Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
When you get double your stat damage it is pretty dang good. As pointed out it makes it the best option at levels 2-4, and basically tied with eldritch blast at levels 5-10.
Both of those require committing to Pact of the Blade (for martial melee weapons and their dice), and likely committing to spending your ASIs on feats that don't improve your CHA (and/or multiclassing which delays your ASIs), and limiting yourself to melee range. Seems like a reasonable trade-off. So I still don't see the big deal.
(Or maybe this just illustrates how OP Eldritch Blast is ;)
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
True Strike is a spell, so you can not cast it as one of your attacks as part of the Attack action. As with casting any spell with a casting time of an action, you have to use the Magic action to cast it. Through casting True Strike, you do make a weapon attack, but that does not itself make it eligible to be used via the Attack action. Some exceptions apply, such as the Eldritch Knight Fighter subclass' War Magic ability, which states "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action." Outside of a specific exception like that, however, casting a spell (as an action) always requires taking the Magic action.
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
True Strike is a spell, so you can not cast it as one of your attacks as part of the Attack action. As with casting any spell with a casting time of an action, you have to use the Magic action to cast it. Through casting True Strike, you do make a weapon attack, but that does not itself make it eligible to be used via the Attack action. Some exceptions apply, such as the Eldritch Knight Fighter subclass' War Magic ability, which states "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action." Outside of a specific exception like that, however, casting a spell (as an action) always requires taking the Magic action.
Just to mention other options, like the College of Valor Bard's Extra Attack or Bladesinging's Extra Attack.
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
Did you get True Strike through the Magic Initiate feat?
As a Battle Master, you do not have the option to cast True Strike as part of the Attack action. True Strike does change the damage type of the weapon which may be useful and it also scales in damage starting at level 5+. However, I would think that it's not a very good spell you even now. When you attack with it, you are using Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom instead of Strength or Dexterity, adding additional attribute requirements that probably aren't otherwise benefiting from. If your Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom is not higher than your Strength and Dexterity, you might want to consider to switch tactics. For example, you could target a saving throw instead of AC. Acid Splash (Dexterity), Mind Sliver (Intelligence), and Toll the Dead (Wisdom) target different saves. Your spell save DC will never be great, but if traditional attacks are ineffective and the enemy is weak to one, it can help.
That said, when you cast True Strike, you make a weapon attack, so it will work with any maneuvers that require a weapon attack (Sweeping Attack) or an attack roll (Disarming Attack).
Be aware that Hunter's Mark will only ever last for an hour for you and if you lose concentration, it's gone. You will need actual spell slots (such as from multiclassing into a spell casting class) to increase the duration or to recast it.
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
When you get double your stat damage it is pretty dang good. As pointed out it makes it the best option at levels 2-4, and basically tied with eldritch blast at levels 5-10.
Both of those require committing to Pact of the Blade (for martial melee weapons and their dice), and likely committing to spending your ASIs on feats that don't improve your CHA (and/or multiclassing which delays your ASIs), and limiting yourself to melee range. Seems like a reasonable trade-off. So I still don't see the big deal.
(Or maybe this just illustrates how OP Eldritch Blast is ;)
I have a full build ready to use in my next campaign solely based on this combo, (paladin warlock bard and maybe fighter) so that's why this topic matters to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
When you get double your stat damage it is pretty dang good. As pointed out it makes it the best option at levels 2-4, and basically tied with eldritch blast at levels 5-10.
Both of those require committing to Pact of the Blade (for martial melee weapons and their dice), and likely committing to spending your ASIs on feats that don't improve your CHA (and/or multiclassing which delays your ASIs), and limiting yourself to melee range. Seems like a reasonable trade-off. So I still don't see the big deal.
(Or maybe this just illustrates how OP Eldritch Blast is ;)
I have a full build ready to use in my next campaign solely based on this combo, (paladin warlock bard and maybe fighter) so that's why this topic matters to me.
I cannot find the exact post where I previously detailed the reasons why True Strike is a Weapon Attack and cannot also be a Spell Attack. The opposing view that it is both requires that you only look at the Spell Attack and Weapon Attack entries in the Rules Glossary and ignore any other rules.
Whenever they get around to putting out Sage Advice/Errata for 2024, I expect it to be codified as a Weapon Attack only.
I have a full build ready to use in my next campaign solely based on this combo, (paladin warlock bard and maybe fighter) so that's why this topic matters to me.
I cannot find the exact post where I previously detailed the reasons why True Strike is a Weapon Attack and cannot also be a Spell Attack. The opposing view that it is both requires that you only look at the Spell Attack and Weapon Attack entries in the Rules Glossary and ignore any other rules.
Whenever they get around to putting out Sage Advice/Errata for 2024, I expect it to be codified as a Weapon Attack only.
When you find that crushing argument, please share it with me. Also, technically agonizing blast only requires a cantrip that does damage and adds to the "spell's damage rolls".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Whenever they get around to putting out Sage Advice/Errata for 2024, I expect it to be codified as a Weapon Attack only.
When you find that crushing argument, please share it with me. Also, technically agonizing blast only requires a cantrip that does damage and adds to the "spell's damage rolls".
Startlingly little relies on "weapon attack" and "spell attack" definitions --- they aren't really load-bearing rules anymore.
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon, * - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP), used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity. If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).
First, “* - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)” is a weapon you must be proficient with, meaning if your class only allows certain weapons to be proficient in, only those weapons can be used in the spells casting.
This weapon is the one used in making an attack that uses the casters spellcasting modifier instead of the weapons normal required ability score modifier.
if the attack made with the weapon from the casted spell deals damage, then the type of damage the weapon normally deals in an attack(PSB), can be replaced by Radiant.( or not, player choice.)
Et al, and extra.
In a nutshell, your casting a spell on yourself so you can shank a creature.
In case anyone wants a better understanding of why True Strike is a weapon attack not a spell attack. All it does is buff a melee weapon attack by allowing the caster to replace the normal weapon required ability score modifier with the spell ability modifier, and add a damage type modifier that is boosted at higher levels.
I certainly have never seen in the descriptive text of the spell that indicates it is a melee or ranged spell attack, only thing I see is an attack with a weapon.
Also, to anyone who doesn't understand the practical difference, a closely related question is whether agonizing blast works with true strike. If you say the attack isn't part of the spell, it wouldn't, and vice versa.
Which is, perhaps, kinda telling. Why is everyone so obsessed with the question of True Strike and Agonizing Blast, when it would only compete with Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast at tier 1?
When you get double your stat damage it is pretty dang good. As pointed out it makes it the best option at levels 2-4, and basically tied with eldritch blast at levels 5-10.
Both of those require committing to Pact of the Blade (for martial melee weapons and their dice), and likely committing to spending your ASIs on feats that don't improve your CHA (and/or multiclassing which delays your ASIs), and limiting yourself to melee range. Seems like a reasonable trade-off. So I still don't see the big deal.
(Or maybe this just illustrates how OP Eldritch Blast is ;)
I have a full build ready to use in my next campaign solely based on this combo, (paladin warlock bard and maybe fighter) so that's why this topic matters to me.
I cannot find the exact post where I previously detailed the reasons why True Strike is a Weapon Attack and cannot also be a Spell Attack. The opposing view that it is both requires that you only look at the Spell Attack and Weapon Attack entries in the Rules Glossary and ignore any other rules.
Whenever they get around to putting out Sage Advice/Errata for 2024, I expect it to be codified as a Weapon Attack only.
To defend my earlier position just a bit, "the rules glossary make it seem like both are reasonable" is less about that being the obvious only correct answer and more about the difficulty in being able to determine which it is from the rules. There are a few terms whose definitions only appear in the rules glossary: Weapon attack and spell attack are two of those terms. Also, there are plenty of spells or other features with redundant text in them, so the presence of some redundant text isn't particularly telling in my eyes. But on the other hand those rules glossary definitions are broad and don't instruct on how to differentiate the two.
As far as I'm concerned, this confusion makes the question not a problem that can be answered with the rules, but rather a problem with the rules. I think you just have to make a ruling. Maybe that ruling is informed by suspected intent. In that case, I would probably pick one, and probably agree with SmiteMakesRight; I doubt true strike is supposed to gain the benefits that both types of rolls can gain.
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
Did you get True Strike through the Magic Initiate feat?
As a Battle Master, you do not have the option to cast True Strike as part of the Attack action. True Strike does change the damage type of the weapon which may be useful and it also scales in damage starting at level 5+. However, I would think that it's not a very good spell you even now. When you attack with it, you are using Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom instead of Strength or Dexterity, adding additional attribute requirements that probably aren't otherwise benefiting from. If your Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom is not higher than your Strength and Dexterity, you might want to consider to switch tactics. For example, you could target a saving throw instead of AC. Acid Splash (Dexterity), Mind Sliver (Intelligence), and Toll the Dead (Wisdom) target different saves. Your spell save DC will never be great, but if traditional attacks are ineffective and the enemy is weak to one, it can help.
That said, when you cast True Strike, you make a weapon attack, so it will work with any maneuvers that require a weapon attack (Sweeping Attack) or an attack roll (Disarming Attack).
Be aware that Hunter's Mark will only ever last for an hour for you and if you lose concentration, it's gone. You will need actual spell slots (such as from multiclassing into a spell casting class) to increase the duration or to recast it.
Yes, I took it through Magic Initiate at Level 1, because I wanted to be able to have radiant damage to use against the undead in Curse of Strahd.
It has benefitted me thus far, especially in Death House, but I've only used it against the Undead. I now have a 16 Wisdom and use that +3 as my spell casting modifier.
Once I get extra attack at Level 5, it's going to do less damage than my extra attack most of the time, which is why I was trying to figure out if I could use it on each of the attacks at Level 5, since it can also potentially be considered a weapon attack.
If True Strike was a spell attack roll, it would not need to specify that you use spellcasting modifier for the roll. All spell attacks behave that way.
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
True Strike: " you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting"
It is a Weapon Attack and, unlike normal Weapon Attacks, applies the Spellcasting Ability Modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity to attack and damage rolls.
Generally, a spell attack uses the spellcasting modifier. In this case, however, there is an exception that the spell attack is also a weapon attack. That means that without this line, you would use strength or dexterity. At least, that's how you would interpret it according to the viewpoint apposing yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon, * - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP), used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity. If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).
First, “* - (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)” is a weapon you must be proficient with, meaning if your class only allows certain weapons to be proficient in, only those weapons can be used in the spells casting.
This weapon is the one used in making an attack that uses the casters spellcasting modifier instead of the weapons normal required ability score modifier.
if the attack made with the weapon from the casted spell deals damage, then the type of damage the weapon normally deals in an attack(PSB), can be replaced by Radiant.( or not, player choice.)
Et al, and extra.
In a nutshell, your casting a spell on yourself so you can shank a creature.
In case anyone wants a better understanding of why True Strike is a weapon attack not a spell attack. All it does is buff a melee weapon attack by allowing the caster to replace the normal weapon required ability score modifier with the spell ability modifier, and add a damage type modifier that is boosted at higher levels.
I certainly have never seen in the descriptive text of the spell that indicates it is a melee or ranged spell attack, only thing I see is an attack with a weapon.
I see something in "...the descriptive text of the spell..."
spell
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
If True Strike was a spell attack roll, it would not need to specify that you use spellcasting modifier for the roll. All spell attacks behave that way.
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
True Strike: " you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting"
It is a Weapon Attack and, unlike normal Weapon Attacks, applies the Spellcasting Ability Modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity to attack and damage rolls.
Generally, a spell attack uses the spellcasting modifier. In this case, however, there is an exception that the spell attack is also a weapon attack. That means that without this line, you would use strength or dexterity. At least, that's how you would interpret it according to the viewpoint apposing yours.
In general, the rule is that an attack made by a spell is a Spell Attack. In this case, it is an exception that the attack is a weapon attack. That alone creates a conflict that overrides the definition of a Spell Attack. Then, the spell description overrides the rules of a Weapon Attack by using the caster's Spellcasting Modifier for the attack and damage.
The argument that True Strike is a spell attack can only be made if you look at only the Spell Attack definition and ignore the other rules of the game, including that
Let's repeat the argument step-by-step.
In order to accept that an attack can both be a Spell Attack and Weapon Attack at the same time, you have to acknowledge that an attack can both be required to use the Strength or Dexterity based on the weapon as well as requiring the spellcasting modifier be used.
True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon which is a Weapon Attack.
The Rules Glossary is a general rule and True Strike's spell description creates an exception. "Exceptions Supersede General Rules" (Page 7, PHB; see Rhythm of Play).
The attack from True Strike is always a Weapon Attack because Exceptions Supersede General Rules.
In addition, I have already mentioned the Sage Advice Compendium for Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade. Given that the Legacy content is still valid until it is updated, these spells and the Sage Advice Compendium stands until a revision is published. The Sage Advice Compendium is a compilation of official rulings on how to interpret the rules of 5e.
...What about unusual cases like the green-flame blade spell? The spell, which appears in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, tells you to make a melee attack with a weapon. Look at the table above, and you see that, under normal circumstances, you use your Strength modifier when you make a melee weapon attack. It doesn’t matter that a spell told you to attack.(emphasis added)
Officially, a spell making a melee attack with a weapon is a Weapon Attack using your Strength modifier, unless an exception (Finesse Weapons and True Strike would both be exceptions) until a new ruling is made. It explicitly establishes the meaning of "melee attack with a weapon" within a spell description. True Strike removing "melee" from the phrase, does not remove the precedence.
Both of those require committing to Pact of the Blade (for martial melee weapons and their dice), and likely committing to spending your ASIs on feats that don't improve your CHA (and/or multiclassing which delays your ASIs), and limiting yourself to melee range. Seems like a reasonable trade-off. So I still don't see the big deal.
(Or maybe this just illustrates how OP Eldritch Blast is ;)
Since True Strike says "you make one attack with the weapon...", does that mean you'd be able to use it with extra attack you gain at Level 5?
Like the OP questions, is it a weapon attack or a spell attack? If it's a spell attack, then it couldn't be applied to extra attack because it's a magic action. If it's a weapon attack, then that would lead me to believe it would apply to extra attack, since it's an attack action.
I have a level 4 Battle Master with True Strike for a Curse of Strahd campaign and I am trying to figure out if I need to ditch it once I hit level 5.
I just took Fey-Touched at Level 4 with Hunter's Mark, so I can stack Hunter's Mark damage on top of my weapon damage and Battle Master Maneuver damage.
I've only been playing D&D since September, so much of this stuff confuses me still...
True Strike is a spell, so you can not cast it as one of your attacks as part of the Attack action. As with casting any spell with a casting time of an action, you have to use the Magic action to cast it. Through casting True Strike, you do make a weapon attack, but that does not itself make it eligible to be used via the Attack action.
Some exceptions apply, such as the Eldritch Knight Fighter subclass' War Magic ability, which states "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action."
Outside of a specific exception like that, however, casting a spell (as an action) always requires taking the Magic action.
No. Casting true strike requires the magic action, that casting just involves also making an attack.
Extra attack requires taking the attack action. In general, the two cannot be combined without additional rules.
Edit: sniped by Jaysburn
Just to mention other options, like the College of Valor Bard's Extra Attack or Bladesinging's Extra Attack.
Did you get True Strike through the Magic Initiate feat?
As a Battle Master, you do not have the option to cast True Strike as part of the Attack action. True Strike does change the damage type of the weapon which may be useful and it also scales in damage starting at level 5+. However, I would think that it's not a very good spell you even now. When you attack with it, you are using Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom instead of Strength or Dexterity, adding additional attribute requirements that probably aren't otherwise benefiting from. If your Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom is not higher than your Strength and Dexterity, you might want to consider to switch tactics. For example, you could target a saving throw instead of AC. Acid Splash (Dexterity), Mind Sliver (Intelligence), and Toll the Dead (Wisdom) target different saves. Your spell save DC will never be great, but if traditional attacks are ineffective and the enemy is weak to one, it can help.
That said, when you cast True Strike, you make a weapon attack, so it will work with any maneuvers that require a weapon attack (Sweeping Attack) or an attack roll (Disarming Attack).
Be aware that Hunter's Mark will only ever last for an hour for you and if you lose concentration, it's gone. You will need actual spell slots (such as from multiclassing into a spell casting class) to increase the duration or to recast it.
How to add Tooltips.
I have a full build ready to use in my next campaign solely based on this combo, (paladin warlock bard and maybe fighter) so that's why this topic matters to me.
Extended signature
I cannot find the exact post where I previously detailed the reasons why True Strike is a Weapon Attack and cannot also be a Spell Attack. The opposing view that it is both requires that you only look at the Spell Attack and Weapon Attack entries in the Rules Glossary and ignore any other rules.
Whenever they get around to putting out Sage Advice/Errata for 2024, I expect it to be codified as a Weapon Attack only.
How to add Tooltips.
When you find that crushing argument, please share it with me. Also, technically agonizing blast only requires a cantrip that does damage and adds to the "spell's damage rolls".
Extended signature
Startlingly little relies on "weapon attack" and "spell attack" definitions --- they aren't really load-bearing rules anymore.
In case anyone wants a better understanding of why True Strike is a weapon attack not a spell attack.
All it does is buff a melee weapon attack by allowing the caster to replace the normal weapon required ability score modifier with the spell ability modifier, and add a damage type modifier that is boosted at higher levels.
I certainly have never seen in the descriptive text of the spell that indicates it is a melee or ranged spell attack, only thing I see is an attack with a weapon.
Maybe this thread? True strike and Arcane Grimoire stack???? - Rules & Game Mechanics
Thank you, TarodNet, Keeper of the Index, that is the post I was looking for.
How to add Tooltips.
Keeper of the Index :D Now I've got a name for my next cool NPC. :D
To defend my earlier position just a bit, "the rules glossary make it seem like both are reasonable" is less about that being the obvious only correct answer and more about the difficulty in being able to determine which it is from the rules. There are a few terms whose definitions only appear in the rules glossary: Weapon attack and spell attack are two of those terms. Also, there are plenty of spells or other features with redundant text in them, so the presence of some redundant text isn't particularly telling in my eyes. But on the other hand those rules glossary definitions are broad and don't instruct on how to differentiate the two.
As far as I'm concerned, this confusion makes the question not a problem that can be answered with the rules, but rather a problem with the rules. I think you just have to make a ruling. Maybe that ruling is informed by suspected intent. In that case, I would probably pick one, and probably agree with SmiteMakesRight; I doubt true strike is supposed to gain the benefits that both types of rolls can gain.
Yes, I took it through Magic Initiate at Level 1, because I wanted to be able to have radiant damage to use against the undead in Curse of Strahd.
It has benefitted me thus far, especially in Death House, but I've only used it against the Undead. I now have a 16 Wisdom and use that +3 as my spell casting modifier.
Once I get extra attack at Level 5, it's going to do less damage than my extra attack most of the time, which is why I was trying to figure out if I could use it on each of the attacks at Level 5, since it can also potentially be considered a weapon attack.
Thank you, esampson. This is well thought-out. I had the same confusion as OP.
This is the quote from here.
Generally, a spell attack uses the spellcasting modifier. In this case, however, there is an exception that the spell attack is also a weapon attack. That means that without this line, you would use strength or dexterity. At least, that's how you would interpret it according to the viewpoint apposing yours.
Extended signature
I see something in "...the descriptive text of the spell..."
spell
Extended signature
In general, the rule is that an attack made by a spell is a Spell Attack. In this case, it is an exception that the attack is a weapon attack. That alone creates a conflict that overrides the definition of a Spell Attack. Then, the spell description overrides the rules of a Weapon Attack by using the caster's Spellcasting Modifier for the attack and damage.
The argument that True Strike is a spell attack can only be made if you look at only the Spell Attack definition and ignore the other rules of the game, including that
Let's repeat the argument step-by-step.
The attack from True Strike is always a Weapon Attack because Exceptions Supersede General Rules.
In addition, I have already mentioned the Sage Advice Compendium for Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade. Given that the Legacy content is still valid until it is updated, these spells and the Sage Advice Compendium stands until a revision is published. The Sage Advice Compendium is a compilation of official rulings on how to interpret the rules of 5e.
Officially, a spell making a melee attack with a weapon is a Weapon Attack using your Strength modifier, unless an exception (Finesse Weapons and True Strike would both be exceptions) until a new ruling is made. It explicitly establishes the meaning of "melee attack with a weapon" within a spell description. True Strike removing "melee" from the phrase, does not remove the precedence.
I do too, "...make an attack with a weapon..." Exceptions supersede general rules. It is a Weapon Attack.
How to add Tooltips.