So lets say I have a +2 long sword and I cast True strike with Arcane Grimoire +2 in off hand. Is true strike considered a spell attack? If so then the Arcane Grimoire +2 should be added?
True Strike
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).
Arcane Grimoire
While you are holding this leather-bound book, you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and to the saving throw DCs of your wizard spells. The bonus is determined by the book’s rarity.
You can use this book as a spellbook. In addition, when you use your Arcane Recovery feature, you can increase the number of spell slot levels you regain by 1.
On the other hand, it is an attack roll made as part of casting a spell.
The question of whether the attack made with True Strike counts as a spell attack and whether the damage is regarded as being inflicted by the cantrip itself has been debated frequently and I don’t think we yet have a definitive answer.
On reflection: other attack cantrips specify that you make a spell attack, which True Strike doesn’t, so the Arcane Grimoire probably does not benefit TS.
(It wouldn’t break the game if you decided otherwise though: if you’re a high enough level to be carrying two +2 magic items, you’re either a Wizard with a lot of better spell options or an Eldritch Knight who’s giving up the option of either wielding a Great Sword or holding a Shield.)
On further reflection: I think RAW True Strike is both a spell attack and a weapon attack (see LiaBlack’s post later).
All spell attacks are attacks, but not all attacks are spell attacks. Since the spell does not specify that you're making a spell attack, that's why I say no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'm okay with it being a spell attack as a ruling, i don't think it is but maybe it should be as its a spell with which you are making an attack. But I'd say its a pick a lane situation either the long sword being +2 does nothing or the grimoires +2 does nothing, you don't get both.
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. .
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
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. .
It does not state that it is a weapon attack either. Since you can't counterspell a weapon attack, I am inclined to believe that it is a spell attack but like MyDudeicus said, you only get the book or the sword not both.
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. .
It does not state that it is a weapon attack either. Since you can't counterspell a weapon attack, I am inclined to believe that it is a spell attack but like MyDudeicus said, you only get the book or the sword not both.
It literally states, and I quote: "you make one attack with the weapon"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
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. .
It does not state that it is a weapon attack either. Since you can't counterspell a weapon attack, I am inclined to believe that it is a spell attack but like MyDudeicus said, you only get the book or the sword not both.
It literally states, and I quote: "you make one attack with the weapon"
You forgot to finish the sentence
"...used to cast the spell."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
The spell not say you lose any properties that the weapon has. If that were the case, the spell would say so. In a similar way that some spells say something like touch a non-magical weapon. Meaning the spell has no effect on a magical weapon, and you cannot use a magical weapon with the spell.
True Strike has none of that wording. It functions in the same manner as Shillelagh.
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?"
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. .
It does not state that it is a weapon attack either. Since you can't counterspell a weapon attack, I am inclined to believe that it is a spell attack but like MyDudeicus said, you only get the book or the sword not both.
It literally states, and I quote: "you make one attack with the weapon"
You forgot to finish the sentence
"...used to cast the spell."
Yes, because it's a spell. The attack is still with the weapon and therefore a weapon attack.
I mean, if you want it to count as a spell attack and let people combine the extra damage and spell attack bonuses (available from multiple items, allowing a significant bonus when combined) with a +1 to +3 magic weapon - and also realise that true strike and shillelagh can also be combined.... Well, power to you and the balancing headache.
But given it says you make the attack with the weapon and lacks stating it is now a spell attack - I'll say it's a weapon attack and avoid the stacking problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The spell not say you lose any properties that the weapon has. If that were the case, the spell would say so. In a similar way that some spells say something like touch a non-magical weapon. Meaning the spell has no effect on a magical weapon, and you cannot use a magical weapon with the spell.
True Strike has none of that wording. It functions in the same manner as Shillelagh.
Sure, its still a magic sword. But, there are two ways it might not help. though its not like they really buckled down to make clear rules, so who knows. If its a spell attack the +2 sword may not apply to spell attacks as its a spell attack and not a normal attack. Or you could look it as like bonuses don't stack. So you'd get the best of them not both of them.
The balance issue you could bump into by allowing the grimoires bonus isn't it stacking with the +2 as it wouldn't as like bonuses don't stack. But you might have a flaming sword and the grimoire so now its a +2 flaming sword where normally the bonus d6 damage weapons don't have the +to hit. That being said if you want to use both hands for a one handed weapon I am not sure its breaking things.
The 2024 PHB defines Spell Attack very loosely: "...an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
Based on that loosey goosey rule, the attack made while casting True Strike is definitely "a part of" that spell. I'd say Arcane Grimoire's wording means the bonus applies to the attack.
I'm also not sure why there's a debate about using True Strike with a magic weapon. It merely swaps out the ability score used to calculate the attack and damage rolls and then tacks on extra radiant damage (and allows you to swap the base weapon's damage type with radiant).
The spell not say you lose any properties that the weapon has. If that were the case, the spell would say so. In a similar way that some spells say something like touch a non-magical weapon. Meaning the spell has no effect on a magical weapon, and you cannot use a magical weapon with the spell.
True Strike has none of that wording. It functions in the same manner as Shillelagh.
. That being said if you want to use both hands for a one handed weapon I am not sure its breaking things.
Exactly. They give up using two handed weapons, two-weapon fighting, or a shield in order to get the bonus.
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?"
The issue isn't does a magic sword work, but that if you are making it a spell attack and allowing the grimoire to work do you allow both to work giving the person a +4 to hit and damage. I think its an either or situation. But there are arguments people can make for at least some of the enchanted properties of the sword not working with a spell attack in general but for the most part its just that like bonuses don't stack so you pick either the grimoires +2 or the swords +2 not both. If you go with it being a spell attack and the grimoire enhances it, there are possible balance issues down the line with certain magic weapons.
its just that like bonuses don't stack so you pick either the grimoires +2 or the swords +2 not both.
Where are you getting this rule from?
I have checked "attack rolls" rules in PHB (both) and Magic Item rules in DMG (both) and none mention anything about this. But perhaps I overlooked it? If you can point out where it is from, I would be most obliged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
its just that like bonuses don't stack so you pick either the grimoires +2 or the swords +2 not both.
Where are you getting this rule from?
I have checked "attack rolls" rules in PHB (both) and Magic Item rules in DMG (both) and none mention anything about this. But perhaps I overlooked it? If you can point out where it is from, I would be most obliged.
It is not specified for magic items but it is for spells in the PH. My assumption is the same logic applies but its not specified anywhere because they didn't think of the obscure true strike with arcane grimoire while wielding a magic weapon exception. Nothing says they are additive either. But maybe they let them stack, the rules for things not in the rules are based mostly on best guesses. Though I guess you could argue the +2 is closer to a different spell. I think that is a stretch.
its just that like bonuses don't stack so you pick either the grimoires +2 or the swords +2 not both.
Where are you getting this rule from?
I have checked "attack rolls" rules in PHB (both) and Magic Item rules in DMG (both) and none mention anything about this. But perhaps I overlooked it? If you can point out where it is from, I would be most obliged.
It is not specified for magic items but it is for spells in the PH. My assumption is the same logic applies but its not specified anywhere because they didn't think of the obscure true strike with arcane grimoire while wielding a magic weapon exception. Nothing says they are additive either. But maybe they let them stack, the rules for things not in the rules are based mostly on best guesses. Though I guess you could argue the +2 is closer to a different spell. I think that is a stretch.
Again, not seeing this. Also don't understand - you're talking about bonuses from spells, we're talking about magic item bonuses (+2 magic sword, +2 arcane grimoire).
But anyway, even the spells section doesn't agree with you. Two spells of the same name don't stack, so you cannot stack two Bless spells together for +2d4. But two spells of a different name actually do stack, so you can combine Mind Sliver and Bane for total -2d4.
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus — from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
The effects of different spells add together while their durations overlap. In contrast, the effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap. The most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
As for Magic Items, the same thing is true in a different way. There's no restriction on magic items stacking at all, other than the fact you cannot use two items with the same name. So wearing two Rings of Protection only provides the +1 bonus but combining a Ring of Protection and Cloak of Protection will stack and provide +2 bonus. This is actually why one is Rare, because they are stackable and getting both too early is a bit strong.
Also, this restriction only applies to Attunement.
An item can be attuned to only one creature at a time, and a creature can be attuned to no more than three magic items at a time. Any attempt to attune to a fourth item fails; the creature must end its attunement to an item first. Additionally, a creature can't attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, a creature can't attune to more than one ring of protection at a time.
You can be attuned to no more than three magic items at a time. Any attempt to attune to a fourth item fails; you must end your Attunement to an item first. Additionally, you can’t attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, you can’t attune to more than one Ring of Protection at a time.
Since there is no general rule against the stacking and the specific items in questions don't have a 'bonus doesn't stack' clause then the item does what it says and adds the bonus.
Note it doesn't specify the bonus applies only to weapon attacks just attacks with the weapon. So yes, a spell that requires an attack using the weapon will mean it will apply the weapon's magic bonus, regardless of whether it is considered a weapon attack or spell attack - you are still making an attack with the weapon, which is all the rule text says you need to apply the bonus.
And if it is a spell attack then anything that boosts spell attack bonuses will also apply such as Arcane Grimoire or the Robes of Archmagi, and so on. Also note that the Sorcerer's Seeking Spell metamagic , allowing a reroll of the attack roll, applies regardless of whether you consider it a spell attack or not, as it still qualifies for the metamagic.
There is no 'one or another' here, if you consider it a spell attack then it still gets everything it would as a weapon attack, and all features that apply to "attacks as part of a spell" like the metamagic, AND all bonuses to spell attacks from magic items (for which there are multiple, which can stack) will also apply.
And when you're dishing out items down the line you're not going to scrutinise every rule so intently. So, making it a spell attack is a slippery slope that can definitely need to some balancing issues down the line. Sure, nothing too crazy at all but still an extra fuss you could probably do without and could have avoided by not making it a spell attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So lets say I have a +2 long sword and I cast True strike with Arcane Grimoire +2 in off hand. Is true strike considered a spell attack? If so then the Arcane Grimoire +2 should be added?
True Strike
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).
Arcane Grimoire
While you are holding this leather-bound book, you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and to the saving throw DCs of your wizard spells. The bonus is determined by the book’s rarity.
You can use this book as a spellbook. In addition, when you use your Arcane Recovery feature, you can increase the number of spell slot levels you regain by 1.
True Strike says "make an attack," not "make a spell attack," so I would say no.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
On the other hand, it is an attack roll made as part of casting a spell.
The question of whether the attack made with True Strike counts as a spell attack and whether the damage is regarded as being inflicted by the cantrip itself has been debated frequently and I don’t think we yet have a definitive answer.
On reflection: other attack cantrips specify that you make a spell attack, which True Strike doesn’t, so the Arcane Grimoire probably does not benefit TS.
(It wouldn’t break the game if you decided otherwise though: if you’re a high enough level to be carrying two +2 magic items, you’re either a Wizard with a lot of better spell options or an Eldritch Knight who’s giving up the option of either wielding a Great Sword or holding a Shield.)
On further reflection: I think RAW True Strike is both a spell attack and a weapon attack (see LiaBlack’s post later).
It says use your spell casting ability modifier. So if you look at your spells tab, you use whatever it says for spell attack.
"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
Spell attacks are attacks so they qualify.
When a rule refers to making an attack, that's a shorthand to cover:
It's the same as how when something refers to making a melee attack, that covers both melee spell and melee weapon attacks for example.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
All spell attacks are attacks, but not all attacks are spell attacks. Since the spell does not specify that you're making a spell attack, that's why I say no.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'm okay with it being a spell attack as a ruling, i don't think it is but maybe it should be as its a spell with which you are making an attack. But I'd say its a pick a lane situation either the long sword being +2 does nothing or the grimoires +2 does nothing, you don't get both.
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. .
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It does not state that it is a weapon attack either. Since you can't counterspell a weapon attack, I am inclined to believe that it is a spell attack but like MyDudeicus said, you only get the book or the sword not both.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
It literally states, and I quote: "you make one attack with the weapon"
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You forgot to finish the sentence
"...used to cast the spell."
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
The spell not say you lose any properties that the weapon has. If that were the case, the spell would say so. In a similar way that some spells say something like touch a non-magical weapon. Meaning the spell has no effect on a magical weapon, and you cannot use a magical weapon with the spell.
True Strike has none of that wording. It functions in the same manner as Shillelagh.
"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
Yes, because it's a spell. The attack is still with the weapon and therefore a weapon attack.
I mean, if you want it to count as a spell attack and let people combine the extra damage and spell attack bonuses (available from multiple items, allowing a significant bonus when combined) with a +1 to +3 magic weapon - and also realise that true strike and shillelagh can also be combined.... Well, power to you and the balancing headache.
But given it says you make the attack with the weapon and lacks stating it is now a spell attack - I'll say it's a weapon attack and avoid the stacking problem.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Sure, its still a magic sword. But, there are two ways it might not help. though its not like they really buckled down to make clear rules, so who knows. If its a spell attack the +2 sword may not apply to spell attacks as its a spell attack and not a normal attack. Or you could look it as like bonuses don't stack. So you'd get the best of them not both of them.
The balance issue you could bump into by allowing the grimoires bonus isn't it stacking with the +2 as it wouldn't as like bonuses don't stack. But you might have a flaming sword and the grimoire so now its a +2 flaming sword where normally the bonus d6 damage weapons don't have the +to hit. That being said if you want to use both hands for a one handed weapon I am not sure its breaking things.
The 2024 PHB defines Spell Attack very loosely: "...an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect."
Based on that loosey goosey rule, the attack made while casting True Strike is definitely "a part of" that spell. I'd say Arcane Grimoire's wording means the bonus applies to the attack.
I'm also not sure why there's a debate about using True Strike with a magic weapon. It merely swaps out the ability score used to calculate the attack and damage rolls and then tacks on extra radiant damage (and allows you to swap the base weapon's damage type with radiant).
Exactly. They give up using two handed weapons, two-weapon fighting, or a shield in order to get the bonus.
"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
The issue isn't does a magic sword work, but that if you are making it a spell attack and allowing the grimoire to work do you allow both to work giving the person a +4 to hit and damage. I think its an either or situation. But there are arguments people can make for at least some of the enchanted properties of the sword not working with a spell attack in general but for the most part its just that like bonuses don't stack so you pick either the grimoires +2 or the swords +2 not both. If you go with it being a spell attack and the grimoire enhances it, there are possible balance issues down the line with certain magic weapons.
Where are you getting this rule from?
I have checked "attack rolls" rules in PHB (both) and Magic Item rules in DMG (both) and none mention anything about this. But perhaps I overlooked it? If you can point out where it is from, I would be most obliged.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It is not specified for magic items but it is for spells in the PH. My assumption is the same logic applies but its not specified anywhere because they didn't think of the obscure true strike with arcane grimoire while wielding a magic weapon exception. Nothing says they are additive either. But maybe they let them stack, the rules for things not in the rules are based mostly on best guesses. Though I guess you could argue the +2 is closer to a different spell. I think that is a stretch.
Again, not seeing this. Also don't understand - you're talking about bonuses from spells, we're talking about magic item bonuses (+2 magic sword, +2 arcane grimoire).
But anyway, even the spells section doesn't agree with you. Two spells of the same name don't stack, so you cannot stack two Bless spells together for +2d4. But two spells of a different name actually do stack, so you can combine Mind Sliver and Bane for total -2d4.
2014 PHB:
Basic Rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/spellcasting#CombiningMagicalEffects
PHB: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2014/spellcasting#CombiningMagicalEffects
2024 PHB:
Basic Rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/spells#CombiningSpellEffects
PHB: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/spells#CombiningSpellEffects
As for Magic Items, the same thing is true in a different way. There's no restriction on magic items stacking at all, other than the fact you cannot use two items with the same name. So wearing two Rings of Protection only provides the +1 bonus but combining a Ring of Protection and Cloak of Protection will stack and provide +2 bonus. This is actually why one is Rare, because they are stackable and getting both too early is a bit strong.
Also, this restriction only applies to Attunement.
2014 DMG
Basic Rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/magic-items#Attunement
DMG: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2014/treasure#Attunement
2024 PHB (Magic Item rules were moved to PHB for 2024)
Basic Rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/equipment#Attunement
PHB: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/equipment#Attunement
Since there is no general rule against the stacking and the specific items in questions don't have a 'bonus doesn't stack' clause then the item does what it says and adds the bonus.
Generic +1/+2/+3 magic weapons have this text: "You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity."
2014 Basic Rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/magic-items#Weapon12or3 - the text is the same in all sources.
Note it doesn't specify the bonus applies only to weapon attacks just attacks with the weapon. So yes, a spell that requires an attack using the weapon will mean it will apply the weapon's magic bonus, regardless of whether it is considered a weapon attack or spell attack - you are still making an attack with the weapon, which is all the rule text says you need to apply the bonus.
And if it is a spell attack then anything that boosts spell attack bonuses will also apply such as Arcane Grimoire or the Robes of Archmagi, and so on. Also note that the Sorcerer's Seeking Spell metamagic , allowing a reroll of the attack roll, applies regardless of whether you consider it a spell attack or not, as it still qualifies for the metamagic.
There is no 'one or another' here, if you consider it a spell attack then it still gets everything it would as a weapon attack, and all features that apply to "attacks as part of a spell" like the metamagic, AND all bonuses to spell attacks from magic items (for which there are multiple, which can stack) will also apply.
And when you're dishing out items down the line you're not going to scrutinise every rule so intently. So, making it a spell attack is a slippery slope that can definitely need to some balancing issues down the line. Sure, nothing too crazy at all but still an extra fuss you could probably do without and could have avoided by not making it a spell attack.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.