Grimoire "you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls" Spell attacks. The attack with True Strike is NOT a spell attack roll. If it was a spell attack, it would specifically say so, it does not. It is a spell that modifies a Melee attack, to use your spellcasting stats and damage, again for a melee attack. Every spell that is a spell attack will specifically say it is so. True Strike does not.
I would say no to the Grimoire bonus, yes to the bonus of the weapon you are using.
Grimoire "you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls" Spell attacks. The attack with True Strike is NOT a spell attack roll. If it was a spell attack, it would specifically say so, it does not. It is a spell that modifies a Melee attack, to use your spellcasting stats and damage, again for a melee attack. Every spell that is a spell attack will specifically say it is so. True Strike does not.
I would say no to the Grimoire bonus, yes to the bonus of the weapon you are using.
Spell Attack
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”).
True Strike is a spell, the attack is part of that spell. True Strike is a Spell Attack as defined by the rules.
I should also point out that in accordance with the rules glossary it is also a Weapon Attack. So by RAW it is technically both and I can't find anything that says that it can't be.
I think LiaBlack has provided the correct RAW answer here. Whether we can divine the RAI here is uncertain, as most of the other attack cantrips specify that they are spell attacks.
(As an exception, Sorcerous Burst (at least in the printed PHB) only tells you to make “a ranged attack roll”, but still works according to the general rules on Attack Rolls in the Spellcasting section. Would there be any argument that Sorcerous Burst shouldn’t benefit from effects that benefit spell attacks?)
1: On your turn you can move up to your speed and take one action
2: the action you are taking is the magic action to cast true strike, which specifies that "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.”
3: you can only take one action at a time (actions cannot overlap)
1: On your turn you can move up to your speed and take one action
2: the action you are taking is the magic action to cast true strike, which specifies that "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.”
3: you can only take one action at a time (actions cannot overlap)
[Redacted]
No one said that True Strike wasn't a Magic action. The discussion was whether the attack involved is a spell attack or a weapon attack (or both) which is not clear from the rules as written. While it is an attack made as part of a spell, pretty much every other spell that calls for an attack roll uses the words "spell attack" while this one does not.
Spell AttackA spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”).True Strike is a spell, the attack is part of that spell. True Strike is a Spell Attack as defined by the rules.I should also point out that in accordance with the rules glossary it is also a Weapon Attack. So by RAW it is technically both and I can't find anything that says that it can't be.
By the RAW of the spell text it is not a spell attack, it is not stated it is anywhere in the spell, and all other spell attacks do. So it is either an error of omission which I agree is POSSIBLE, or the spell is not a spell attack as intended by the omission, which again is POSSIBLE.
True strike works as a buff that triggers a melee attack (and that is historically how it has worked). Not a spell attack, which again is no where in the text where there is plenty of obvious space for it to be.
Another example of a very SIMILAR spell: Mordenkainen's Sword "When the sword appears, you make a melee spell attack against a target within 5 feet of the sword. On a hit, the target takes 3d10 force damage." Same mechanic, only this one is specific about it being a spell attack, where true strike is not. This spell I'd absolute grant the grimoire bonus, no sword since the SPELL creates it's own, which true strike does not. So again this shows a explicit contradictory difference in the spells, which is either an error of omission, or True Strike is not meant to be a spell attack.
Where there is a conflict there is no RAW. There is more than enough conflict in the text to go either way. So until there is a Sage clarification, do what you want, there is no RAW on this. Well actually even if there was a Sage clarification do what you want, its your game.
No one said that True Strike wasn't a Magic action. The discussion was whether the attack involved is a spell attack or a weapon attack (or both) which is not clear from the rules as written. While it is an attack made as part of a spell, pretty much every other spell that calls for an attack roll uses the words "spell attack" while this one does not.
I know 2024 is supposed to be backwards compatible, but is this a case where they've just decided on a new wording for attack spells? True Strike is of the same ilk as booming blade and Green Flame Blade, but I wonder if newer versions of those spells (if they do get newer versions), will get the same wording.
It's wild that they weren't more specific in 2024 about the definition of a spell attack.
Check any other spell with an attack roll and it specifies that it is a spell attack. Even melee spell attacks made with a "weapon" like flame blade or blade of disaster. Clearly this is the convention, and attacks that are not explicitly spell attacks are not spell attacks. Spell attacks also specify their damage. Weapon attacks do not because they use the properties of the weapon. Nowhere in the rules can you find the mention or intention that something could ever be both a weapon and a spell attack at the same time.
This is a case where the letter of RAW goes against RAI and starts to cause all other kinds of issues and problems as you stack additional game elements on this shaky foundation. Sometimes being technically correct isn't worth the consequences, and sometimes a writer wants to leave early and beat the traffic so they completely half-ass the definition of a spell attack.
So those saying that you don't get to use the swords +2 bonus, would a flame sword lose the flame bonus? Would a Holy Avenger lose its damage bonus against undead? Would the mace of disruption not destroy undead? Would you not be able to use Hunter's Mark or Improved Divine Smite?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
So those saying that you don't get to use the swords +2 bonus, would a flame sword lose the flame bonus? Would a Holy Avenger lose its damage bonus against undead? Would the mace of disruption not destroy undead? Would you not be able to use Hunter's Mark or Improved Divine Smite?
Not sure where anyone has said you would lose the +2 bonus other than a though argument against it being a spell attack rather than a weapon attack.
Check any other spell with an attack roll and it specifies that it is a spell attack. Even melee spell attacks made with a "weapon" like flame blade or blade of disaster. Clearly this is the convention, and attacks that are not explicitly spell attacks are not spell attacks. Spell attacks also specify their damage. Weapon attacks do not because they use the properties of the weapon. Nowhere in the rules can you find the mention or intention that something could ever be both a weapon and a spell attack at the same time.
Check any other spell with an attack roll and it specifies that it is a spell attack. Even melee spell attacks made with a "weapon" like flame blade or blade of disaster. Clearly this is the convention, and attacks that are not explicitly spell attacks are not spell attacks. Spell attacks also specify their damage. Weapon attacks do not because they use the properties of the weapon. Nowhere in the rules can you find the mention or intention that something could ever be both a weapon and a spell attack at the same time.
Yeah. More evidence that it seems like they're not concerned with defining an attack as a "spell attack" in the 2024 rules. Or, at least, they weren't as concerned with that wording. (But then they bothered with that broad definition in the rules glossary. I dunno.)
Check any other spell with an attack roll and it specifies that it is a spell attack. Even melee spell attacks made with a "weapon" like flame blade or blade of disaster. Clearly this is the convention, and attacks that are not explicitly spell attacks are not spell attacks. Spell attacks also specify their damage. Weapon attacks do not because they use the properties of the weapon. Nowhere in the rules can you find the mention or intention that something could ever be both a weapon and a spell attack at the same time.
Yeah. More evidence that it seems like they're not concerned with defining an attack as a "spell attack" in the 2024 rules. Or, at least, they weren't as concerned with that wording. (But then they bothered with that broad definition in the rules glossary. I dunno.)
It's also confusing that these new 2024 spells Sorcerous Burst and True Strike (which is essentially a new spell given how completely it was rewritten) don't use the "spell attack" language, but the updated 2024 versions of old spells still do. If they were deliberately trying to make a change in how these things are described, you'd think they'd have done it to all the attack spells.
True Strike just means you are making a weapon attack with potentially extra damage and you can use the spellcasting modifier instead of Str or Dex. It still remains a weapon attack. If it was changing the weapon attack into a spell attack then it would state this. .
A bit off topic but a slight clarification, the spell has to use the spellcasting ability for the attack roll, str or dex are no longer options. The wording of True Strike is:
"The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity."
Unlike some of the other spells out there, if you use True Strike then you MUST use your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls. The character can't choose Dex or Str for the roll as alternatives. The description says "uses" not "can use" - so this wouldn't be a good spell for an Arcane Trickster to use in most cases (for example).
Check any other spell with an attack roll and it specifies that it is a spell attack. Even melee spell attacks made with a "weapon" like flame blade or blade of disaster. Clearly this is the convention, and attacks that are not explicitly spell attacks are not spell attacks. Spell attacks also specify their damage. Weapon attacks do not because they use the properties of the weapon. Nowhere in the rules can you find the mention or intention that something could ever be both a weapon and a spell attack at the same time.
Yeah you got me on that one. I mean it's not really an ambiguous situation because it's clearly not a weapon attack, but it is a case where they do not call it out as a spell attack, which is different from the wording of spells like eldritch blast for example which are describing the exact same thing.
And for that same reason, True Strike can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
And for that same reason, True Strike can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
And for that same reason, True Strike can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
And for that same reason, True Strike can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
I don't think we can rely upon SAC written for 2014 for the rules as written for 2024. I also don't understand why we would ignore the Rules Glossary. It is newer than any previous rules or Sage Advice so would supersede all of that. The Rules Glassarry tells us exactly how to know if something is a Spell Attack and how to know if it is a Weapon Attack.
In the case of True Strike it is both. People may not like that it is both and that is more than fair, but that doen't change RAW. We might get errata or an updated SAC it in the future, but the Rules Glossary in the PHB tells us that it is both for now.
I don't think we can rely upon SAC written for 2014 for the rules as written for 2024. I also don't understand why we would ignore the Rules Glossary. It is newer than any previous rules or Sage Advice so would supersede all of that. The Rules Glassarry tells us exactly how to know if something is a Spell Attack and how to know if it is a Weapon Attack.
In the case of True Strike it is both. People may not like that it is both and that is more than fair, but that doen't change RAW. We might get errata or an updated SAC it in the future, but the Rules Glossary in the PHB tells us that it is both for now.
You initially stated it was a Spell Attack, but later described it as "both". That seems contradictory.
The spell doesn't specify it's a "spell attack", just "you make one attack with the weapon". It's not the same.
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
Grimoire "you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls" Spell attacks. The attack with True Strike is NOT a spell attack roll. If it was a spell attack, it would specifically say so, it does not. It is a spell that modifies a Melee attack, to use your spellcasting stats and damage, again for a melee attack.
Every spell that is a spell attack will specifically say it is so. True Strike does not.
I would say no to the Grimoire bonus, yes to the bonus of the weapon you are using.
Spell Attack
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”).
True Strike is a spell, the attack is part of that spell. True Strike is a Spell Attack as defined by the rules.
I should also point out that in accordance with the rules glossary it is also a Weapon Attack. So by RAW it is technically both and I can't find anything that says that it can't be.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think LiaBlack has provided the correct RAW answer here. Whether we can divine the RAI here is uncertain, as most of the other attack cantrips specify that they are spell attacks.
(As an exception, Sorcerous Burst (at least in the printed PHB) only tells you to make “a ranged attack roll”, but still works according to the general rules on Attack Rolls in the Spellcasting section. Would there be any argument that Sorcerous Burst shouldn’t benefit from effects that benefit spell attacks?)
1: On your turn you can move up to your speed and take one action
2: the action you are taking is the magic action to cast true strike, which specifies that "Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.”
3: you can only take one action at a time (actions cannot overlap)
[Redacted]
No one said that True Strike wasn't a Magic action. The discussion was whether the attack involved is a spell attack or a weapon attack (or both) which is not clear from the rules as written. While it is an attack made as part of a spell, pretty much every other spell that calls for an attack roll uses the words "spell attack" while this one does not.
pronouns: he/she/they
By the RAW of the spell text it is not a spell attack, it is not stated it is anywhere in the spell, and all other spell attacks do. So it is either an error of omission which I agree is POSSIBLE, or the spell is not a spell attack as intended by the omission, which again is POSSIBLE.
True strike works as a buff that triggers a melee attack (and that is historically how it has worked). Not a spell attack, which again is no where in the text where there is plenty of obvious space for it to be.
Another example of a very SIMILAR spell: Mordenkainen's Sword
"When the sword appears, you make a melee spell attack against a target within 5 feet of the sword. On a hit, the target takes 3d10 force damage."
Same mechanic, only this one is specific about it being a spell attack, where true strike is not. This spell I'd absolute grant the grimoire bonus, no sword since the SPELL creates it's own, which true strike does not.
So again this shows a explicit contradictory difference in the spells, which is either an error of omission, or True Strike is not meant to be a spell attack.
Where there is a conflict there is no RAW. There is more than enough conflict in the text to go either way. So until there is a Sage clarification, do what you want, there is no RAW on this. Well actually even if there was a Sage clarification do what you want, its your game.
I know 2024 is supposed to be backwards compatible, but is this a case where they've just decided on a new wording for attack spells? True Strike is of the same ilk as booming blade and Green Flame Blade, but I wonder if newer versions of those spells (if they do get newer versions), will get the same wording.
It's wild that they weren't more specific in 2024 about the definition of a spell attack.
Check any other spell with an attack roll and it specifies that it is a spell attack. Even melee spell attacks made with a "weapon" like flame blade or blade of disaster. Clearly this is the convention, and attacks that are not explicitly spell attacks are not spell attacks. Spell attacks also specify their damage. Weapon attacks do not because they use the properties of the weapon. Nowhere in the rules can you find the mention or intention that something could ever be both a weapon and a spell attack at the same time.
This is a case where the letter of RAW goes against RAI and starts to cause all other kinds of issues and problems as you stack additional game elements on this shaky foundation. Sometimes being technically correct isn't worth the consequences, and sometimes a writer wants to leave early and beat the traffic so they completely half-ass the definition of a spell attack.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
So those saying that you don't get to use the swords +2 bonus, would a flame sword lose the flame bonus? Would a Holy Avenger lose its damage bonus against undead? Would the mace of disruption not destroy undead? Would you not be able to use Hunter's Mark or Improved Divine Smite?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Not sure where anyone has said you would lose the +2 bonus other than a though argument against it being a spell attack rather than a weapon attack.
Ah, like sorcerous burst.
Yeah. More evidence that it seems like they're not concerned with defining an attack as a "spell attack" in the 2024 rules. Or, at least, they weren't as concerned with that wording. (But then they bothered with that broad definition in the rules glossary. I dunno.)
It's also confusing that these new 2024 spells Sorcerous Burst and True Strike (which is essentially a new spell given how completely it was rewritten) don't use the "spell attack" language, but the updated 2024 versions of old spells still do. If they were deliberately trying to make a change in how these things are described, you'd think they'd have done it to all the attack spells.
pronouns: he/she/they
A bit off topic but a slight clarification, the spell has to use the spellcasting ability for the attack roll, str or dex are no longer options. The wording of True Strike is:
"The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity."
Unlike some of the other spells out there, if you use True Strike then you MUST use your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls. The character can't choose Dex or Str for the roll as alternatives. The description says "uses" not "can use" - so this wouldn't be a good spell for an Arcane Trickster to use in most cases (for example).
Yeah you got me on that one. I mean it's not really an ambiguous situation because it's clearly not a weapon attack, but it is a case where they do not call it out as a spell attack, which is different from the wording of spells like eldritch blast for example which are describing the exact same thing.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
For me, True Strike is similar to green-flame blade and booming blade, so it's a weapon attack, not a spell attack (Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?)
And for that same reason, True Strike can benefit from magic weapons that grant, for example, a +x bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the weapon.
Other threads with the same debate:
True strike is distinct because it only calls for an attack and not a melee attack.
But for all of them you're using a weapon, so the attack type is the same.
EDIT: anyway, something to clarify. I agree with that.
EDIT#2: I meant "weapon attack" in my reply, not "melee attack". Sorry. I've updated the text.
I don't think we can rely upon SAC written for 2014 for the rules as written for 2024. I also don't understand why we would ignore the Rules Glossary. It is newer than any previous rules or Sage Advice so would supersede all of that. The Rules Glassarry tells us exactly how to know if something is a Spell Attack and how to know if it is a Weapon Attack.
In the case of True Strike it is both. People may not like that it is both and that is more than fair, but that doen't change RAW. We might get errata or an updated SAC it in the future, but the Rules Glossary in the PHB tells us that it is both for now.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You initially stated it was a Spell Attack, but later described it as "both". That seems contradictory.
The spell doesn't specify it's a "spell attack", just "you make one attack with the weapon". It's not the same.