You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack roll if you have Advantage on the roll and the attack uses a Finesse or a Ranged weapon. The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s type.
You don’t need Advantage on the attack roll if at least one of your allies is within 5 feet of the target, the ally doesn’t have the Incapacitated condition, and you don’t have Disadvantage on the attack roll.
The extra damage increases as you gain Rogue levels, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue Features table.
Casting Time: Action Range: Self Components: S, M (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP) Duration: Instantaneous
Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon 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).
Cantrip Upgrade. Whether you deal Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type, the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6).
Can Sneak Attack be used with True Strike, assuming all other conditions are met? (e.g., the weapon being used is either a Finesse or Ranged weapon, the attacker has Advantage or the opponent is within 5' of an ally, etc.)
(I know my feelings on the matter, but I'm curious to hear the reasoning of other people, especially if it turns out my opinion is not the general opinion)
[...] these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast green-flame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit.
Yea this works. When you cast TS you explicitly make an attack with the weapon and thus you qualify for Sneak Attack (if the rest of its requirements are met).
Related, and this is not meant to be a 'gotcha' but is just me seeking understanding of other people's views, how would a magic item that gives a bonus to Spell Attack rolls (e.g., Arcane Grimoire) and a magical weapon figure into the True Strike?
(Yes, I know the subject of Spell Attack bonuses and True Strike came up earlier. I am curious about how people interpret the entire aggregate of True Strike/Sneak Attack/Spell Attack Bonus/Magical Weapon Bonus since it seems like that can get out of hand.)
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Monk weapons, which are the following:
Simple Melee weapons
Martial Melee weapons that have the Light property
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only Monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield.
Bonus Unarmed Strike. You can make an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.
Martial Arts Die. You can roll 1d6 in place of the normal damage of your Unarmed Strike or Monk weapons. This die changes as you gain Monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk Features table.
Does the statement 'in place of normal damage' preclude the use of the Martial Arts Die for a True Strike with a Monk weapon?
Related, and this is not meant to be a 'gotcha' but is just me seeking understanding of other people's views, how would a magic item that gives a bonus to Spell Attack rolls (e.g., Arcane Grimoire) and a magical weapon figure into the True Strike?
(Yes, I know the subject of Spell Attack bonuses and True Strike came up earlier. I am curious about how people interpret the entire aggregate of True Strike/Sneak Attack/Spell Attack Bonus/Magical Weapon Bonus since it seems like that can get out of hand.)
Spell attacks and weapon attacks are different things so depending upon which one you think that True Strike is then you have your answer.
Related, and this is not meant to be a 'gotcha' but is just me seeking understanding of other people's views, how would a magic item that gives a bonus to Spell Attack rolls (e.g., Arcane Grimoire) and a magical weapon figure into the True Strike?
(Yes, I know the subject of Spell Attack bonuses and True Strike came up earlier. I am curious about how people interpret the entire aggregate of True Strike/Sneak Attack/Spell Attack Bonus/Magical Weapon Bonus since it seems like that can get out of hand.)
True Strike is a weapon attack like Booming Blade and GFB - if it was a spell attack it would not need to specify you use your spellcasting ability modifier in place of Str/Dex, because spell attacks always use your spellcasting ability modifier.
You can use Martial Arts to replace the weapon's damage die when casting True Strike but it does not replace the dice of the added damage from the cantrip, and only if the other conditions for Martial Arts apply.
You can use Sneak Attack with True Strike if the other conditions for Sneak Attack apply.
You can also use Divine Smite/Eldritch Smite and related spells with True Strike, and if you use a magic weapon the bonuses from the magic weapon - both attack and damage apply. Bonuses to spell attack rolls - e.g. wand of the warmage - do not apply. Any bonuses to spell damage only apply to the extra damage added by the True Strike cantrip.
However, note that Extra Attack will nearly always deal more damage than a single attack with True Strike.
. . .However, note that Extra Attack will nearly always deal more damage than a single attack with True Strike.
Multiple subclasses allow you to replace one of your attacks with a cantrip when you make Extra Attacks. To clarify, you are saying that replacing multiple attacks with a single True Strike does less damage, not replacing a single attack with True Strike and then making the additional attacks, correct? (Just in case I am missing something).
To ensure I am reading you correctly, you consider True Strike a weapon attack that would not benefit from a magic item that boosts a spell attack roll, correct?
Spell attacks and weapon attacks are different things so depending upon which one you think that True Strike is then you have your answer.
I understand it depends on whether you feel it is a spell or a weapon attack. I already have my opinion on the matter (if people really care, I will post it near the end of the topic, but I am holding off right now because I am trying to get people's opinions and don't want to bias it by presenting mine at this point).
I'm trying to learn other people's opinions. If you feel I am putting you on the spot or you don't want to share, I apologize. I am not trying to demand or badger an answer; I am simply asking in case you are willing to share.
. . .However, note that Extra Attack will nearly always deal more damage than a single attack with True Strike.
Multiple subclasses allow you to replace one of your attacks with a cantrip when you make Extra Attacks. To clarify, you are saying that replacing multiple attacks with a single True Strike does less damage, not replacing a single attack with True Strike and then making the additional attacks, correct? (Just in case I am missing something).
Correct, replacing two attacks with one True Strike is a bad deal.
To ensure I am reading you correctly, you consider True Strike a weapon attack that would not benefit from a magic item that boosts a spell attack roll, correct?
Yes, True Strike is a weapon attack, so it can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus (usually 1 to 3) to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
To ensure I am reading you correctly, you consider True Strike a weapon attack that would not benefit from a magic item that boosts a spell attack roll, correct?
Yes, True Strike is a weapon attack, so it can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus (usually 1 to 3) to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
Ironically, the wording of Weapon, +1, +2, or +3 is once again vague and could be interpreted as allowing a bonus on a Spell Attack roll since it simply refers to ' attack rolls . . . made with this magic weapon' rather than being more specific meaning it is conceivable for the argument to be made that both bonuses would apply.
N.B. I am not proposing that this interpretation is correct; I am merely noting it. Part of the reason I started this thread was to see how many people would offer it.
To ensure I am reading you correctly, you consider True Strike a weapon attack that would not benefit from a magic item that boosts a spell attack roll, correct?
Yes, True Strike is a weapon attack, so it can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus (usually 1 to 3) to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
Ironically, the wording of Weapon, +1, +2, or +3 is once again vague and could be interpreted as allowing a bonus on a Spell Attack roll since it simply refers to ' attack rolls . . . made with this magic weapon' rather than being more specific meaning it is conceivable for the argument to be made that both bonuses would apply.
N.B. I am not proposing that this interpretation is correct; I am merely noting it. Part of the reason I started this thread was to see how many people would offer it.
@Plaguescarred posted the following in a different thread. It's somewhat related.
@RandomMagilla Does the +1 from Improved Pact Weapon carry through when used as a spell focus?
@JeremyECrawford The bonus to attack rolls conferred by Improve Pact Weapon applies to the weapon's attack rolls, not to a spell's attack rolls.
@TheTaro Hey #DnD scholars… if you have a +1 (etc) weapon and can use weapon as a spell focus, you get that +1 for spells too right?
@Dan_Dillon_1 No, you'll notice in the description of magic weapons that grant these sorts of bonuses (usually +1 to +3), it specifies that you add that bonus to attack and damage rolls made using the weapon. That's referring to weapon attacks.
Thank you very much for supplying those external links. That would seem to indicate that regardless of the side you come down on (whether the roll for True Strike is a Spell Attack and benefits from magic items such as Rhythm-Makers Drum or it isn't), at the very least, you would not get to 'double-dip' and receive both the bonus from the item and the weapon.
Thank you very much for supplying those external links. That would seem to indicate that regardless of the side you come down on (whether the roll for True Strike is a Spell Attack and benefits from magic items such as Rhythm-Makers Drum or it isn't), at the very least, you would not get to 'double-dip' and receive both the bonus from the item and the weapon.
You're always welcome! But big thanks to Plague in any case :D
I've just remembered that Plague, as Oghma, god of knowledge, also answered your question about the Rhythm-Maker's Drum here, my fellow adventurer:
Thank you very much for supplying those external links. That would seem to indicate that regardless of the side you come down on (whether the roll for True Strike is a Spell Attack and benefits from magic items such as Rhythm-Makers Drum or it isn't), at the very least, you would not get to 'double-dip' and receive both the bonus from the item and the weapon.
You're always welcome! But big thanks to Plague in any case :D
I've just remembered that Plague, as Oghma, god of knowledge, also answered your question about the Rhythm-Maker's Drum here, my fellow adventurer:
I have a Rhythm-Maker's Drum, +3 in my left hand while I use my longsword to cast True Strike. Do I get +3 to the attack roll?
No since True Strike doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack per se.
But many DM probably would rule otherwise.
This has been a topic on several Youtube videos which talk about using True Strike with Antagonizing Blast. I don't believe that should work as True Strike isn't spell damage. But it has apparently become a popular opinion that it does as it allows you to add your ability modifier twice. (or more precisely two different modifiers.)
You're always welcome! But big thanks to Plague in any case :D
I've just remembered that Plague, as Oghma, god of knowledge, also answered your question about the Rhythm-Maker's Drum here, my fellow adventurer:
I recall that, but as he pointed out, some people interpret it differently. Part of this thread is to help me determine how many others interpret it differently. While being in a minority view (I am not saying I am in the minority view, but I am attempting to see where I am situated) is not an immediate indication that an interpretation is incorrect, it does indicate that one should at least examine one's view more carefully.
However, in this case, I am thanking you because the new information you provided seems to clarify that those who insist on interpreting it differently should not claim the bonus from a magical weapon. This makes it somewhat easier to separate good-faith interpretations (e.g., I honestly believe that the roll is a Spell Casting roll, so I shouldn't receive any magical weapon bonuses due to those clarifications) from bad-faith interpretations (e.g., Because of the specific wordings involved, I should be allowed both bonuses).
Thank you very much for supplying those external links. That would seem to indicate that regardless of the side you come down on (whether the roll for True Strike is a Spell Attack and benefits from magic items such as Rhythm-Makers Drum or it isn't), at the very least, you would not get to 'double-dip' and receive both the bonus from the item and the weapon.
You're always welcome! But big thanks to Plague in any case :D
I've just remembered that Plague, as Oghma, god of knowledge, also answered your question about the Rhythm-Maker's Drum here, my fellow adventurer:
I have a Rhythm-Maker's Drum, +3 in my left hand while I use my longsword to cast True Strike. Do I get +3 to the attack roll?
No since True Strike doesn't specifically let you make a spell attack per se.
But many DM probably would rule otherwise.
This has been a topic on several Youtube videos which talk about using True Strike with Antagonizing Blast. I don't believe that should work as True Strike isn't spell damage. But it has apparently become a popular opinion that it does as it allows you to add your ability modifier twice. (or more precisely two different modifiers.)
I know. Without extra clarification via errata or updated SAC, the debate will be endless.
In my case, I also believe True Strike doesn't interact with Agonizing Blast. This is my particular way of explaining it: the key to knowing if Agonizing Blast applies to one of your Warlock cantrips is checking whether the cantrip involves a spell's damage rolls, as stated in the Eldritch Invocation. And the weapon attack in True Strike is not a spell's damage roll.
(EDIT: I wrote "Antagonizing", instead of "Agonizing")
Btw, you have already made a decision on your stance on how TS can be used with spell attacks, and while some DM’s may allow it, RAW TS only works on Weapon attacks and not attacks by spell or magic.
The debate is that some people argue that the True Strike roll is a Spell Attack and not a Weapon Attack (again, I am not offering a position at this point, merely pointing out that this position exists). The spell's wording is imprecise, so their argument is not entirely without merit.
However, most seem to feel it is a Weapon Attack. I don't think anyone here has argued for it being a Spell Attack (though they have in other threads).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can Sneak Attack be used with True Strike, assuming all other conditions are met? (e.g., the weapon being used is either a Finesse or Ranged weapon, the attacker has Advantage or the opponent is within 5' of an ally, etc.)
(I know my feelings on the matter, but I'm curious to hear the reasoning of other people, especially if it turns out my opinion is not the general opinion)
It should work, just like the green-flame blade and booming blade do.
EDIT: Sage Advice Compendium: Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?:
Yea this works. When you cast TS you explicitly make an attack with the weapon and thus you qualify for Sneak Attack (if the rest of its requirements are met).
Related, and this is not meant to be a 'gotcha' but is just me seeking understanding of other people's views, how would a magic item that gives a bonus to Spell Attack rolls (e.g., Arcane Grimoire) and a magical weapon figure into the True Strike?
(Yes, I know the subject of Spell Attack bonuses and True Strike came up earlier. I am curious about how people interpret the entire aggregate of True Strike/Sneak Attack/Spell Attack Bonus/Magical Weapon Bonus since it seems like that can get out of hand.)
Just for fun, let's throw in Martial Arts:
Does the statement 'in place of normal damage' preclude the use of the Martial Arts Die for a True Strike with a Monk weapon?
Spell attacks and weapon attacks are different things so depending upon which one you think that True Strike is then you have your answer.
The answer to your question depends on whether you consider True Strike a spell attack or a weapon attack (which is the case for me): Is the attack from True Strike both a Weapon and Spell Attack ? - Rules & Game Mechanics
True Strike is a weapon attack like Booming Blade and GFB - if it was a spell attack it would not need to specify you use your spellcasting ability modifier in place of Str/Dex, because spell attacks always use your spellcasting ability modifier.
You can use Martial Arts to replace the weapon's damage die when casting True Strike but it does not replace the dice of the added damage from the cantrip, and only if the other conditions for Martial Arts apply.
You can use Sneak Attack with True Strike if the other conditions for Sneak Attack apply.
You can also use Divine Smite/Eldritch Smite and related spells with True Strike, and if you use a magic weapon the bonuses from the magic weapon - both attack and damage apply. Bonuses to spell attack rolls - e.g. wand of the warmage - do not apply. Any bonuses to spell damage only apply to the extra damage added by the True Strike cantrip.
However, note that Extra Attack will nearly always deal more damage than a single attack with True Strike.
Multiple subclasses allow you to replace one of your attacks with a cantrip when you make Extra Attacks. To clarify, you are saying that replacing multiple attacks with a single True Strike does less damage, not replacing a single attack with True Strike and then making the additional attacks, correct? (Just in case I am missing something).
To ensure I am reading you correctly, you consider True Strike a weapon attack that would not benefit from a magic item that boosts a spell attack roll, correct?
I understand it depends on whether you feel it is a spell or a weapon attack. I already have my opinion on the matter (if people really care, I will post it near the end of the topic, but I am holding off right now because I am trying to get people's opinions and don't want to bias it by presenting mine at this point).
I'm trying to learn other people's opinions. If you feel I am putting you on the spot or you don't want to share, I apologize. I am not trying to demand or badger an answer; I am simply asking in case you are willing to share.
Correct, replacing two attacks with one True Strike is a bad deal.
Yes, True Strike is a weapon attack, so it can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus (usually 1 to 3) to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
Ironically, the wording of Weapon, +1, +2, or +3 is once again vague and could be interpreted as allowing a bonus on a Spell Attack roll since it simply refers to ' attack rolls . . . made with this magic weapon' rather than being more specific meaning it is conceivable for the argument to be made that both bonuses would apply.
N.B. I am not proposing that this interpretation is correct; I am merely noting it. Part of the reason I started this thread was to see how many people would offer it.
@Plaguescarred posted the following in a different thread. It's somewhat related.
Thank you very much for supplying those external links. That would seem to indicate that regardless of the side you come down on (whether the roll for True Strike is a Spell Attack and benefits from magic items such as Rhythm-Makers Drum or it isn't), at the very least, you would not get to 'double-dip' and receive both the bonus from the item and the weapon.
You're always welcome! But big thanks to Plague in any case :D
I've just remembered that Plague, as Oghma, god of knowledge, also answered your question about the Rhythm-Maker's Drum here, my fellow adventurer:
This has been a topic on several Youtube videos which talk about using True Strike with Antagonizing Blast. I don't believe that should work as True Strike isn't spell damage. But it has apparently become a popular opinion that it does as it allows you to add your ability modifier twice. (or more precisely two different modifiers.)
I recall that, but as he pointed out, some people interpret it differently. Part of this thread is to help me determine how many others interpret it differently. While being in a minority view (I am not saying I am in the minority view, but I am attempting to see where I am situated) is not an immediate indication that an interpretation is incorrect, it does indicate that one should at least examine one's view more carefully.
However, in this case, I am thanking you because the new information you provided seems to clarify that those who insist on interpreting it differently should not claim the bonus from a magical weapon. This makes it somewhat easier to separate good-faith interpretations (e.g., I honestly believe that the roll is a Spell Casting roll, so I shouldn't receive any magical weapon bonuses due to those clarifications) from bad-faith interpretations (e.g., Because of the specific wordings involved, I should be allowed both bonuses).
I know. Without extra clarification via errata or updated SAC, the debate will be endless.
In my case, I also believe True Strike doesn't interact with Agonizing Blast. This is my particular way of explaining it: the key to knowing if Agonizing Blast applies to one of your Warlock cantrips is checking whether the cantrip involves a spell's damage rolls, as stated in the Eldritch Invocation. And the weapon attack in True Strike is not a spell's damage roll.
(EDIT: I wrote "Antagonizing", instead of "Agonizing")
The debate is that some people argue that the True Strike roll is a Spell Attack and not a Weapon Attack (again, I am not offering a position at this point, merely pointing out that this position exists). The spell's wording is imprecise, so their argument is not entirely without merit.
However, most seem to feel it is a Weapon Attack. I don't think anyone here has argued for it being a Spell Attack (though they have in other threads).