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
IMO sorcerous burst should be a "spell attack" so it isn't an exception that confirm the rule but a mistake in need of errata as i believe it's the only 2024 attack spell not labeled as such.
IMO sorcerous burst should be a "spell attack" so it isn't an exception that confirm the rule but a mistake in need of errata as i believe it's the only 2024 attack spell not labeled as such.
I believe it is one of two, the other being true strike. (RAW)
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.
I try to stick to builds you are likely to see in actual play at your average table. In the example Smite gave of the level 20 Valor Bard, they are only dealing 1d8+3d6+8*, with True Strike which isn't the worst damage to be doing, but isn't out shining the Barbarian or Fighter in the party.
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.
I try to stick to builds you are likely to see in actual play at your average table. In the example Smite gave of the level 20 Valor Bard, they are only dealing 1d8+3d6+8*, with True Strike which isn't the worst damage to be doing, but isn't out shining the Barbarian or Fighter in the party.
IMO sorcerous burst should be a "spell attack" so it isn't an exception that confirm the rule but a mistake in need of errata as i believe it's the only 2024 attack spell not labeled as such.
I have the same opinion.
But, as I said in another post, if it's not an error in the book, you could use Sneak Attack with it, which is odd.
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?
I believe Sorcerous Burst is a plain error that needs correction in errata. Sage advice are the RAW. Period. There are other spells that works exactly like True Strike that are mentioned in Sage, and do not say they are spell attacks, and sage specifically says are melee attacks.
Sage:
"Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?
Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide , the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting.
First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do.) For example, if you use a longsword with green-flame blade, you use your Strength modifier for the weapon’s attack and damage rolls."
Again two spells that confirm the other sage advice, that a if a spell does not say it is a spell attack, it is NOT.
True Strike is even weirder than Booming Blade because it uses your spell casting modifiers for the roll and damage, even though it is still technically a weapon attack.
But it's like Pact weapons: even though you can use your CHA modifier for attack and damage rolls, they are still considered weapon attacks, and not spell attacks.
It feels weird because True Strike is a cantrip, unlike Pact of the Blade, but it's the same logic. Using your spellcasting modifier for a weapon attack does not make it a spell attack per se.
I think that's why this topic is so contentious. While there are many examples and rulings demonstrating that no, it's not a spell attack, it walks like a spell attack, it flies like a spell attack, it quacks like a spell attack, and it tastes like a spell attack.
IMO sorcerous burst should be a "spell attack" so it isn't an exception that confirm the rule but a mistake in need of errata as i believe it's the only 2024 attack spell not labeled as such.
I have the same opinion.
But, as I said in another post, if it's not an error in the book, you could use Sneak Attack with it, which is odd.
When you make a ranged attack roll with Sorcerous Burst , the attack doesn't uses a Finesse or a Ranged weapon but sorcerous energy, so i don't think it should benefit from Sneak Attack.
On the other hand, True Strike may benefit from Sneak Attack on attack with a Finesse or a Ranged weapon.
When you make a ranged attack roll with Sorcerous Burst , the attack doesn't uses a Finesse or a Ranged weapon but sorcerous energy, so i don't think it should benefit from Sneak Attack.
That's not what I'm reading. It says "you make a ranged attack roll". The problem is, if it's a spell attack roll, it must be mentioned, otherwise it's not.
It's either a ranged attack with a weapon, or a spell attack roll. So a "ranged attack" should involve a weapon, which means that you can't use Sorcerous Burst without holding a bow or a similar ranged weapon to make the attack with. And yeah, that would mean Sneak Attacks work.
When I first saw this spell, that's what I read. You use magic to infuse your ranged weapon attacks...
My example mixing Sorcerous Burst and Sneak Attack (if using the right weapon) was just a reductio ad absurdum to see that the spell is a spell attack rather than a weapon attack, even when this isn't explicitly stated in the spell's description.
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?
I believe Sorcerous Burst is a plain error that needs correction in errata. Sage advice are the RAW. Period. There are other spells that works exactly like True Strike that are mentioned in Sage, and do not say they are spell attacks, and sage specifically says are melee attacks.
Sage:
"Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?
Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide , the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting.
First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do.) For example, if you use a longsword with green-flame blade, you use your Strength modifier for the weapon’s attack and damage rolls."
Again two spells that confirm the other sage advice, that a if a spell does not say it is a spell attack, it is NOT.
Again, there are new definitions for spell attacks and weapon attacks that didn't exist at the time of the errata.
sorcerous burst
IMO sorcerous burst should be a "spell attack" so it isn't an exception that confirm the rule but a mistake in need of errata as i believe it's the only 2024 attack spell not labeled as such.
I believe it is one of two, the other being true strike. (RAW)
No true strike is an attack with a weapon, i mean a spell making an Attack Roll without one specifically.
I try to stick to builds you are likely to see in actual play at your average table. In the example Smite gave of the level 20 Valor Bard, they are only dealing 1d8+3d6+8*, with True Strike which isn't the worst damage to be doing, but isn't out shining the Barbarian or Fighter in the party.
*Rapier 1d8, True Strike +3d6, Dex +5, Magic Bonus +3.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You can actually attack normally two more times as a level 20 valor bard.
You can, but those are independent of True Strike and what I am focusing on is the fact that True Strike isn't breaking anything here.
Though to be fair, you are only getting that third attack thanks to casting True Strike, so that is at least something.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I have the same opinion.
But, as I said in another post, if it's not an error in the book, you could use Sneak Attack with it, which is odd.
BTW, this thread is starting to go in circles, with the same arguments from the first 1-3 pages.
Ok, sorry. I will let it go then. Have a good day everyone :)
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oops. The original version was "it is not a Ranged Weapon Attack and a Melee Weapon Attack at the same time". Too much editing late at night.
How to add Tooltips.
I believe Sorcerous Burst is a plain error that needs correction in errata.
Sage advice are the RAW. Period.
There are other spells that works exactly like True Strike that are mentioned in Sage, and do not say they are spell attacks, and sage specifically says are melee attacks.
Sage:
"Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?
Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide , the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting.
First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do.) For example, if you use a longsword with green-flame blade, you use your Strength modifier for the weapon’s attack and damage rolls."
Again two spells that confirm the other sage advice, that a if a spell does not say it is a spell attack, it is NOT.
True Strike is even weirder than Booming Blade because it uses your spell casting modifiers for the roll and damage, even though it is still technically a weapon attack.
But it's like Pact weapons: even though you can use your CHA modifier for attack and damage rolls, they are still considered weapon attacks, and not spell attacks.
It feels weird because True Strike is a cantrip, unlike Pact of the Blade, but it's the same logic. Using your spellcasting modifier for a weapon attack does not make it a spell attack per se.
I think that's why this topic is so contentious. While there are many examples and rulings demonstrating that no, it's not a spell attack, it walks like a spell attack, it flies like a spell attack, it quacks like a spell attack, and it tastes like a spell attack.
When you make a ranged attack roll with Sorcerous Burst , the attack doesn't uses a Finesse or a Ranged weapon but sorcerous energy, so i don't think it should benefit from Sneak Attack.
On the other hand, True Strike may benefit from Sneak Attack on attack with a Finesse or a Ranged weapon.
That's not what I'm reading. It says "you make a ranged attack roll". The problem is, if it's a spell attack roll, it must be mentioned, otherwise it's not.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/playing-the-game#AttackRollAbilities
It's either a ranged attack with a weapon, or a spell attack roll. So a "ranged attack" should involve a weapon, which means that you can't use Sorcerous Burst without holding a bow or a similar ranged weapon to make the attack with. And yeah, that would mean Sneak Attacks work.
When I first saw this spell, that's what I read. You use magic to infuse your ranged weapon attacks...
The spell Sorcerous Burst has no relation whatsoever with a weapon, all you do is cast sorcerous energy at one creature or object within range.
That's why i believe there's an error in it and should say you make a ranged spell attack like Ray of Frost say for example.
My example mixing Sorcerous Burst and Sneak Attack (if using the right weapon) was just a reductio ad absurdum to see that the spell is a spell attack rather than a weapon attack, even when this isn't explicitly stated in the spell's description.
Well right now as written, Sorcerous Burst is neither a spell attack nor an attack with a weapon that's the thing.
Likely changed to spell attack, if any.
Again, there are new definitions for spell attacks and weapon attacks that didn't exist at the time of the errata.
They most definitely appeared in SCAG before Tasha's. In fact, that particular Sage Advice answer predates Tasha's, iirc.