Does anyone even have a rules oriented counter-argument to the notion that it is both a weapon and spell attack?
It is both.
Yea, no where in ether the 2014 nor the 2024 rules is a Melee Spell Attack defined. So the effect of this is a melee weapon attack that is spell enhanced. If used as a magic action, it’s a spell that allows a single weapon attack, and excludes extra attacks. Or if cast as a bonus action per rules, can be a one time attack that benefits from a spell enhanced melee weapon attack. Ether way, it’s a melee weapon attack that is magically enhanced, and does not function as if a spell is casted at a creature as a target. The weapon is the target of the spell, the weapon being used to both make an attack and be the “focus” of the spell.
All the spell does is enhance a melee weapon attack. It’s based all on just the rules alone. No implication or intent or context from the designer.
Toss 2014 SAC into 2024 and you get the same dam problem as before, where’s the clarification?
Without the 2014 SAC, what does the spell say and do based on nothing but the 2024 or 2014 rules as written? And again no SAC, what is the difference?
Both 2014/2024 rules, minus SAC makes it a spell that makes a melee weapon attack enhanced. No where in the 14/24 rules is a melee spell attack defined, only in SAC is a non official action somewhat explained. If it were a spell attack it would specifically say “ make a spell attack roll, “, and never mention a weapons properties or anything associated with a melee weapon.
And why would a specific material component be described if it can easily be replaced with a spellcasting focus ( possibly) or a component pouch? ( more than just a bag of herbs and spices, and other things, a mini blade might fit? )
I mean, are you going to smack a creature with a component pouch now?
'a and b can't both exist because ab isn't ever stated to exist' I think that question answers itself.
The reasoning is that while a weapon is involved, it's only involved as a component which adds to the magical attack. It is still considered a magical attack that deals radiant damage (I have never used it to do the normal damage tbh, and the DM might argue that I can't), and there's no reason to treat it any differently than Chill Touch.
Hmm.
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.
That's a lot more than just a material component
I mean, good on ya for having your cake and getting to eat it too there, but it wouldn't fly at my table, even if you're just using Radiant damage. You still need something to make an attack with -- and to actually hit your target! -- to make the spell work, and the illusory duplicate simply doesn't
the weapon is a material component, and the strike is the somatic component.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I mean, good on ya for having your cake and getting to eat it too there, but it wouldn't fly at my table, even if you're just using Radiant damage. You still need something to make an attack with -- and to actually hit your target! -- to make the spell work, and the illusory duplicate simply doesn't
By that logic, Chill Touch shouldn't work either because the hand needed to touch the target is illusory... In fact I can't think of an argument to claim that True Strike doesn't work that wouldn't immediately make Chill Touch stop working as well.
Edit: hm... wait you may actually have a point there. Chill Touch's range is Touch, but True Strike's range is Self. Which would suggest this not a spell attack but a temporary buff, which is then immediately consumed through a weapon attack as part of the spell casting.
Does anyone even have a rules oriented counter-argument to the notion that it is both a weapon and spell attack?
It is both.
Yea, no where in ether the 2014 nor the 2024 rules is a Melee Spell Attack defined. So the effect of this is a melee weapon attack that is spell enhanced. If used as a magic action, it’s a spell that allows a single weapon attack, and excludes extra attacks. Or if cast as a bonus action per rules, can be a one time attack that benefits from a spell enhanced melee weapon attack. Ether way, it’s a melee weapon attack that is magically enhanced, and does not function as if a spell is casted at a creature as a target. The weapon is the target of the spell, the weapon being used to both make an attack and be the “focus” of the spell.
All the spell does is enhance a melee weapon attack. It’s based all on just the rules alone. No implication or intent or context from the designer.
Toss 2014 SAC into 2024 and you get the same dam problem as before, where’s the clarification?
Without the 2014 SAC, what does the spell say and do based on nothing but the 2024 or 2014 rules as written? And again no SAC, what is the difference?
Both 2014/2024 rules, minus SAC makes it a spell that makes a melee weapon attack enhanced. No where in the 14/24 rules is a melee spell attack defined, only in SAC is a non official action somewhat explained. If it were a spell attack it would specifically say “ make a spell attack roll, “, and never mention a weapons properties or anything associated with a melee weapon.
And why would a specific material component be described if it can easily be replaced with a spellcasting focus ( possibly) or a component pouch? ( more than just a bag of herbs and spices, and other things, a mini blade might fit? )
I mean, are you going to smack a creature with a component pouch now?
'a and b can't both exist because ab isn't ever stated to exist' I think that question answers itself.
It would say make a spell attack just like sorcerous burst does.
As others have pointed out, you cannot replace the component, since it has a value.
True Strike(2014) has “an attack roll”, meaning any attack that requires a roll-to-hit can be used and the effect of the spell is to only grant advantage on the very next attack roll.
True Strike(2024) has “ an attack with a weapon”, that now limits the “attack roll” to only weapon attacks and the self range coupled with the Attack/save block descriptor further limits the attack to a melee weapon attack.
Both spells focus on the attack, only the attack is the focus of the spell, and the focus of the spells is whatever weapon(2024), or attack roll(2014) of choice is that the caster uses. True Strike(2024) doesn’t act or function like the previous version, and the wording used is similar but does not function like other similar type spells.
The minimal amount of descriptive text has to be used with what the information in the header provides, and what rules the entire description of the spell refers to in order to obtain a general understanding about what the function of the spell does without the designers intent factoring into the context of the RAW intent.
Edit: True Strike(2014) doesn’t have a material component, which changes the dynamic of the function of the spell, and so the closest spell description that can be used to describe it’s function is similar to ones used in not quite similar fashion. ( but it’s official now, and contradiction with SAC has occurred, SAC is 2014 based, so it becomes irrelevant to the discussion about the 2024 version.). Both versions however do state an attack is made, the method of what attack can be made is drastically different however. And that is why the 2024 version of TrueStrike(2024) isn’t a Melee Spell Attack, or any type of spell attack based roll, it forces a melee weapon to be used to clarify the 2014 version of a broad range of attack rolls that could be used.
It’s a massive difference in function, and can’t rely on previous attempts at defining what the designers intent was, as that intent may have changed since.
True Strike(2024) is now a Melee Weapon Attack that is enhanced by a cantrip spell, and former guidance is useless in this regard as that guidance is now out-dated.
Sorry but it seems that the designer giveth, and the designer has taketh away.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
True Strike(2024) has “ an attack with a weapon”, that now limits the “attack roll” to only weapon attacks and the self range coupled with the Attack/save block descriptor further limits the attack to a melee weapon attack.
2024 True Strike can be used with ranged weapons. The range of self only limits the point of origin of the spell; the range of the effects-coming-from-the-point-of-origin are, effectively, only limited by the weapon's range. As the spell does not limit the weapon to "melee" it can indeed be a ranged weapon.
True Strike(2024) has “ an attack with a weapon”, that now limits the “attack roll” to only weapon attacks and the self range coupled with the Attack/save block descriptor further limits the attack to a melee weapon attack.
2024 True Strike can be used with ranged weapons. The range of self only limits the point of origin of the spell; the range of the effects-coming-from-the-point-of-origin are, effectively, only limited by the weapon's range. As the spell does not limit the weapon to "melee" it can indeed be a ranged weapon.
The spell is limited to just melee, otherwise you get the same disfuction that was implied by the 2014 version that any attack roll is possible. Like monsters, a change in ability is tempered by constraints in usefulness, and TrueStrike(2024) imparts that constraint. ( it might well be digital Errata that isn’t scheduled for physical change till the SRD5.2 is released. Till then it is clearly designed to only work with melee ranged weapons, as only Finesse melee weapons allow you to choose ether str or dex for the weapon ability score modifiers, all else is GM fiat.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
True Strike(2024) has “ an attack with a weapon”, that now limits the “attack roll” to only weapon attacks and the self range coupled with the Attack/save block descriptor further limits the attack to a melee weapon attack.
2024 True Strike can be used with ranged weapons. The range of self only limits the point of origin of the spell; the range of the effects-coming-from-the-point-of-origin are, effectively, only limited by the weapon's range. As the spell does not limit the weapon to "melee" it can indeed be a ranged weapon.
The spell is limited to just melee, otherwise you get the same disfuction that was implied by the 2014 version that any attack roll is possible. Like monsters, a change in ability is tempered by constraints in usefulness, and TrueStrike(2024) imparts that constraint. ( it might well be digital Errata that isn’t scheduled for physical change till the SRD5.2 is released. Till then it is clearly designed to only work with melee ranged weapons, as only Finesse melee weapons allow you to choose ether str or dex for the weapon ability score modifiers, all else is GM fiat.)
Or it may very well be one of many errors on dndbeyond.
Shillelagh is apparently the only cantrip that you can use with extra attack... It looks like it's the only one of similar cantrips like Booming Blade, True Strike, and Green Flame Blade that can be used with extra attack and I suppose what sets it apart from the others is that you don't get extra dice roll damage at level 5. I am guessing True Strike's extra damage at level 5, is what makes it a spell attack and prevents it from being used like Shillelagh at Level 5.
The thing in True Strike (and Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade...) that makes it a spell attack is the spell description literally calling for you to make an attack (roll the dice and everything). The thing that makes it a weapon attack is that it tells you to make the attack with a weapon. Both are true, so both are true.
The last part is false. True Strike tells you to make a Weapon Attack. This overrides the General Rule regarding Spell Attacks. True Strike is a Weapon Attack only. It does not matter that a spell told you to make a Weapon Attack.
Shillelagh is apparently the only cantrip that you can use with extra attack... It looks like it's the only one of similar cantrips like Booming Blade, True Strike, and Green Flame Blade that can be used with extra attack and I suppose what sets it apart from the others is that you don't get extra dice roll damage at level 5. I am guessing True Strike's extra damage at level 5, is what makes it a spell attack and prevents it from being used like Shillelagh at Level 5.
The thing in True Strike (and Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade...) that makes it a spell attack is the spell description literally calling for you to make an attack (roll the dice and everything). The thing that makes it a weapon attack is that it tells you to make the attack with a weapon. Both are true, so both are true.
The last part is false. True Strike tells you to make a Weapon Attack. This overrides the General Rule regarding Spell Attacks. True Strike is a Weapon Attack only. It does not matter that a spell told you to make a Weapon Attack.
Do you have any basis for not letting true strike be both a weapon and spell attack?
The thing in True Strike (and Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade...) that makes it a spell attack is the spell description literally calling for you to make an attack (roll the dice and everything). The thing that makes it a weapon attack is that it tells you to make the attack with a weapon. Both are true, so both are true.
The last part is false. True Strike tells you to make a Weapon Attack. This overrides the General Rule regarding Spell Attacks. True Strike is a Weapon Attack only. It does not matter that a spell told you to make a Weapon Attack.
There is no 2024 rule, generic or specific, that makes weapon attacks and spell attacks mutually exclusive. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to create such a exclusion.
"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." As I wrote in the post you quoted, the idea is that this spell attack also being a weapon attack is an exception and means that you would use dexterity or strength without the line in true strike. Also, the rules glossary has provided a new definition of spell and weapon attacks, meaning that ruling you quoted is no longer relevant.
The Weapon Attack and Spell Attack rules are the same in 2014 and 2024. The actual rules for attacking with spells and weapons are in the Spell and Combat chapters. There are no changes in 2024 that conflict the ruling. Therefore all Sage Advice rulings on how to interpret them still stand. If you want to argue your House Rules, fine, but if we're discussing the RAW and RAI, you can't discard inconvenient passages.
The fact that True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon is spell rule that conflicts with and overrides all rules regarding Spell Attacks. Without that fact, weapon properties don't apply, weapon bonuses don't apply, weapon masteries don't apply. All interpretations that True Strike is a Spell Attack requires willfully ignoring that the spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon.
Then can you quote for me the definitions of spell attack and weapon attack in the 2014 rules?
Your interpretation is willfully ignoring that nothing prevents true strike being both a spell and weapon attack.
In 2014, when a spell required an Attack Roll, you would refer to this section. This is actually a repeat and clarification of the section from Combat, but if you were specifically looking for how to resolve a spell attack, you would probably look here first.
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.
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
The phrasing has changed, but there are no changes of substance. An attack roll from a spell is handled the same way in both editions.
In 2014, when resolving an attack from a weapon, you refer to this section. This handles both weapon and spell attacks.
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.
Modifiers to the Roll
When a character makes an attack roll, the two most common modifiers to the roll are an ability modifier and the character's proficiency bonus. When a monster makes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.
Ability Modifier. 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.
Proficiency Bonus. You add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll when you attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, as well as when you attack with a spell.
"Spell Attack" and "Weapon Attack" are not new terms to 2024. They originated in the first printed of the Player's Handbook. They have just be collected in the Rules Glossary in 2024, but functionally they have not changed.
True Strike, Booming Blade, and Green-flame Blade all tell you to make an attack with a weapon. It never mattered that a Spell told you to make an attack and still doesn't. These are weapon attacks. They are governed by the rules of weapon attacks except where the spell description overrides it.
The Sage Advice Compendium officially rules that when interpreting the rules, if a spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon, it doesn't matter if a spell you to make that attack.
This means that a Wand of the War Mage doesn't give you a bonus to every weapon you use as long as you cast True Strike. It also means that you can "safely" attack a Tarrasque with True Strike using a ranged weapon because it is a Ranged Weapon Attack, not a Ranged Spell Attack, and does not trigger Reflective Carapace (there may be other monsters/abilities that do similar things, but the Tarrasque is what I could think of).
"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." As I wrote in the post you quoted, the idea is that this spell attack also being a weapon attack is an exception and means that you would use dexterity or strength without the line in true strike. Also, the rules glossary has provided a new definition of spell and weapon attacks, meaning that ruling you quoted is no longer relevant.
The Weapon Attack and Spell Attack rules are the same in 2014 and 2024. The actual rules for attacking with spells and weapons are in the Spell and Combat chapters. There are no changes in 2024 that conflict the ruling. Therefore all Sage Advice rulings on how to interpret them still stand. If you want to argue your House Rules, fine, but if we're discussing the RAW and RAI, you can't discard inconvenient passages.
The fact that True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon is spell rule that conflicts with and overrides all rules regarding Spell Attacks. Without that fact, weapon properties don't apply, weapon bonuses don't apply, weapon masteries don't apply. All interpretations that True Strike is a Spell Attack requires willfully ignoring that the spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon.
Then can you quote for me the definitions of spell attack and weapon attack in the 2014 rules?
Your interpretation is willfully ignoring that nothing prevents true strike being both a spell and weapon attack.
In 2014, when a spell required an Attack Roll, you would refer to this section. This is actually a repeat and clarification of the section from Combat, but if you were specifically looking for how to resolve a spell attack, you would probably look here first.
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.
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
The phrasing has changed, but there are no changes of substance. An attack roll from a spell is handled the same way in both editions.
In 2014, when resolving an attack from a weapon, you refer to this section. This handles both weapon and spell attacks.
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.
Modifiers to the Roll
When a character makes an attack roll, the two most common modifiers to the roll are an ability modifier and the character's proficiency bonus. When a monster makes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.
Ability Modifier. 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.
Proficiency Bonus. You add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll when you attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, as well as when you attack with a spell.
"Spell Attack" and "Weapon Attack" are not new terms to 2024. They originated in the first printed of the Player's Handbook. They have just be collected in the Rules Glossary in 2024, but functionally they have not changed.
True Strike, Booming Blade, and Green-flame Blade all tell you to make an attack with a weapon. It never mattered that a Spell told you to make an attack and still doesn't. These are weapon attacks. They are governed by the rules of weapon attacks except where the spell description overrides it.
The Sage Advice Compendium officially rules that when interpreting the rules, if a spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon, it doesn't matter if a spell you to make that attack.
This means that a Wand of the War Mage doesn't give you a bonus to every weapon you use as long as you cast True Strike. It also means that you can "safely" attack a Tarrasque with True Strike using a ranged weapon because it is a Ranged Weapon Attack, not a Ranged Spell Attack, and does not trigger Reflective Carapace (there may be other monsters/abilities that do similar things, but the Tarrasque is what I could think of).
No, when looking at definitions for spell and weapon attacks, you look at this entry and this entry.
The thing in True Strike (and Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade...) that makes it a spell attack is the spell description literally calling for you to make an attack (roll the dice and everything). The thing that makes it a weapon attack is that it tells you to make the attack with a weapon. Both are true, so both are true.
The last part is false. True Strike tells you to make a Weapon Attack. This overrides the General Rule regarding Spell Attacks. True Strike is a Weapon Attack only. It does not matter that a spell told you to make a Weapon Attack.
There is no 2024 rule, generic or specific, that makes weapon attacks and spell attacks mutually exclusive. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to create such a exclusion.
Of course there is.
A weapon attack is an attack with a weapon and is resolved by a d20 roll plus the proficiency bonus plus the Strength or Dexterity, depending on whether it is a ranged or melee attack.
An attack from a spell is resolved by a d20 roll plus the proficiency bonus plus the Spellcasting proficiency modifier.
In order for it to be possible that an attack is both a Spell Attack and Weapon attack, both attack resolutions must be possible. They are not.
The Good Faith interpretation of the rules conflict and the conflict must be resolved by Exceptions Supersede General Rules. Therefore all spells that could potentially be either type of attack must specify in the spell description which type they actually are, and True Strike, Green-flame Blade, and Booming Blade all do.
No, when looking at definitions for spell and weapon attacks, you look at this entry and this entry.
And what exactly do those entries tell you about resolving a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack?
In order to conclude that True Strike is a Weapon Attack and Spell Attack, you must examine those entries in isolation, ignoring the basic rules of the game, the Spell Description itself, and an official ruling from the Principal Rules Designer himself.
For True Strike, the range is self (the spell's effect originates from the caster) and the effects are not limited by the range --- the target is the target of a weapon attack, which is made with a weapon being used as the material component --- and the attack itself is effectively the somatic component. The weapon is not limited to the range of self, and neither is the attack, nor the target.
The Spell component is not the attack with the weapon it's done during spellcasting and somatic components is seperate from, and precedes spell effects So when casting True Strike, you make forceful gestures with a weapon, then you're guided by a flash of magical insight and make one attack with the weapon See this Sage Advice Compendium as an example:
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
There is no 2024 rule, generic or specific, that makes weapon attacks and spell attacks mutually exclusive. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to create such a exclusion.
In order for it to be possible that an attack is both a Spell Attack and Weapon attack, both attack resolutions must be possible. They are not. The Good Faith interpretation of the rules conflict and the conflict must be resolved by Exceptions Supersede General Rules. Therefore all spells that could potentially be either type of attack must specify in the spell description which type they actually are, and True Strike, Green-flame Blade, and Booming Blade all do.
The rules you are referencing don't actually establish the direct correlation. There is no rules conflict here, good faith or otherwise.
Note: I'm not accusing you of bad faith; I think you are geting tripped up by the same stuff that tripped up the 2014 casting/etc. rules. In 2024, they have substantially cleaned up the rules, enough so that they could add a straightforward glossary and provide drastically simpler definitions of "spell attack" and "weapon attack."
An attack in a spell is a spell attack (whether it calls it a "spell attack" or not; most-but-not-all spells do because the extra clarity is a good thing). So it uses your spell attack modifier, etc. But if the spell says "do a weapon attack" then you're using the weapon's attack modifier, whatever it is --- ST, DX, maybe a casting stat in the case of a pact weapon, etc. --- in True Strike's case, it's specifically overriden again by the spell itself. The weapon attack can and does generally override the attack modifier --- that doesn't mean it redefines the whole attack.
They have essentially removed the notion that an attack must be one or the other. This removes much of the complex classification that came up in the 2014 rules --- consider the old argument between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon."
This is not an exploit. It's a simplification, and a nice one at that. An Arcane Grimoire makes your True Strike more accurate (more "true")? That's not an "oh no!" that's a "hooray!"
Think of true strike like a very brief Haste-like effect. The primary target of the spell is the spellcaster. Range self. The caster is targeted. The effect? They get to make an attack. A special attack as outlined by the spell effect text.
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 as a side note, if you use an Arcane Grimoire in casting True Strike(2024) are you going to hit a creature with the book? ( if you note, true strike clearly states: “you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.”, which means making a improvised weapon attack with the book considering it was used to replace the material component of the spell.)
[Redacted], you'd have the grimoire in one hand and a weapon (say, a longsword) in the other. The weapon is the material component; the book is just a casting aid. In essense, you'd be using the book to improve the weapon attack's guidance (i.e. be more accurate).
There is no 2024 rule, generic or specific, that makes weapon attacks and spell attacks mutually exclusive. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to create such a exclusion.
In order for it to be possible that an attack is both a Spell Attack and Weapon attack, both attack resolutions must be possible. They are not. The Good Faith interpretation of the rules conflict and the conflict must be resolved by Exceptions Supersede General Rules. Therefore all spells that could potentially be either type of attack must specify in the spell description which type they actually are, and True Strike, Green-flame Blade, and Booming Blade all do.
The rules you are referencing don't actually establish the direct correlation. There is no rules conflict here, good faith or otherwise.
Note: I'm not accusing you of bad faith; I think you are geting tripped up by the same stuff that tripped up the 2014 casting/etc. rules. In 2024, they have substantially cleaned up the rules, enough so that they could add a straightforward glossary and provide drastically simpler definitions of "spell attack" and "weapon attack."
An attack in a spell is a spell attack (whether it calls it a "spell attack" or not; most-but-not-all spells do because the extra clarity is a good thing). So it uses your spell attack modifier, etc. But if the spell says "do a weapon attack" then you're using the weapon's attack modifier, whatever it is --- ST, DX, maybe a casting stat in the case of a pact weapon, etc. --- in True Strike's case, it's specifically overriden again by the spell itself. The weapon attack can and does generally override the attack modifier --- that doesn't mean it redefines the whole attack.
They have essentially removed the notion that an attack must be one or the other. This removes much of the complex classification that came up in the 2014 rules --- consider the old argument between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon."
This is not an exploit. It's a simplification, and a nice one at that. An Arcane Grimoire makes your True Strike more accurate (more "true")? That's not an "oh no!" that's a "hooray!"
They have not removed anything. A melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon are the same thing. It always has been and still is. The attack roll is resolved by 1d20 plus the proficiency bonus plus Strength modifier unless an effect (such as Finesse or a spell) tells you otherwise. The Spell Attack resolution conflicts with that. True Strike overrides the resolution of a Weapon Attack in the case of that spell, but Green-flame Blade and Booming Blade do not and the Principal Rules Designer has already stated that when a spell tells you to attack with a weapon, it does not matter that a spell told you to do it.
You can rule what you want at your table, but in order to conclude that their is no conflict, you must ignore portions of the rules and and the direct guidance of the designer.
Even if the already exhaustive posts on the rules did not convince you, the interpretation you advocate fails the litmus test of is it reasonable that a Cantrip doubles up on those modifiers? At level 20 with a 20 Charisma, a Warlock could have a + 16 to hit with True Strike, Wand of the War Mage +3, and +3 Weapon.
Who else achieves a +16 to hit with a 20 attribute (before factoring Bardic Inspiration and other effects that would also stack with the above?
Picking up a Wand of the War Mage +x and making every weapon attack an attack with a +x weapon is absolutely an exploit.
Attempting to apply Arcane Grimoire or Wand of the War Mage to to all Weapon Attacks made when you cast True Strike is absolutely an exploit and doubly so when attempting to further stack magic weapon modifiers and effects like Agonizing Blast. It is one or the other and any other interpretation is exploitive. You may not be arguing in bad faith, but your conclusion creates an exploit that certainly violates the good faith guideline (what can we call bad faith without attaching motive?).
True Strike targets the caster who then makes a melee or ranged Weapon Attack following all of the rules for a Weapon Attack (and only Weapon Attack) except for the change in the attribute modifier used. True Strike used to give "insight" in the form of Advantage on one attack on the next turn, letting the caster attack with advantage every other turn. The spell is still giving the caster insight, but it is now restricted to affecting Weapon Attacks and allows you to make a Weapon Attack as part of casting it so that it does fall into the same trap of an attack every other turn. True Strike is more like a one attack Shillelagh. (Now that I think about it, making True Strike an arcane version of Shillelagh could have been really nice).
the interpretation you advocate fails the litmus test of is it reasonable that a Cantrip doubles up on those modifiers? At level 20 with a 20 Charisma, a Warlock could have a + 16 to hit with True Strike, Wand of the War Mage +3, and +3 Weapon.
They'd have a +17 to hit (+6 proficiency, +5 for CHA, +3 for the weapon, +3 for the wand), and +8 to damage (+5 for CHA, +3 for the weapon).
'a and b can't both exist because ab isn't ever stated to exist' I think that question answers itself.
True strike tells you to make an attack, while true strike does not.
It would say make a spell attack just like sorcerous burst does.
As others have pointed out, you cannot replace the component, since it has a value.
the weapon is a material component, and the strike is the somatic component.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
By that logic, Chill Touch shouldn't work either because the hand needed to touch the target is illusory...
In fact I can't think of an argument to claim that True Strike doesn't work that wouldn't immediately make Chill Touch stop working as well.
Edit: hm... wait you may actually have a point there. Chill Touch's range is Touch, but True Strike's range is Self. Which would suggest this not a spell attack but a temporary buff, which is then immediately consumed through a weapon attack as part of the spell casting.
True Strike(2014) has “an attack roll”, meaning any attack that requires a roll-to-hit can be used and the effect of the spell is to only grant advantage on the very next attack roll.
True Strike(2024) has “ an attack with a weapon”, that now limits the “attack roll” to only weapon attacks and the self range coupled with the Attack/save block descriptor further limits the attack to a melee weapon attack.
Both spells focus on the attack, only the attack is the focus of the spell, and the focus of the spells is whatever weapon(2024), or attack roll(2014) of choice is that the caster uses.
True Strike(2024) doesn’t act or function like the previous version, and the wording used is similar but does not function like other similar type spells.
The minimal amount of descriptive text has to be used with what the information in the header provides, and what rules the entire description of the spell refers to in order to obtain a general understanding about what the function of the spell does without the designers intent factoring into the context of the RAW intent.
Edit: True Strike(2014) doesn’t have a material component, which changes the dynamic of the function of the spell, and so the closest spell description that can be used to describe it’s function is similar to ones used in not quite similar fashion. ( but it’s official now, and contradiction with SAC has occurred, SAC is 2014 based, so it becomes irrelevant to the discussion about the 2024 version.). Both versions however do state an attack is made, the method of what attack can be made is drastically different however. And that is why the 2024 version of TrueStrike(2024) isn’t a Melee Spell Attack, or any type of spell attack based roll, it forces a melee weapon to be used to clarify the 2014 version of a broad range of attack rolls that could be used.
It’s a massive difference in function, and can’t rely on previous attempts at defining what the designers intent was, as that intent may have changed since.
True Strike(2024) is now a Melee Weapon Attack that is enhanced by a cantrip spell, and former guidance is useless in this regard as that guidance is now out-dated.
Sorry but it seems that the designer giveth, and the designer has taketh away.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
2024 True Strike can be used with ranged weapons. The range of self only limits the point of origin of the spell; the range of the effects-coming-from-the-point-of-origin are, effectively, only limited by the weapon's range. As the spell does not limit the weapon to "melee" it can indeed be a ranged weapon.
The spell is limited to just melee, otherwise you get the same disfuction that was implied by the 2014 version that any attack roll is possible.
Like monsters, a change in ability is tempered by constraints in usefulness, and TrueStrike(2024) imparts that constraint. ( it might well be digital Errata that isn’t scheduled for physical change till the SRD5.2 is released. Till then it is clearly designed to only work with melee ranged weapons, as only Finesse melee weapons allow you to choose ether str or dex for the weapon ability score modifiers, all else is GM fiat.)
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Or it may very well be one of many errors on dndbeyond.
The last part is false. True Strike tells you to make a Weapon Attack. This overrides the General Rule regarding Spell Attacks. True Strike is a Weapon Attack only. It does not matter that a spell told you to make a Weapon Attack.
How to add Tooltips.
Do you have any basis for not letting true strike be both a weapon and spell attack?
There is no 2024 rule, generic or specific, that makes weapon attacks and spell attacks mutually exclusive. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to create such a exclusion.
In 2014, when a spell required an Attack Roll, you would refer to this section. This is actually a repeat and clarification of the section from Combat, but if you were specifically looking for how to resolve a spell attack, you would probably look here first.
In 2024, you refer to this section.
The phrasing has changed, but there are no changes of substance. An attack roll from a spell is handled the same way in both editions.
In 2014, when resolving an attack from a weapon, you refer to this section. This handles both weapon and spell attacks.
In 2024, you would refer to this section,
"Spell Attack" and "Weapon Attack" are not new terms to 2024. They originated in the first printed of the Player's Handbook. They have just be collected in the Rules Glossary in 2024, but functionally they have not changed.
True Strike, Booming Blade, and Green-flame Blade all tell you to make an attack with a weapon. It never mattered that a Spell told you to make an attack and still doesn't. These are weapon attacks. They are governed by the rules of weapon attacks except where the spell description overrides it.
The Sage Advice Compendium officially rules that when interpreting the rules, if a spell tells you to make an attack with a weapon, it doesn't matter if a spell you to make that attack.
This means that a Wand of the War Mage doesn't give you a bonus to every weapon you use as long as you cast True Strike. It also means that you can "safely" attack a Tarrasque with True Strike using a ranged weapon because it is a Ranged Weapon Attack, not a Ranged Spell Attack, and does not trigger Reflective Carapace (there may be other monsters/abilities that do similar things, but the Tarrasque is what I could think of).
How to add Tooltips.
No, when looking at definitions for spell and weapon attacks, you look at this entry and this entry.
Of course there is.
A weapon attack is an attack with a weapon and is resolved by a d20 roll plus the proficiency bonus plus the Strength or Dexterity, depending on whether it is a ranged or melee attack.
An attack from a spell is resolved by a d20 roll plus the proficiency bonus plus the Spellcasting proficiency modifier.
In order for it to be possible that an attack is both a Spell Attack and Weapon attack, both attack resolutions must be possible. They are not.
The Good Faith interpretation of the rules conflict and the conflict must be resolved by Exceptions Supersede General Rules. Therefore all spells that could potentially be either type of attack must specify in the spell description which type they actually are, and True Strike, Green-flame Blade, and Booming Blade all do.
How to add Tooltips.
And what exactly do those entries tell you about resolving a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack?
In order to conclude that True Strike is a Weapon Attack and Spell Attack, you must examine those entries in isolation, ignoring the basic rules of the game, the Spell Description itself, and an official ruling from the Principal Rules Designer himself.
How to add Tooltips.
This isn't entirely correct. It was answered earlier:
The rules you are referencing don't actually establish the direct correlation. There is no rules conflict here, good faith or otherwise.
Note: I'm not accusing you of bad faith; I think you are geting tripped up by the same stuff that tripped up the 2014 casting/etc. rules. In 2024, they have substantially cleaned up the rules, enough so that they could add a straightforward glossary and provide drastically simpler definitions of "spell attack" and "weapon attack."
An attack in a spell is a spell attack (whether it calls it a "spell attack" or not; most-but-not-all spells do because the extra clarity is a good thing). So it uses your spell attack modifier, etc. But if the spell says "do a weapon attack" then you're using the weapon's attack modifier, whatever it is --- ST, DX, maybe a casting stat in the case of a pact weapon, etc. --- in True Strike's case, it's specifically overriden again by the spell itself. The weapon attack can and does generally override the attack modifier --- that doesn't mean it redefines the whole attack.
They have essentially removed the notion that an attack must be one or the other. This removes much of the complex classification that came up in the 2014 rules --- consider the old argument between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon."
This is not an exploit. It's a simplification, and a nice one at that. An Arcane Grimoire makes your True Strike more accurate (more "true")? That's not an "oh no!" that's a "hooray!"
Think of true strike like a very brief Haste-like effect. The primary target of the spell is the spellcaster. Range self. The caster is targeted. The effect? They get to make an attack. A special attack as outlined by the spell effect text.
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.
[Redacted], you'd have the grimoire in one hand and a weapon (say, a longsword) in the other. The weapon is the material component; the book is just a casting aid. In essense, you'd be using the book to improve the weapon attack's guidance (i.e. be more accurate).
They have not removed anything. A melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon are the same thing. It always has been and still is. The attack roll is resolved by 1d20 plus the proficiency bonus plus Strength modifier unless an effect (such as Finesse or a spell) tells you otherwise. The Spell Attack resolution conflicts with that. True Strike overrides the resolution of a Weapon Attack in the case of that spell, but Green-flame Blade and Booming Blade do not and the Principal Rules Designer has already stated that when a spell tells you to attack with a weapon, it does not matter that a spell told you to do it.
You can rule what you want at your table, but in order to conclude that their is no conflict, you must ignore portions of the rules and and the direct guidance of the designer.
Even if the already exhaustive posts on the rules did not convince you, the interpretation you advocate fails the litmus test of is it reasonable that a Cantrip doubles up on those modifiers? At level 20 with a 20 Charisma, a Warlock could have a + 16 to hit with True Strike, Wand of the War Mage +3, and +3 Weapon.
Who else achieves a +16 to hit with a 20 attribute (before factoring Bardic Inspiration and other effects that would also stack with the above?
Picking up a Wand of the War Mage +x and making every weapon attack an attack with a +x weapon is absolutely an exploit.
Attempting to apply Arcane Grimoire or Wand of the War Mage to to all Weapon Attacks made when you cast True Strike is absolutely an exploit and doubly so when attempting to further stack magic weapon modifiers and effects like Agonizing Blast. It is one or the other and any other interpretation is exploitive. You may not be arguing in bad faith, but your conclusion creates an exploit that certainly violates the good faith guideline (what can we call bad faith without attaching motive?).
True Strike targets the caster who then makes a melee or ranged Weapon Attack following all of the rules for a Weapon Attack (and only Weapon Attack) except for the change in the attribute modifier used. True Strike used to give "insight" in the form of Advantage on one attack on the next turn, letting the caster attack with advantage every other turn. The spell is still giving the caster insight, but it is now restricted to affecting Weapon Attacks and allows you to make a Weapon Attack as part of casting it so that it does fall into the same trap of an attack every other turn. True Strike is more like a one attack Shillelagh. (Now that I think about it, making True Strike an arcane version of Shillelagh could have been really nice).
How to add Tooltips.
They'd have a +17 to hit (+6 proficiency, +5 for CHA, +3 for the weapon, +3 for the wand), and +8 to damage (+5 for CHA, +3 for the weapon).