The spells wording is clear enough to express the attack is made by a weapon, not by the spell itself.
The spell itself is nothing more than a buff to the caster in making a weapon attack against another creature.
If the spell was a magic spell attack, the need to mention a weapon attack in the description would be unnecessary.
Rule as Written is not always concise as need be, and with misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that inconsistency it can lead to confusion as to the actual purpose of the function of the rule.
( Rules as Interpreted get confused with Rules as Intended, which leads to Rules as Twisted. )
Rather than use a piecemeal approach to try and interpret the rule, a broader approach is to understand what the rule is trying to change in the general context of the rules, and how much of an “exception” the rule makes to the general. yet some believe that rules “exceptions” can completely override a general rule, and therefore the general rules are broken, but most “exceptions” are usually temporary, via magic, while others are more permanent and are found in the general features of the game, that can be temporarily altered by “exception(s)”.
True Strike is now a Weapon Attack Roll made with a weapon that can use a different modifier than normal, and is nothing more than a weapon attack buffing spell.( and if the attack hits, damage can be modified and buffed at various levels.)
No misreading, no misunderstanding, no indication within the description that has changed the fact it openly states “the weapon used in the casting of the spell is the weapon used to make the attack.” ( while it doesn’t state that most explicitly in those exact terms, the intent is clear, its a weapon attack buffing spell for casters when they are low on spell slots. )
I'm going to disagree with you that the spell wording is clear enough. While I agree with your reasoning, that it is a Weapon Attack, and have always felt that way, there seem to be more than a few people who feel that it constitutes a Spell Attack and that it would benefit from a Spell Attack Bonus magic item. I don't find those people to be particularly stupid, nor do I think they are acting in bad faith. Their thought processes have just led them to a different conclusion.
Ruling out stupidity or bad faith, I am kind of forced into the position of saying that the wording should be clearer.
It is like listening to someone say 'One day I shot an elephant in my pajamas'. Sure, I would say that I think it is very clear that the speaker meant they were wearing their pajamas when they shot the elephant, but if I insist that is the only correct interpretation I am going to feel foolish when the speaker continues and says, 'How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know', because the people with the other interpretation were correct and saw something I didn't (that the first line was the setup to a classic joke).
Interpreted and Intended should be the same thing (I'm not saying they are, just that they should). You have to make an honest attempt to interpret something (examining syntax and considering the context) to try to understand intent behind something, most of the time.
tldr; I agree with you that it is probably meant to be a weapon attack. I just disagree with how you are declaring that it can only be that and there is no other possible interpretation.
As I said, I agree with you that it is a Weapon Attack. You don't need to convince me.
I am simply suggesting you take less of a stance of 'this is the only possible interpretation.' Others seem to have come to a different conclusion (though they seem quiet right now). Taking a hardline stance like you are has unfortunate implications that hurt open dialog.
Sometimes it's correct to take a hardline stance and sometimes it's unreasonable. That is because sometimes the text being discussed really is ambiguous . . . but sometimes it is actually not ambiguous but instead people are reading and interpreting the text incorrectly. Occasionally it is actually the majority of people who are reading it incorrectly which tends to lead to the fiercest debates.
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?
I wanted to circle back to this. You can combine Martial Arts with True Strike only with Monk Weapons. True Strike has a costly material component of a weapon worth 1 CP or more that you use in the attack.
Yeah, the main thing I was looking for was if there was a common interpretation that because you were using True Strike you couldn't use the Martial Arts die because it only replaces 'normal damage' and True Strike is 'magical', or things of that nature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm going to disagree with you that the spell wording is clear enough. While I agree with your reasoning, that it is a Weapon Attack, and have always felt that way, there seem to be more than a few people who feel that it constitutes a Spell Attack and that it would benefit from a Spell Attack Bonus magic item. I don't find those people to be particularly stupid, nor do I think they are acting in bad faith. Their thought processes have just led them to a different conclusion.
Ruling out stupidity or bad faith, I am kind of forced into the position of saying that the wording should be clearer.
It is like listening to someone say 'One day I shot an elephant in my pajamas'. Sure, I would say that I think it is very clear that the speaker meant they were wearing their pajamas when they shot the elephant, but if I insist that is the only correct interpretation I am going to feel foolish when the speaker continues and says, 'How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know', because the people with the other interpretation were correct and saw something I didn't (that the first line was the setup to a classic joke).
Interpreted and Intended should be the same thing (I'm not saying they are, just that they should). You have to make an honest attempt to interpret something (examining syntax and considering the context) to try to understand intent behind something, most of the time.
tldr; I agree with you that it is probably meant to be a weapon attack. I just disagree with how you are declaring that it can only be that and there is no other possible interpretation.
As I said, I agree with you that it is a Weapon Attack. You don't need to convince me.
I am simply suggesting you take less of a stance of 'this is the only possible interpretation.' Others seem to have come to a different conclusion (though they seem quiet right now). Taking a hardline stance like you are has unfortunate implications that hurt open dialog.
Sometimes it's correct to take a hardline stance and sometimes it's unreasonable. That is because sometimes the text being discussed really is ambiguous . . . but sometimes it is actually not ambiguous but instead people are reading and interpreting the text incorrectly. Occasionally it is actually the majority of people who are reading it incorrectly which tends to lead to the fiercest debates.
I wanted to circle back to this. You can combine Martial Arts with True Strike only with Monk Weapons. True Strike has a costly material component of a weapon worth 1 CP or more that you use in the attack.
How to add Tooltips.
Yeah, the main thing I was looking for was if there was a common interpretation that because you were using True Strike you couldn't use the Martial Arts die because it only replaces 'normal damage' and True Strike is 'magical', or things of that nature.