If your friend is at 0HP, and you heal them to get them up and fighting, are all their subsequent attacks spell attacks? I say "no" because those attacks aren't actually part of the spell's description; they are just indirect consequences. And I don't mean "indirect" to be a bucket into which to throw inconvenient things; I mean the spell description does not tell you to make the attack(s).
But the definition doesn't say the attack needs to be part of the spell description. It says the attack needs to be 'part of a spell', but does not clarify what that means and it doesn't say that 'indirect attacks' are not Spell Attacks.
(snipping a bit)
Sorry, I was using a bit of shorthand. Spells have a whole chapter (hell, the "Spell" entry in the glossary points you to it), and that chapter includes (emphasis added): "The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below." and "Attack Rolls Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target."
That's pretty clear. That's how you tell if an attack is "made as part of a spell." There's no hidden meaning here.
That's the crux of the matter. A Spell Attack roll really determines whether the spell hits the Target.
So the question is, is the creature being attacked the Target of the spell, or is the caster the Target of the spell, allowing them to make a modified Weapon Attack?
If you interpret True Strike as Taretting the caster, there is no Spell Attack roll since the spell automatically hits the target. In this case, the roll made is a Weapon Attack and does not benefit from an Arcane Grimoire.
This appears to me and others to be a reasonable interpretation.
Now, I am not claiming that the spell couldn'tbe Targeting the creature being attacked, and if that is the case, then the roll should probably be considered a spell attack roll. I'm just saying that an alternative interpretation exists with plenty of supporters. Until further clarification from the designers, there really isn't a definite answer (if you search further into the forum, you will find this is not the first time this question has been raised).
However, I don't believe it's feasible to have two types of attacks occur simultaneously. It's problematic, at least as a DM.
I hope to see an errata or clarification on this matter in the future.
I have been unable to find any rules that states that an attack must be either Spell Attack or Weapon Attack. I don't disagree that there are potentially strange interactions, but this forum is about RAW right?
RAW and RAI both.
I have seen some post that the rules are expected to be interpreted in "Good Faith", but I am not sure if that is printed in the PHB. The language of the rules is less precise than 3rd Edition, but it is tighter than I remember 4th being. If you want to engage in rules lawyering, the 3rd edition is quite fun for that, particularly the core books. Third party publishers of course got looser to differing degrees. The edition had many potential exploits, but the rules debates were quite entertaining, almost as much as the game itself.
Ifyou choose to ignore the rules in the Rules Glossary as printed 2024 PHB then that is certainly your choice to make.
Let me start over, step by step, to make sure I don't leave anything out of my position.
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. This has some precedence with some classes and species giving you multiple methods to calculate AC. In scenarios these scenarios, you pick one formula. In this interpretation, you would pick either a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack.
True Strike tells you to make an attack with a weapon which is a Weapon Attack.
The Rules Glossary is a general rule and True Strike's spell description creates an exception. "Exceptions Supersede General Rules" (Page 7, PHB; see Rhythm of Play).
Therefore, True Strike always requires a Weapon Attack.
In addition, I have already mentioned the Sage Advice Compendium for Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade. Given that the Legacy content is still valid until it is updated, these spells and the Sage Advice Compendium stands until a revision is published. The Sage Advice Compendium is a compilation of official rulings on how to interpret the rules of 5e.
...What about unusual cases like the green-flame blade spell? The spell, which appears in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, tells you to make a melee attack with a weapon. Look at the table above, and you see that, under normal circumstances, you use your Strength modifier when you make a melee weapon attack. It doesn’t matter that a spell told you to attack.
Officially, a spell making a melee attack with a weapon is a Weapon Attack using your Strength modifier, unless an exception (Finesse Weapons and True Stike would both be exceptions) until a new ruling is made. It explicitly establishes the meaning of "melee attack with a weapon" within a spell description. True Strike removing "melee" from the phrase, does not remove the precedence.
True strike is distinct because it only calls for an attack and not a melee attack.
It doesn't call it a Spell Attack either. As the Grimoire would require. So we are at the same circular point that the game currently is contradictory on this, and where there is a contradiction there is no RAW until clarified. So house rule it how you want until then (or even after).
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.
Ifyou choose to ignore the rules in the Rules Glossary as printed 2024 PHB then that is certainly your choice to make.
I am curious though. What is the absolute worst case senario if you treat it as both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack?
No we're at contradictory rules, and where there is contradiction there is no RAW. YOU may not like that, but that is where it actually is.
It literally is a mechanically IDENTICAL to other spells that are not spell attacks.
The person would be getting a stacking bonus they shouldn't. Not game breaking EITHER WAY. But absolutely a balance issue. In this case doubling the attack bonus from 2 to 4. But then if we're at +3 Sword and Grimoire, that's going from 3 to 6 bonus and bending it even more.
There is also the RAI of this edition having far fewer stacking bonuses which this would ignore.
So again there is absolutely more than enough evidence to show there is a contradiction in the RAW in the Glossary, and the RAW in the spell description, and contradictory to other examples that match. Where there is a contradiction there is no RAW, it is up to the DM to make a choice. I prefer to error toward RAI especially when there are other examples of RAI. If YOU choose to ignore those, that is certainly YOUR choice to make. And as you implied, it wouldn't be game breaking either way.
Exactly. They give up using two handed weapons, two-weapon fighting, or a shield in order to get the bonus.
So by your argument, If I have a +2 Short Sword, and and +2 Dagger, I should have a +4 for all my attacks. But that isn't how that works. So here you want to have your cake and eat it too. Getting a melee attack bonus from the weapon and a spell attack from the Grimoire, a stacking bonus no other class gets. They aren't giving up anything as a spell caster doing this.
I have seen some post that the rules are expected to be interpreted in "Good Faith", but I am not sure if that is printed in the PHB. The language of the rules is less precise than 3rd Edition, but it is tighter than I remember 4th being. If you want to engage in rules lawyering, the 3rd edition is quite fun for that, particularly the core books. Third party publishers of course got looser to differing degrees. The edition had many potential exploits, but the rules debates were quite entertaining, almost as much as the game itself.
. . .
It is in the DMG, along with the statement that the rules are not a model of physics and not to try and use them that way (so no peasant railgun).
While I agree with your position that True Strike is a Weapon Attack, I will disagree that people are making this argument in Bad Faith. I can easily see how people could reasonably come to such an interpretation. I disagree with it, but I can see it.
Bad Faith would be more like a College of Valor bard arguing that their magic weapon gives them its bonus when used as a spell-casting focus because the precise wording in the DMG is along the lines of 'when you use the weapon.'
Wether the attackTrue strike let you make is a spell attack or not in and of itself doesn't really matter since instructions for the ability to make it are provided within.
What matter and require additional consideration is if it should qualify for other game elements meant to affect spell attacks despite not specifically saying it's one.
However, I don't believe it's feasible to have two types of attacks occur simultaneously. It's problematic, at least as a DM.
I hope to see an errata or clarification on this matter in the future.
The thing is that even if it is only a Spell Attack roll, the wording of magic weapons often allows their effect to be used.
e.g.:
Weapon, +1, +2, or +3
Weapon (Any Simple or Martial), Uncommon (+1), Rare (+2), or Very Rare (+3)
You have a bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity.
It does not state that the attack roll must be a Weapon Attack. Taking a literalist position, the magic weapon bonus would still apply if the attack roll for True Strike is a Spellcasting Attack. Of course, taking a very literalist position, if my College of Valor bard uses the weapon as a Focus to cast some other spell, it would also add to the attack roll and damage roll of that spell since they were 'made with the weapon'.
Even with a literalist position, this is not how the rules work. I don't want to start the same debate here, but I've already explained in other threads that the Spellcasting Focus, as part of the spell components, precedes the spell's effects.
EDIT: I guess the text I quoted earlier was written with this in mind?
[...] Bad Faith would be more like a College of Valor bard arguing that their magic weapon gives them its bonus when used as a spell-casting focus because the precise wording in the DMG is along the lines of 'when you use the weapon.'
[...] In addition, I have already mentioned the Sage Advice Compendium for Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade. Given that the Legacy content is still valid until it is updated, these spells and the Sage Advice Compendium stands until a revision is published. The Sage Advice Compendium is a compilation of official rulings on how to interpret the rules of 5e.
...What about unusual cases like the green-flame blade spell? The spell, which appears in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, tells you to make a melee attack with a weapon. Look at the table above, and you see that, under normal circumstances, you use your Strength modifier when you make a melee weapon attack. It doesn’t matter that a spell told you to attack.
Officially, a spell making a melee attack with a weapon is a Weapon Attack using your Strength modifier, unless an exception (Finesse Weapons and True Stike would both be exceptions) until a new ruling is made. It explicitly establishes the meaning of "melee attack with a weapon" within a spell description. True Strike removing "melee" from the phrase, does not remove the precedence.
The SAC is also why I think True Strike targets a creature, not you, also supported by the fact that the spells in the 2024 PHB no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB, so you need to read the Effect of a spell to know what the target is (if any)
While I agree with your position that True Strike is a Weapon Attack, I will disagree that people are making this argument in Bad Faith.
I never said anyone was arguing in bad faith.
My apologies. I thought that was what you were implying.
No worries. I only mentioned it because some rules systems are very precise with their language in order to support a literal interpretation of the rules. This favors native speakers of the written language while putting non-native speakers and translations at a disadvantage. D&D 3.x was like this.
D&D 5e relies on "Good Faith" interpretations meaning that the language is looser and it is assumed that you will apply common sense rather than literal interpretations of the rules. This does open the door for more varied interpretations of the rules.
That's the crux of the matter. A Spell Attack roll really determines whether the spell hits the Target. So the question is, is the creature being attacked the Target of the spell, or is the caster the Target of the spell, allowing them to make a modified Weapon Attack? If you interpret True Strike as Taretting the caster, there is no Spell Attack roll since the spell automatically hits the target. In this case, the roll made is a Weapon Attack and does not benefit from an Arcane Grimoire.
The rules are (newly as of 2024) much more clear about this, as well. From the glossary: "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." Meaning, for True Strike, the target of the attack roll is the target of the spell, ergo it is a spell attack.
Which should be enough, but people get stuck on / confused by the "range" rules and how they were phrased in 2014. But now (emphasis added): "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range." and "Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell." Which means, for True Strike, the target is not limited by the range of self, and is still defined by the spell description.
...
Thing is, confusion makes sense if you think all the attack categories are mutually exclusive. But they aren't. Nothing says an attack can't be both a spell attack and a weapon attack, because weapons sometimes get used in spells (just like how nothing says it can't be both a ranged attack and a weapon attack, because some weapons are ranged).
This appears to me and others to be a reasonable interpretation.
Anyone is free to interpret it however they like. Doesn't change what is actually written.
It's not at all surprising that people expect or even want the systems to have lots of idiosyncracies and subtle details to get caught up on. Learning those things gives a sense of "system mastery" (and as someone noted, "rules lawyering" can be fun for some folks). Not to mention 3/3.5 and other games are chock full of these complications and "hidden" rules. But 5/5.24 went with "natural language" and "rulings, not rules," and 5.24 in particular has a lot of rewriting work to clear things up.
It's normal (for "experienced" gamers, at least) to expect rules to have hidden interconnections, multidimensional cross-references, and lots of complex meta-interplay. They've tried real hard to avoid it, because they want to appeal to a very, very broad audience.
Exactly. They give up using two handed weapons, two-weapon fighting, or a shield in order to get the bonus.
So by your argument, If I have a +2 Short Sword, and and +2 Dagger, I should have a +4 for all my attacks. But that isn't how that works. So here you want to have your cake and eat it too. Getting a melee attack bonus from the weapon and a spell attack from the Grimoire, a stacking bonus no other class gets. They aren't giving up anything as a spell caster doing this.
That's the crux of the matter. A Spell Attack roll really determines whether the spell hits the Target. So the question is, is the creature being attacked the Target of the spell, or is the caster the Target of the spell, allowing them to make a modified Weapon Attack? If you interpret True Strike as Taretting the caster, there is no Spell Attack roll since the spell automatically hits the target. In this case, the roll made is a Weapon Attack and does not benefit from an Arcane Grimoire.
The rules are (newly as of 2024) much more clear about this, as well. From the glossary: "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." Meaning, for True Strike, the target of the attack roll is the target of the spell, ergo it is a spell attack.
. . .
No. It does not say that a creature targetted by an attack roll must be the target of a spell. It says the target may be the creature or object targeted by an attack roll. The target could alternately be a creature or object 'selected to receive the effects of a spell.'
For example, if I cast Antagonize on one creature and it fails its save, it must immediately use its reaction to attack another creature of my choice. The second creature is not the Target of the spell, even though an attack roll is immediately made against it due to the spell.
It is currently a valid interpretation (until designers clarify otherwise) that True Strike is fundamentally doing the same thing. The difference is that the Target of the spell is automatically the caster, the Target receives a buff, and it doesn't require a Reaction.
To be clear, this does not mean that your interpretation is invalid. It is entirely valid (once again, until designers clarify otherwise). I am simply pointing out that a position of 'it can only mean this' is unsupported.
As part of the spell True Strike let you make one attack with a weapon without specifically mentioning it being a spell attack per se.
Without any mention what to use instead, it would have used Strength or Dexterity, similarly to how Swift Quiver does, a spell that let you make two attacks with a weapon that fires Arrows or Bolts as part of it without specifying they're spell attacks.
Can there be a spell attack with a weapon? Sure if spell or feature specifically would say so but i don't know any. To me it comes down to this; an attack isn't a spell attack unless it say so. Wether it's part of a spell or feature such as Starry Form: Archer is irrelevant.
The rules are (newly as of 2024) much more clear about this, as well. From the glossary: "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." Meaning, for True Strike, the target of the attack roll is the target of the spell, ergo it is a spell attack.
No. It does not say that a creature targetted by an attack roll must be the target of a spell. It says the target may be the creature or object targeted by an attack roll. The target could alternately be a creature or object 'selected to receive the effects of a spell.'
Sure, not all spells have attacks. True Strike has an attack roll, so of course the attack's target is a target.
Attacks have targets, by definition --- that's literally what the quoted text is telling you: there are a set of things which have targets.
For example, if I cast Antagonize on one creature and it fails its save, it must immediately use its reaction to attack another creature of my choice. The second creature is not the Target of the spell, even though an attack roll is immediately made against it due to the spell.
(oh good, you found your hypothetical; we can discuss this in concrete terms.)
The creature's attack isn't in the spell. It's just a consequence. It's not the same action --- in fact, it's explicitly that creature's Reaction, and might not even happen. The spell's duration is Instant and does not encompass other creature's actions.
True Strike, however, includes the weapon attack directly as part of the spell. Literally making an attack as part of the Magic action.
(In True Strike, the caster isn't a target at all; they are the point of origin. "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate" and discussed in more detail in the glossary entry for Area of Effect.)
The attack's Target is a Target, yes. I am sorry if you thought I was saying they weren't.
I am saying they are not automatically the Target of the spell. Maybe True Stike is Targeting the caster, and the creature is Target of a Weapon Attack, as in the case of the second creature and Antagonize.
Everything else you are saying is why it is reasonable to interpret that the Attack Roll from True Strike is a Spell Attack. Again, my apologies if you think I am saying that is not a possible interpretation. It absolutely is a possible interpretation.
However, nothing you said mandates that the Attack Roll from True Stike be a Spell Attack roll. The language just isn't there to support it except through slavish literalism. The problem with slavish literalism is that the attack on the second creature in the case of Antagonize must be a Spell Attack roll because there is nothing in the precise definition that causes Reaction to make it a non-Spell Attack, my magic weapon bonus applies when I use the weapon as a spellcasting focus, and all sorts of other bad things.
That's the crux of the matter. A Spell Attack roll really determines whether the spell hits the Target. So the question is, is the creature being attacked the Target of the spell, or is the caster the Target of the spell, allowing them to make a modified Weapon Attack? If you interpret True Strike as Taretting the caster, there is no Spell Attack roll since the spell automatically hits the target. In this case, the roll made is a Weapon Attack and does not benefit from an Arcane Grimoire.
The rules are (newly as of 2024) much more clear about this, as well. From the glossary: "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." Meaning, for True Strike, the target of the attack roll is the target of the spell, ergo it is a spell attack.
That is a General Rule. True Strike tells you to make an attack with a Weapon. That is a specific exception making it a Weapon Attack. Then it further tells you to use your spell casting attribute modifier instead of your normal modifier as a further exception. Exceptions supersede general rules.
True Strike's Range is Self. You are casting the spell on yourself and modifying your ability to make a Weapon Attack.
By contrast, [spells]Chill Touch[spells] has a range of Touch and includes a spell attack.
(snipping a bit)
Sorry, I was using a bit of shorthand. Spells have a whole chapter (hell, the "Spell" entry in the glossary points you to it), and that chapter includes (emphasis added):
"The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below."
and
"Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target."
That's pretty clear. That's how you tell if an attack is "made as part of a spell." There's no hidden meaning here.
That's the crux of the matter. A Spell Attack roll really determines whether the spell hits the Target.
So the question is, is the creature being attacked the Target of the spell, or is the caster the Target of the spell, allowing them to make a modified Weapon Attack?
If you interpret True Strike as Taretting the caster, there is no Spell Attack roll since the spell automatically hits the target. In this case, the roll made is a Weapon Attack and does not benefit from an Arcane Grimoire.
This appears to me and others to be a reasonable interpretation.
Now, I am not claiming that the spell couldn't be Targeting the creature being attacked, and if that is the case, then the roll should probably be considered a spell attack roll. I'm just saying that an alternative interpretation exists with plenty of supporters. Until further clarification from the designers, there really isn't a definite answer (if you search further into the forum, you will find this is not the first time this question has been raised).
RAW and RAI both.
I have seen some post that the rules are expected to be interpreted in "Good Faith", but I am not sure if that is printed in the PHB. The language of the rules is less precise than 3rd Edition, but it is tighter than I remember 4th being. If you want to engage in rules lawyering, the 3rd edition is quite fun for that, particularly the core books. Third party publishers of course got looser to differing degrees. The edition had many potential exploits, but the rules debates were quite entertaining, almost as much as the game itself.
Let me start over, step by step, to make sure I don't leave anything out of my position.
Therefore, True Strike always requires a Weapon Attack.
In addition, I have already mentioned the Sage Advice Compendium for Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade. Given that the Legacy content is still valid until it is updated, these spells and the Sage Advice Compendium stands until a revision is published. The Sage Advice Compendium is a compilation of official rulings on how to interpret the rules of 5e.
Officially, a spell making a melee attack with a weapon is a Weapon Attack using your Strength modifier, unless an exception (Finesse Weapons and True Stike would both be exceptions) until a new ruling is made. It explicitly establishes the meaning of "melee attack with a weapon" within a spell description. True Strike removing "melee" from the phrase, does not remove the precedence.
How to add Tooltips.
It doesn't call it a Spell Attack either. As the Grimoire would require. So we are at the same circular point that the game currently is contradictory on this, and where there is a contradiction there is no RAW until clarified. So house rule it how you want until then (or even after).
No we're at contradictory rules, and where there is contradiction there is no RAW. YOU may not like that, but that is where it actually is.
It literally is a mechanically IDENTICAL to other spells that are not spell attacks.
The person would be getting a stacking bonus they shouldn't. Not game breaking EITHER WAY. But absolutely a balance issue. In this case doubling the attack bonus from 2 to 4. But then if we're at +3 Sword and Grimoire, that's going from 3 to 6 bonus and bending it even more.
There is also the RAI of this edition having far fewer stacking bonuses which this would ignore.
So again there is absolutely more than enough evidence to show there is a contradiction in the RAW in the Glossary, and the RAW in the spell description, and contradictory to other examples that match. Where there is a contradiction there is no RAW, it is up to the DM to make a choice.
I prefer to error toward RAI especially when there are other examples of RAI. If YOU choose to ignore those, that is certainly YOUR choice to make. And as you implied, it wouldn't be game breaking either way.
So by your argument, If I have a +2 Short Sword, and and +2 Dagger, I should have a +4 for all my attacks. But that isn't how that works.
So here you want to have your cake and eat it too. Getting a melee attack bonus from the weapon and a spell attack from the Grimoire, a stacking bonus no other class gets. They aren't giving up anything as a spell caster doing this.
It is in the DMG, along with the statement that the rules are not a model of physics and not to try and use them that way (so no peasant railgun).
While I agree with your position that True Strike is a Weapon Attack, I will disagree that people are making this argument in Bad Faith. I can easily see how people could reasonably come to such an interpretation. I disagree with it, but I can see it.
Bad Faith would be more like a College of Valor bard arguing that their magic weapon gives them its bonus when used as a spell-casting focus because the precise wording in the DMG is along the lines of 'when you use the weapon.'
Wether the attackTrue strike let you make is a spell attack or not in and of itself doesn't really matter since instructions for the ability to make it are provided within.
What matter and require additional consideration is if it should qualify for other game elements meant to affect spell attacks despite not specifically saying it's one.
Such raised questions aren't in bad faith.
I never said anyone was arguing in bad faith.
How to add Tooltips.
Even with a literalist position, this is not how the rules work. I don't want to start the same debate here, but I've already explained in other threads that the Spellcasting Focus, as part of the spell components, precedes the spell's effects.
EDIT: I guess the text I quoted earlier was written with this in mind?
My apologies. I thought that was what you were implying.
The SAC is also why I think True Strike targets a creature, not you, also supported by the fact that the spells in the 2024 PHB no longer use the "Range: Self (X radius, line, etc.)" notation used in the 2014 PHB, so you need to read the Effect of a spell to know what the target is (if any)
And because the Effect of True Strike involves an Attack Roll, and an Attack Roll is for determining whether you hit a target, you're not usually attacking yourself.
No worries. I only mentioned it because some rules systems are very precise with their language in order to support a literal interpretation of the rules. This favors native speakers of the written language while putting non-native speakers and translations at a disadvantage. D&D 3.x was like this.
D&D 5e relies on "Good Faith" interpretations meaning that the language is looser and it is assumed that you will apply common sense rather than literal interpretations of the rules. This does open the door for more varied interpretations of the rules.
How to add Tooltips.
The rules are (newly as of 2024) much more clear about this, as well. From the glossary: "A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon." Meaning, for True Strike, the target of the attack roll is the target of the spell, ergo it is a spell attack.
Which should be enough, but people get stuck on / confused by the "range" rules and how they were phrased in 2014. But now (emphasis added):
"A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate, and the spell’s description specifies which part of the effect is limited by the range."
and
"Self. The spell is cast on the spellcaster or emanates from them, as specified in the spell."
Which means, for True Strike, the target is not limited by the range of self, and is still defined by the spell description.
...
Thing is, confusion makes sense if you think all the attack categories are mutually exclusive. But they aren't. Nothing says an attack can't be both a spell attack and a weapon attack, because weapons sometimes get used in spells (just like how nothing says it can't be both a ranged attack and a weapon attack, because some weapons are ranged).
Anyone is free to interpret it however they like. Doesn't change what is actually written.
It's not at all surprising that people expect or even want the systems to have lots of idiosyncracies and subtle details to get caught up on. Learning those things gives a sense of "system mastery" (and as someone noted, "rules lawyering" can be fun for some folks). Not to mention 3/3.5 and other games are chock full of these complications and "hidden" rules. But 5/5.24 went with "natural language" and "rulings, not rules," and 5.24 in particular has a lot of rewriting work to clear things up.
It's normal (for "experienced" gamers, at least) to expect rules to have hidden interconnections, multidimensional cross-references, and lots of complex meta-interplay. They've tried real hard to avoid it, because they want to appeal to a very, very broad audience.
How does that follow? (emphasis mine)
No. It does not say that a creature targetted by an attack roll must be the target of a spell. It says the target may be the creature or object targeted by an attack roll. The target could alternately be a creature or object 'selected to receive the effects of a spell.'
For example, if I cast Antagonize on one creature and it fails its save, it must immediately use its reaction to attack another creature of my choice. The second creature is not the Target of the spell, even though an attack roll is immediately made against it due to the spell.
It is currently a valid interpretation (until designers clarify otherwise) that True Strike is fundamentally doing the same thing. The difference is that the Target of the spell is automatically the caster, the Target receives a buff, and it doesn't require a Reaction.
To be clear, this does not mean that your interpretation is invalid. It is entirely valid (once again, until designers clarify otherwise). I am simply pointing out that a position of 'it can only mean this' is unsupported.
As part of the spell True Strike let you make one attack with a weapon without specifically mentioning it being a spell attack per se.
Without any mention what to use instead, it would have used Strength or Dexterity, similarly to how Swift Quiver does, a spell that let you make two attacks with a weapon that fires Arrows or Bolts as part of it without specifying they're spell attacks.
Can there be a spell attack with a weapon? Sure if spell or feature specifically would say so but i don't know any. To me it comes down to this; an attack isn't a spell attack unless it say so. Wether it's part of a spell or feature such as Starry Form: Archer is irrelevant.
Sure, not all spells have attacks. True Strike has an attack roll, so of course the attack's target is a target.
Attacks have targets, by definition --- that's literally what the quoted text is telling you: there are a set of things which have targets.
(oh good, you found your hypothetical; we can discuss this in concrete terms.)
The creature's attack isn't in the spell. It's just a consequence. It's not the same action --- in fact, it's explicitly that creature's Reaction, and might not even happen. The spell's duration is Instant and does not encompass other creature's actions.
True Strike, however, includes the weapon attack directly as part of the spell. Literally making an attack as part of the Magic action.
(In True Strike, the caster isn't a target at all; they are the point of origin. "A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate" and discussed in more detail in the glossary entry for Area of Effect.)
The attack's Target is a Target, yes. I am sorry if you thought I was saying they weren't.
I am saying they are not automatically the Target of the spell. Maybe True Stike is Targeting the caster, and the creature is Target of a Weapon Attack, as in the case of the second creature and Antagonize.
Everything else you are saying is why it is reasonable to interpret that the Attack Roll from True Strike is a Spell Attack. Again, my apologies if you think I am saying that is not a possible interpretation. It absolutely is a possible interpretation.
However, nothing you said mandates that the Attack Roll from True Stike be a Spell Attack roll. The language just isn't there to support it except through slavish literalism. The problem with slavish literalism is that the attack on the second creature in the case of Antagonize must be a Spell Attack roll because there is nothing in the precise definition that causes Reaction to make it a non-Spell Attack, my magic weapon bonus applies when I use the weapon as a spellcasting focus, and all sorts of other bad things.
That is a General Rule. True Strike tells you to make an attack with a Weapon. That is a specific exception making it a Weapon Attack. Then it further tells you to use your spell casting attribute modifier instead of your normal modifier as a further exception. Exceptions supersede general rules.
True Strike's Range is Self. You are casting the spell on yourself and modifying your ability to make a Weapon Attack.
By contrast, [spells]Chill Touch[spells] has a range of Touch and includes a spell attack.
How to add Tooltips.
"A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell" does say that.
Edit: see, that's me repeating myself from earlier in this thread --- we are now starting to go in circles.