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.”
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 and the attack is made as part of the spell? Yes
True Strike uses a weapon to make that attack? Yes
So, in your opinion, are you making spell and weapon attacks at the same time with the following spells?
Fount of Moonlight: "Until the spell ends, you have Resistance to Radiant damage, and your melee attacks deal an extra 2d6 Radiant damage on a hit."
Shillelagh: "For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8"
So, in your opinion, are you making spell and weapon attacks at the same time with the following spells?
Fount of Moonlight: "Until the spell ends, you have Resistance to Radiant damage, and your melee attacks deal an extra 2d6 Radiant damage on a hit."
Shillelagh: "For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8"
Well lets ask the question
Is an attack roll made as part of the spell?
Fount of Moonlight does not call for an attack roll as part of the spell. So No.
Shillelagh does not call for an attack roll as part of the spell. So again, No.
Interesting. Do you rule the same for Sorcerous Burst? "You cast sorcerous energy at one creature or object within range. Make a ranged attack roll against the target."
Interesting. Do you rule the same for Sorcerous Burst? "You cast sorcerous energy at one creature or object within range. Make a ranged attack roll against the target."
Both types at the same time?
Ok, let's ask the questions again.
Is an attack roll made as part of the spell? Yes. It is a spell attack.
Is a weapon used for the attack? No. It is not a weapon attack.
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.
Counterspell can't counter a weapon attack, but it can counter True Strike since it is a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components.
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.
If True Strike was a spell attack roll, it would not need to specify that you use spellcasting modifier for the roll. All spell attacks behave that way.
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
True Strike: " you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting"
It is a Weapon Attack and, unlike normal Weapon Attacks, applies the Spellcasting Ability Modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity to attack and damage rolls.
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.
Until contradicted, the existing SAC entry establishes that if there is any room for confusion, RAI is that is a weapon attack and no modifiers to spell attack rolls apply.
2014 rules and content remains D&D 5e rules and content until updated by 2024+ releases.
True Strike is a spell that provides a Weapon Attack and only a Weapon Attack.
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.
Counterspell can't counter a weapon attack, but it can counter True Strike since it is a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components.
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.
If True Strike was a spell attack roll, it would not need to specify that you use spellcasting modifier for the roll. All spell attacks behave that way.
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
True Strike: " you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting"
It is a Weapon Attack and, unlike normal Weapon Attacks, applies the Spellcasting Ability Modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity to attack and damage rolls.
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.
Until contradicted, the existing SAC entry establishes that if there is any room for confusion, RAI is that is a weapon attack and no modifiers to spell attack rolls apply.
2014 rules and content remains D&D 5e rules and content until updated by 2024+ releases.
True Strike is a spell that provides a Weapon Attack and only a Weapon Attack.
Ifyou choose to ignore the rules in the Rules Glossary as printed 2024 PHB then that is certainly your choice to make.
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?
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?
I think you are correct.
I even think this was intentional. They've stated they went out of their way to clean up the language around attack types (for example, to remove the idiosyncratic differences between a "melee attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" and the surrounding awkwardness in the 2014 rules), and in so doing, "paid the cost" of letting some attacks be both spell attacks and weapon attacks.
So, per this thread, I guess with a magic weapon and an arcane grimiore, you can get a pretty good attack bonus. The grimoire won't improve damage, though.
To me, True Strike is not a spell attack but a weapon attack being an attack with a weapon. I know the Rules Glossary seems conflictual, but when i read the Spell section, i'm not convinced the spell hits, rather that the weapon hits and that it's meant to be one or the other, which i'd favor weapon attack.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target. Here’s how to calculate the attack modifier for your spells:
Spell attack modifier = your spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus
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.
[...] but this forum is about RAW right?
Yeah, we agree on that :D Thanks again for your conversation and the good talk.
It has been a good talk :). Thank you for being nice. I normally avoid posting in this section of the forums because I don't enjoy arguing with people and this forum gets a bit more heated than the General one does. I just happen to find this topic interesting. It is a weird rules interaction.
To me, True Strike is not a spell attack but a weapon attack being an attack with a weapon. I know the Rules Glossary seems conflictual, but when i read the Spell section, i'm not convinced the spell hits, rather that the weapon hits and that it's meant to be one or the other, which i'd favor weapon attack.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target. Here’s how to calculate the attack modifier for your spells:
Spell attack modifier = your spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus
When it comes to RAI you may be right, but Kenclary may be right with it being intentional. I don't know. I am sure there with be an updated SAC for this eventually.
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.
[...] but this forum is about RAW right?
Yeah, we agree on that :D Thanks again for your conversation and the good talk.
It has been a good talk :). Thank you for being nice. I normally avoid posting in this section of the forums because I don't enjoy arguing with people and this forum gets a bit more heated than the General one does. I just happen to find this topic interesting. It is a weird rules interaction.
You seem like such a kind person, Lia Black. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and perspective on this.
And you know, True Strike is one of the trending topics in this 5e revision :D and that's leading to more debates than usual.
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'.
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.
. . .
The problem with that is that there are attack rolls that are made as 'part of a spell or another magical effect' that are clearly not Spell Attacks.
The easiest-to-spot examples are extra attacks allowed by Haste and the attacks launched by things animated by magic (e.g., attacks made by skeletons raised through Animate Dead).
Now, there is a slight disconnection between the casting and the attack in those cases, but as a semi-hypothetical example (I am pretty sure there is a spell that does this, but I can't recall its name) if a spell is cast on a target and that target is then immediately (out of its turn) forced to attack one ally within reach would you consider the target's roll to be a Spell Attack and gain any Spellcasting Bonus the caster has? Certainly that roll is being made as 'part of a spell'.
Even if I am wrong and the spell does not exist, it is a reasonable hypothetical because it could exist in the future.
So, one of the schools of thought is that True Strike functions more like that hypothetical spell. It targets the caster, allowing them to make a modified attack. That attack, while occurring due to the spell, is not a Spell Attack in that case unless you want to take a very literalist interpretation, but that type of stance leads to all sorts of much greater problems.
The easiest-to-spot examples are extra attacks allowed by Haste and the attacks launched by things animated by magic (e.g., attacks made by skeletons raised through Animate Dead).
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).
Neither Haste nor Animate Dead has you make an attack as part of the casting. Same is true for Shillelagh (the other spell people like to argue about). But True Strike, Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade? "you make one attack...", "...and make a melee attack..." etc.
The easiest-to-spot examples are extra attacks allowed by Haste and the attacks launched by things animated by magic (e.g., attacks made by skeletons raised through Animate Dead).
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).
Neither Haste nor Animate Dead has you make an attack as part of the casting. Same is true for Shillelagh (the other spell people like to argue about). But True Strike, Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade? "you make one attack...", "...and make a melee attack..." etc.
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.
You also neglect to talk about the semi-hypothetical where making an attack is definitely mentioned (and that isn't just semi-hypothetical; there are definitely spells where it states that the target will attack another nearby target) and the attack is made immediately (this is semi-hypothetical because I can't remember if such a spell currently exists, but even if not it certainly could exist in the future).
However, I agree with you. My argument was intended to show why taking a super-strict RAW stance is not a good idea.
So, with that out of the way, I will refer back to the school of thought that the attack made during True Strike is indirect (i.e.:the 'spell proper' targets the caster), and the attack roll is no more a Spell Attack than the roll in the semi-hypothetical would be.
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 and the attack is made as part of the spell? Yes
True Strike uses a weapon to make that attack? Yes
Both definitions apply.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So, in your opinion, are you making spell and weapon attacks at the same time with the following spells?
Fount of Moonlight: "Until the spell ends, you have Resistance to Radiant damage, and your melee attacks deal an extra 2d6 Radiant damage on a hit."
Shillelagh: "For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8"
Well lets ask the question
Is an attack roll made as part of the spell?
Fount of Moonlight does not call for an attack roll as part of the spell. So No.
Shillelagh does not call for an attack roll as part of the spell. So again, No.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Interesting. Do you rule the same for Sorcerous Burst? "You cast sorcerous energy at one creature or object within range. Make a ranged attack roll against the target."
Both types at the same time?
Ok, let's ask the questions again.
Is an attack roll made as part of the spell? Yes. It is a spell attack.
Is a weapon used for the attack? No. It is not a weapon attack.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Counterspell can't counter a weapon attack, but it can counter True Strike since it is a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components.
If True Strike was a spell attack roll, it would not need to specify that you use spellcasting modifier for the roll. All spell attacks behave that way.
True Strike: " you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting"
It is a Weapon Attack and, unlike normal Weapon Attacks, applies the Spellcasting Ability Modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity to attack and damage rolls.
2024 True Strike uses the same language as Booming Blade and Green-flame Blade except that the latter two specify that you make a melee attack with the weapons. Compare that to 2014 Shocking Grasp and 2024 Shocking Grasp which both mention making a melee spell attack.
Until contradicted, the existing SAC entry establishes that if there is any room for confusion, RAI is that is a weapon attack and no modifiers to spell attack rolls apply.
2014 rules and content remains D&D 5e rules and content until updated by 2024+ releases.
True Strike is a spell that provides a Weapon Attack and only a Weapon Attack.
How to add Tooltips.
Ok, thanks for your answers @Lia_Black!
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.
Ifyou choose to ignore the rules in the Rules Glossary as printed 2024 PHB then that is certainly your choice to make.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
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?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I am curious though. What is the absolute worst case senario if you treat it as both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think you are correct.
I even think this was intentional. They've stated they went out of their way to clean up the language around attack types (for example, to remove the idiosyncratic differences between a "melee attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" and the surrounding awkwardness in the 2014 rules), and in so doing, "paid the cost" of letting some attacks be both spell attacks and weapon attacks.
So, per this thread, I guess with a magic weapon and an arcane grimiore, you can get a pretty good attack bonus. The grimoire won't improve damage, though.
Yeah, we agree on that :D Thanks again for your conversation and the good talk.
To me, True Strike is not a spell attack but a weapon attack being an attack with a weapon. I know the Rules Glossary seems conflictual, but when i read the Spell section, i'm not convinced the spell hits, rather that the weapon hits and that it's meant to be one or the other, which i'd favor weapon attack.
It has been a good talk :). Thank you for being nice. I normally avoid posting in this section of the forums because I don't enjoy arguing with people and this forum gets a bit more heated than the General one does. I just happen to find this topic interesting. It is a weird rules interaction.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
When it comes to RAI you may be right, but Kenclary may be right with it being intentional. I don't know. I am sure there with be an updated SAC for this eventually.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You seem like such a kind person, Lia Black. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and perspective on this.
And you know, True Strike is one of the trending topics in this 5e revision :D and that's leading to more debates than usual.
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'.
The problem with that is that there are attack rolls that are made as 'part of a spell or another magical effect' that are clearly not Spell Attacks.
The easiest-to-spot examples are extra attacks allowed by Haste and the attacks launched by things animated by magic (e.g., attacks made by skeletons raised through Animate Dead).
Now, there is a slight disconnection between the casting and the attack in those cases, but as a semi-hypothetical example (I am pretty sure there is a spell that does this, but I can't recall its name) if a spell is cast on a target and that target is then immediately (out of its turn) forced to attack one ally within reach would you consider the target's roll to be a Spell Attack and gain any Spellcasting Bonus the caster has? Certainly that roll is being made as 'part of a spell'.
Even if I am wrong and the spell does not exist, it is a reasonable hypothetical because it could exist in the future.
So, one of the schools of thought is that True Strike functions more like that hypothetical spell. It targets the caster, allowing them to make a modified attack. That attack, while occurring due to the spell, is not a Spell Attack in that case unless you want to take a very literalist interpretation, but that type of stance leads to all sorts of much greater problems.
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).
Neither Haste nor Animate Dead has you make an attack as part of the casting. Same is true for Shillelagh (the other spell people like to argue about). But True Strike, Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade? "you make one attack...", "...and make a melee attack..." etc.
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.
You also neglect to talk about the semi-hypothetical where making an attack is definitely mentioned (and that isn't just semi-hypothetical; there are definitely spells where it states that the target will attack another nearby target) and the attack is made immediately (this is semi-hypothetical because I can't remember if such a spell currently exists, but even if not it certainly could exist in the future).
However, I agree with you. My argument was intended to show why taking a super-strict RAW stance is not a good idea.
So, with that out of the way, I will refer back to the school of thought that the attack made during True Strike is indirect (i.e.:the 'spell proper' targets the caster), and the attack roll is no more a Spell Attack than the roll in the semi-hypothetical would be.