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.
You can rule that it can be both, but then you need to make two attack rolls.
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.
You can rule that it can be both, but then you need to make two attack rolls.
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.
You can rule that it can be both, but then you need to make two attack rolls.
Why?
I've already explained that on the previous page :(
I don't have the energy to keep going in this endless debate. Rule it however you prefer.
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.
There is no probably. There is a dictionary style explanation of a term and a natural conversational explanation. Both are definitions.
Spell Attacks are not new to 2024. We knew what they were in 2014. They were in common usage in 2014. This is RAW in 2014 and 2024. The Sage Advice ruling addressed the question of what happens when a spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon and the official ruling is that it doesn't matter that a spell told you to attack.
The written rules are still RAW even if it is inconvenient to one side of the argument.
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.
There is no probably. There is a dictionary style explanation of a term and a natural conversational explanation. Both are definitions.
Spell Attacks are not new to 2024. We knew what they were in 2014. They were in common usage in 2014. This is RAW in 2014 and 2024. The Sage Advice ruling addressed the question of what happens when a spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon and the official ruling is that it doesn't matter that a spell told you to attack.
The written rules are still RAW even if it is inconvenient to one side of the argument.
"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." It doesn't even say that the attack roll is a spell attack. The reason dictionaries use dictionary definitions is that conversational ones are terrible and vague. You are saying that this reference to spell attacks supersedes the glossary definition. Why? "The written rules are still RAW even if it is inconvenient to one side of the argument."
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.
Nitpick for accuracy: The Weapon Attack rules define that Strength is used for melee Weapon Attacks and Dexterity is used for ranged Weapon Attacks. Ranged is not a specific rule that supersedes the melee attack rules. However, the Thrown and Finesse weapon properties are.
You may want to reread Making an Attack to make sure some assumptions aren't creeping into your arguments.
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.
"A spell attack, by default, uses the casting stat. True Strike (or the older "blade cantrips") overrides this with the weapon attack rules..."
"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."
True Strike instructs you to make an attack with a weapon. It tells you to make a Weapon Attack, which is more specific than the general definition of spell attack. It also tells you to using your spellcasting ability modifier, which is more specific than the resolution of a Weapon Attack.
You, yourself said twice how these spell descriptions override the general rule of spell attack to make it a weapon attack.
I feel your logic is only working because you're skipping steps. The argument that you typed out doesn't add up for the reasons I mentioned above.
I wish you could block a whole thread. I cannot stop coming back and reading this train wreck of a discussion lol.
You can drop notifications at least. Something I think I will do, can't believe this thing keeps going. It is so far past the agree to disagree point its insane.
And as crawford mentioned in the beginning, spells with touch/self range only exist in the casters reach.
That was true...in the 2014 version. In "spilling more ink," they cleaned this up considerably.
Now, in 2024, a range of self does not limit the target: "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 "Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell." and "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."
True Strike emanates from the caster --- the caster is its point of origin, not its target. Its target is whatever is targetted by the attack roll in the spell.
In the 2024 book, there are no "self ([radius])" spells; such spells are all now just "range: self" and usually written as emanations. Legacy spells that haven't been overriden (like the blade cantrips) still function the same way, and are essentially emanations. They have repeatedly called out the new "emanation" term and how it cleans up the rules.
If and when they update the blade cantrips to 2024 standards, maybe they'll follow the example of True Strike (but keep them melee-only), or maybe they'll use an explicit emanation to keep longer-reach weapons from using their full reach.
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.
We are talking about 2024 rules. Not 2014 rules. Sage advice for 2014 rules is sage advice for 2014 rules.
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.
The spell calls for a weapon attack. Specific beats general.
However, you're saying the quiet part out loud.
Am I?
True Strike is targeting the caster and not the target of the Weapon Attack.
I'm not saying that at all. If you read my comment again I very plainly am telling you it targets BOTH the caster AND the target of the weapon attack.
I'm being VERY clear about that and putting quite a lot of emphasis on it. So I'm not sure how you missed it tbh.
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.
Yep. Because haste grants you an action which you can then choose what to do with it. An analogy is that this is like laundering money. The action is the effect of the spell. But then you use that action to make the weapon attack. So the weapon attack then isn't a direct consequence of the spell effect, it is one abstraction away from that.
True strike, on the other hand, is a direct effect of the spell. No layer of money laundering. It just IS the spell effect. So it is a spell attack.
You can "Naw. Naw. Naw." all you want.
I know.
"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".
Naw.
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.
Naw.
The rules have been cited.
2014 rules have been cited to justify 2024 rulings but that's irrelevant.
The designer's official ruling has been cited.
You keep trying to use 2014 to explain 2024. It don't work like that.
The logic has been laid bare. The logic has been backed up with precedence in the form of other spells and design principles.
2014 isn't "precedence" here. They remade the rule books because the 2014 were found wanting. The 2024 rules stand alone on their own.
Similar logical scenarios have been presented to demonstrate the flaws in considering the Weapon Attack also a Spell Attack.
Naw.
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.
and "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."
True Strike emanates from the caster --- the caster is its point of origin, not its target. Its target is whatever is targetted by the attack roll in the spell.
True Strike(2024) doesn’t mention a “target”, so the specific mention of a weapon attack is the specific point that beats the general idea of it being a spell attack.
I've clipped stuff to limit the quote to the relevant answer. The type of attack is irrelevant to determining the target. The specific mention of an attack, at all, defines the target. (We are talking about two different, but related, things.)
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.
It is a spell attack, as written. It is a spell, and an attack.
It is literally that simple.
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.
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.
There is no probably. There is a dictionary style explanation of a term and a natural conversational explanation. Both are definitions.
Spell Attacks are not new to 2024. We knew what they were in 2014. They were in common usage in 2014. This is RAW in 2014 and 2024. The Sage Advice ruling addressed the question of what happens when a spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon and the official ruling is that it doesn't matter that a spell told you to attack.
The written rules are still RAW even if it is inconvenient to one side of the argument.
2014 rules are not relevant to 2024 rules. They literally reprinted the books. Whatever was RAW for 2014 isn't necessarily true for 2024 rules. You can't keep trying to explain how 2024 rules should function by invoking 2014 rules. They're different.
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.
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.
None of those definition changes make any difference to this. Because once again, they have spells that literally say they are spell attacks in the 2024, and those that don't. There is absolute no indicator anything has changed to the requirements of spell attacks to say they are those. It such a disingenuous stretch to claim that doesn't still apply.
There no logical reason to assume True Strike, which does not say it is a spell attack, is one, and it remains a melee attack just like before. The spell is cast on the caster, when then triggers an attack. Which does not say spell attack like every other spell does (with one except that does seem obviously in error).
And the only people arguing for this, are those trying to game the system, which is a glaring red flag as well.
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.
The spell calls for a weapon attack. Specific beats general.
As has been said before. This thread has been going around in circles. Let me see if I can summarize the conflicting viewpoints.
NOTE: One side having more points does not constitute more "correctness".
Stance 1: The Attack From True Strike Is Both A Spell Attack And A Weapon Attack
True Strike is a spell and requires an attack roll and therefore meets the requirements of a Spell Attack.
True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon and therefore meets the requirements of Weapon Attack.
Two Paths:
True Strike's instructions to use your spellcasting attribute prevents a conflict in the resolution of a Spell Attack versus a Weapon Attack
The differences in resolution of Weapon Attacks versus Spell Attacks does not cause a conflict in the definitions themselves so Specific Supersedes General Rule is not invoked.
The addition of the Rules Glossary and the entries for Spell Attack and Weapon Attack represent new/revised rules for these concepts.
With the 2024 rules all 2014 Sage Advice is invalid.
Sorcerous Burst does not specify that it is a Spell Attack, contradicting the potentially relevant Sage Advice ruling.
Multiple items provide bonuses to Spell Attacks already exceeding the +3 limit from items. RAI Argument.
Stance 2: The Attack From True Strike Is Only A Weapon Attack
An attack roll made to resolve a spell effect being a Spell Attack is a general rule.
Two Paths
The True Strike spell description instructs the caster to make a Weapon Attack which supersedes the General Rule of a Spell Attack.
True Strike targets the spellcaster and allows them to make a Weapon Attack. The target of the Weapon Attack is not a target of the spell.
A Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack are resolved in contradictory manners therefore also invoking Specific Supersedes General Rule.
An Attack cannot be both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack in the same way that an attack cannot be both a melee attack and a ranged attack even if it meets the definitions of both.
If True Strike was a Spell Attack, it would not need to specify that you apply your spellcasting attribute modifier to the attack roll and using Strength or Dexterity would not be a consideration.
Spell Attack and Weapon Attack were defined informally in 2014 and are therefore not new or changed in 2024
No new Sage Advice means that existing rulings on rules that are not changed from 2014 are still valid.
Sorcerous Burst does not specify that it is a Spell Attack, but it is the only spell with an attack other than True Strike that does not specify Spell Attack in the description. A singular spell is most like an error.
The 5e Design Principles included restricting the bonuses of weapons to attack. Classifying an attack as both a Spell Attack and Weapon Attack violates these principles by allowing the item bonuses to hit to go up to +8 instead of capping out at +3 by applying bonuses from Wands of the War Mage, a Magical Weapon, and Robes of the Archmagi. RAI argument.
Allowing spell attack items to apply bonuses to Weapon Attacks via True Strike and similar spells devalues Magic Weapons. RAI argument.
I am not aware of a stance where the attack from True Strike is only a Spell Attack.
Just as a point of interest the Wand of the War Mage and Robe of the Archmagi Allow up to a +5 to be added to Spell Attacks so the max of +3 isn't a hard limit.
Just as a point of interest the Wand of the War Mage and Robe of the Archmagi Allow up to a +5 to be added to Spell Attacks so the max of +3 isn't a hard limit.
I miss the days of typed bonuses. All of these items would have been Enhancement bonuses and 3.x and would not have stacked. Nostalgic tangent aside, I will update the post.
You can rule that it can be both, but then you need to make two attack rolls.
Why?
I've already explained that on the previous page :(
I don't have the energy to keep going in this endless debate. Rule it however you prefer.
You explained nothing. Rule however you prefer.
There is no probably. There is a dictionary style explanation of a term and a natural conversational explanation. Both are definitions.
Spell Attacks are not new to 2024. We knew what they were in 2014. They were in common usage in 2014. This is RAW in 2014 and 2024. The Sage Advice ruling addressed the question of what happens when a spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon and the official ruling is that it doesn't matter that a spell told you to attack.
The written rules are still RAW even if it is inconvenient to one side of the argument.
How to add Tooltips.
"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." It doesn't even say that the attack roll is a spell attack. The reason dictionaries use dictionary definitions is that conversational ones are terrible and vague. You are saying that this reference to spell attacks supersedes the glossary definition. Why? "The written rules are still RAW even if it is inconvenient to one side of the argument."
Nitpick for accuracy: The Weapon Attack rules define that Strength is used for melee Weapon Attacks and Dexterity is used for ranged Weapon Attacks. Ranged is not a specific rule that supersedes the melee attack rules. However, the Thrown and Finesse weapon properties are.
You may want to reread Making an Attack to make sure some assumptions aren't creeping into your arguments.
"A spell attack, by default, uses the casting stat. True Strike (or the older "blade cantrips") overrides this with the weapon attack rules..."
"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."
True Strike instructs you to make an attack with a weapon. It tells you to make a Weapon Attack, which is more specific than the general definition of spell attack. It also tells you to using your spellcasting ability modifier, which is more specific than the resolution of a Weapon Attack.
You, yourself said twice how these spell descriptions override the general rule of spell attack to make it a weapon attack.
I feel your logic is only working because you're skipping steps. The argument that you typed out doesn't add up for the reasons I mentioned above.
How to add Tooltips.
I wish you could block a whole thread. I cannot stop coming back and reading this train wreck of a discussion lol.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You can drop notifications at least. Something I think I will do, can't believe this thing keeps going. It is so far past the agree to disagree point its insane.
That was true...in the 2014 version. In "spilling more ink," they cleaned this up considerably.
Now, in 2024, a range of self does not limit the target: "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 "Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell." and "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."
True Strike emanates from the caster --- the caster is its point of origin, not its target. Its target is whatever is targetted by the attack roll in the spell.
In the 2024 book, there are no "self ([radius])" spells; such spells are all now just "range: self" and usually written as emanations. Legacy spells that haven't been overriden (like the blade cantrips) still function the same way, and are essentially emanations. They have repeatedly called out the new "emanation" term and how it cleans up the rules.
If and when they update the blade cantrips to 2024 standards, maybe they'll follow the example of True Strike (but keep them melee-only), or maybe they'll use an explicit emanation to keep longer-reach weapons from using their full reach.
We are talking about 2024 rules. Not 2014 rules. Sage advice for 2014 rules is sage advice for 2014 rules.
They're not the same rule set.
The spell calls for a weapon attack. Specific beats general.
Am I?
I'm not saying that at all. If you read my comment again I very plainly am telling you it targets BOTH the caster AND the target of the weapon attack.
I'm being VERY clear about that and putting quite a lot of emphasis on it. So I'm not sure how you missed it tbh.
Yep. Because haste grants you an action which you can then choose what to do with it. An analogy is that this is like laundering money. The action is the effect of the spell. But then you use that action to make the weapon attack. So the weapon attack then isn't a direct consequence of the spell effect, it is one abstraction away from that.
True strike, on the other hand, is a direct effect of the spell. No layer of money laundering. It just IS the spell effect. So it is a spell attack.
I know.
We're discussing 2024 rules not 2014 rules.
Naw.
Naw.
2014 rules have been cited to justify 2024 rulings but that's irrelevant.
You keep trying to use 2014 to explain 2024. It don't work like that.
2014 isn't "precedence" here. They remade the rule books because the 2014 were found wanting. The 2024 rules stand alone on their own.
Naw.
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.
I've clipped stuff to limit the quote to the relevant answer. The type of attack is irrelevant to determining the target. The specific mention of an attack, at all, defines the target. (We are talking about two different, but related, things.)
It is a spell attack, as written. It is a spell, and an attack.
It is literally that simple.
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.
2014 rules are not relevant to 2024 rules. They literally reprinted the books. Whatever was RAW for 2014 isn't necessarily true for 2024 rules. You can't keep trying to explain how 2024 rules should function by invoking 2014 rules. They're different.
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.
None of those definition changes make any difference to this. Because once again, they have spells that literally say they are spell attacks in the 2024, and those that don't. There is absolute no indicator anything has changed to the requirements of spell attacks to say they are those. It such a disingenuous stretch to claim that doesn't still apply.
There no logical reason to assume True Strike, which does not say it is a spell attack, is one, and it remains a melee attack just like before. The spell is cast on the caster, when then triggers an attack. Which does not say spell attack like every other spell does (with one except that does seem obviously in error).
And the only people arguing for this, are those trying to game the system, which is a glaring red flag as well.
There is absolutely nothing in the 2024 rules that changes that application from 2014.
Exactly. A Weapon Attack only.
How to add Tooltips.
As has been said before. This thread has been going around in circles. Let me see if I can summarize the conflicting viewpoints.
NOTE: One side having more points does not constitute more "correctness".
Stance 1: The Attack From True Strike Is Both A Spell Attack And A Weapon Attack
Stance 2: The Attack From True Strike Is Only A Weapon Attack
I am not aware of a stance where the attack from True Strike is only a Spell Attack.
References
If I missed anything in this summary that you think should be included, please message me and I will try to update it as soon as I can.
How to add Tooltips.
Just as a point of interest the Wand of the War Mage and Robe of the Archmagi Allow up to a +5 to be added to Spell Attacks so the max of +3 isn't a hard limit.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I miss the days of typed bonuses. All of these items would have been Enhancement bonuses and 3.x and would not have stacked. Nostalgic tangent aside, I will update the post.
How to add Tooltips.