could, you'd start having problems like that.
Problems like what? The problem that if it can't be both, it can't be both? Please clarify.