Spell Attack contain the definition of what an attack labeled as "spell attack" normally is but isn't 100% applicable since there's existing feature that make spell attack and aren't part of spell.
IMO sorcerous burst should be a "spell attack" so it isn't an exception that confirm the rule but a mistake in need of errata as i believe it's the only 2024 attack spell not labeled as such.
Spell Attack contain the definition of what an attack labeled as "spell attack" normally is but isn't 100% applicable since there's existing feature that make spell attack and aren't part of spell.
Features that allow you to make a spell attack are (according to this way of thinking) exceptions to that rule.
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.
Right, but there is nothing saying that true strike is no longer a spell attack. (emphasis mine)
However, nothing you said mandates that the Attack Roll from True Stike be a Spell Attack roll.
"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.
You clipped the second sentence. 'The language just isn't there to support it except through slavish literalism.'
In all fairness, slavish literalism is probably overstating it, however.
The problem is that some people feel the attack by the first creature hit with the Antagonize spell is 'part of the spell.' The spell directly calls for it, and the spellcaster can't decide to have the first creature do something other than attack.
Again, you don't have to agree that the attack is 'part of the spell.' That's your interpretation, and that's fine. Just understand that other people can reasonably disagree with you on that.
Accepting that the attack is 'part of the spell', the fact that the creature has to use its Reaction is irrelevant. Nothing in the definition of Spell Attack says the attack can't use another creature's Action or Reaction.
Now, just because their interpretation is that the creature's attack is 'part of the spell' doesn't mean they want its attack to be a Spell Attack. I think we are in complete agreement that having that roll be a Spell Attack would be wrong. That leaves them deciding that the definition is poorly written and probably doesn't mean all attack rolls made as part of a spell are Spell Attacks. It probably means the majority of them are, and there are probably some exceptions, such as when the target of the spell is a creature, and that creature then makes the attack.
Again, my intention was not to say that your interpretation is wrong. It may very well turn out that we eventually get a clarification from the designers and that they agree with you. I intended to point out that there is a relatively reasonable alternative interpretation, and until a clarification from the designers comes out, this disagreement will continue.
You clipped the second sentence. 'The language just isn't there to support it except through slavish literalism.' In all fairness, slavish literalism is probably overstating it, however. ... That leaves them deciding that the definition is poorly written ... I intended to point out that there is a relatively reasonable alternative interpretation, and until a clarification from the designers comes out, this disagreement will continue.
(please excuse further clipping)
If someone is confused by a rule while willingly refusing to take the text at face value (i.e. not "literalism"), they aren't gonna be convinced by further clarification. That'd just be more text to not take literally. It's not on the designers to explain all the ways the game doesn't work. No rule is immune to rules lawyering or misinterpretation.
Ok, so then you feel that the creature attack from Antagonize is a Spell Attack?
Please point to the rules that state that it isn't. Note that the creature's attack is 'part of the spell.' Please do not try to claim it isn't.
Claiming otherwise is not taking the text at 'face value' since the spell directly calls for it, and the spellcaster can't decide to have the first creature do something other than attack.
Ok, so then you feel that the creature attack from Antagonize is a Spell Attack?
No, and I already explained why, based solely on the spell mechanics as written. (It happens outside of the spell's duration, basically.)
I started to copy/paste the text on duration from chapter 7, but that's clearly not worth my time. The text doesn't provide a(nother) definition of "spell attack" anyway.
Happening outside of the spell's duration isn't mentioned in the definition. I already pointed this out. That argument does not constitute a 'face value' explanation.
First: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”)." Second: "Each spell description has a series of entries that provide the details needed to cast the spell. The following sections explain each of those entries, which follow a spell’s name." Third: "A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists after it is cast." Fourth: "An instantaneous duration means the spell’s magic appears only for a moment and then disappears." Fifth, for good measure: "The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry."
(There's a whole chapter on spells, and I've quoted merely 4 sentences of it; this is not the sum total of the spell rules that mean what they say. I'm sure you can read the chapter yourself.)
In other words, the duration is part of the spell's description, which (in total) determines what is part of the spell. Things outside of the duration are not "part of the spell" (because the spell does not persist outside of the duration), ergo attacks related to the spell are not part of the spell if they are outside the duration, even if they are described in the description.
You understand that Reactions don't occur outside of the triggering action, right? If you attack and I have a Reaction that changes my AC my AC does not change after your attack.
Assuming that the first creature has an available Reaction their attack occurs just as quickly as the Attack from True Strike.
The attack for True Strike must occur after the spell is cast because True Strike has a Somatic component and a Somatic component can't simply be an attack.
You understand that Reactions don't occur outside of the triggering action, right? If you attack and I have a Reaction that changes my AC my AC does not change after your attack.
"The game uses actions to govern how much you can do at one time. You can take only one action at a time." A spell is cast with a Magic action, and if instantaneous, would not extend to another action, especially someone else's action.
Also, "In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise."
The attack for True Strike must occur after the spell is cast because True Strike has a Somatic component and a Somatic component can't simply be an attack.
True Strike is confined to a Magic action, which is the only game delineation of "only for a moment" (from the Instaneous rules) you're going to find.
...
If you need even more examples of how this has actually been thought out and written for you...each of Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade have 2 damage rolls (but only 1 attack, which is both a weapon attack and a spell attack in 2024). And their durations are set to include the followup damage: Booming Blade's is "1 round" (and even ends early once the second damage is done) whereas Green-Flame Blade is "Instantaneous."
This may be complicated, but it's all easily derived from the written rules. <insert "face value" or "literalism" snark here>
Sorry. Trus Strike is not confined to a Magic Action. Plenty of characters can cast True Strike as part of an Attack Action.
'Immediately after its trigger' is not the same as 'after the action has completed.' Reactions frequently occur during someone else's action, even though they occurred after the trigger. e.g., attack of opportunity, defensive use of Combat Inspiration or a monk using Deflect Attack against the first of several attacks.
So again, I see nothing specifying that the Reaction used in Antagonize means the attack is not 'part of the spell.' You are making an interpretation.
Unfortunately, you want to say that making any interpretations is 'wrong.'
The other problem with your chain of logic is that if the 'duration of the spell' is the critical component, then any attack caused by Confusion is now a Spell Attack. After all, it is in the text of the spell, and it occurs only during the duration of the spell.
At the end of the day, do you know why there is a 'Bad Faith Rule' in the DMG? It is precisely because a DM may need to say, 'Yes, the face-value text says that, but I don't believe the designers intended that.' (e.g., face value text says that if my CoV bard/rogue uses their +2 shortsword as a focus for casting Witchbolt they get +2 to the attack roll and damage and are allowed to do Sneak Attack damage since the rules for magical weapons say you get the bonus 'when you use them' and the rules for Sneak Attack says 'an attack using a finesse or ranged weapon'. However, I don't believe the designers intended that when they used the words 'attack using a weapon' instead of 'attack made with.')
You're trying to argue that people are wrong because they don't believe the designers intended the roll to be a Spell Attack.
Spell Attack contain the definition of what an attack labeled as "spell attack" normally is but isn't 100% applicable since there's existing feature that make spell attack and aren't part of spell.
Features that allow you to make a spell attack are (according to this way of thinking) exceptions to that rule.
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.
Right, but there is nothing saying that true strike is no longer a spell attack. (emphasis mine)
In order for an attack to be both a Spell Attack and a Weapon Attack, it must fit both definitions in the Rules Glossary. Once that is the case, the attack bonus is equal to proficiency bonus (if proficient) plus spellcasting modifier and, at the same time, it is equal to proficiency bonus (if proficient) plus strength modifier (if melee) or Dexterity modifier (if ranged).
Before we get to any specific spells, there is already an impossible contradiction. The attack bonus cannot be calculated by both of these formulas at the same time.
Now arguments for True Strike being only a Weapon Attack:
It fits both definitions in the Rules Glossary, if it were a Spell Attack, you wouldn't replace Strength or Dexterity as a modifier. These only apply to Weapon Attacks.
All of the wording about the actual attack describes a Weapon Attack. If they had any intention of it being a spell attack, they could have said make a spell attack with the weapon and removed an entire sentence in a book where space was at a premium.
The range of the spell is Self, not touch, or X feet. The target of the spell is the Spellcaster who is then empowered to make a modified Weapon Attack. This is no different than Haste cast on the caster to allow them to use an extra action. The modified Weapon Attack is an effect of the spell cast on the caster. The target of the Weapon Attack is not the target of the spell.
Sage Advice 129 states: "...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." True Strike use the same language, "make an attack with make one attack with the weapon". All of 5e is still valid until it is updated, including Sage Advice.
Arguments for True Strike being also a Spell Attack:
If I only examine the Rules Glossary and not any other part of the rule book and official rulings on how to interpret the rules, it fits both definitions.
That said, if you want to allow it to be both a Spell Attack and a Weapon Attack, there are issues.
As mentioned, the attack formula conflicts. I would recommend allowing the character to pick whether to calculate it as a Spell Attack or a Weapon Attack. This would change the formula, but it would still be considered "both". Modifiers that apply to spell attacks would only affect the spell attack formula and modifiers to weapon attacks would only apply to weapon attacks. This would diminish the value of magic weapons as you could combine True Strike with a Wand of the Warmage to get bonuses to attack and damage with all weapons.
Attacking (most likely using a ranged weapon outside of the AoE) into an Antimagic Field would negate a Spell Attack outright whereas as a Weapon Attack only, the modifications from the spell would be negated but the normal weapon attack would resolve as normal. I don't know what the RAW effect would be, I think it would be that the attack uses the normal damage and uses the normal attribute modifiers for attack and damage.
If True Strike is a Spell Attack, it is blocked by a Globe of Invulnerability while as a Weapon Attack is not. If it is both, it should always take the worse result. There may be other interactions where an effect applies to one type of attack and not another, but if an attack is both, it would be affected by effects that affect both, regardless of the formula used to calculate the attack.
As mentioned, a Wand of the War Mage grants its bonus to attacks and damage, but it also allows any True Strike attacks, such as with a Long Bow, to ignore half cover. The bonus to attacks scenario also applies to All Purpose Tools, Amulet of the Devout, Arcane Grimoire, Bloodwell Vial, Fate Dealer's Deck, Moon Sickle, Rod of the Pact Keeper, Rythm-maker's Drum. In addition, while most of these are required to be held, the Amulet of the Devout, Bloodwell Vial, Jester's Mask are just worn, freeing up your hands.
The Spell Sniper feat will allow you to bypass cover on your ranged weapon attacks with True Strike and allow you to fire within 5ft of an enemy instead of requiring Sharpshooter.
Those are the issues I could think of. There could be more. I don't recommend going down the dual status route.
Unfortunately, you want to say that making any interpretations is 'wrong.'
I'm not saying that at all. All language requires interpretation. It's the DM's job to make rulings; this isn't a computer game.
I'm not the one trying to play "gotcha" games with off-topic spells. (Even if I think those spells are straightforward, too.)
You're trying to argue that people are wrong because they don't believe the designers intended the roll to be a Spell Attack.
All I'm arguing is that the text is clear. I have no problem telling the difference between (an attack made as part of a spell) and (an attack made by someone else as a consequence of the spell), and I have no problem understanding that difference from the text. I don't think there's a hidden system to uncover.
You say it needs clarification, and I say people who argue with the text are going to argue with the clarification, too. "That'd just be more text to not take literally."
If you are the DM, it's your "job" to interpret the text. If you are the player, it's your "job" to play by the DM's interpretation. Saying you can't play/run the game until the designers "provide clarification" doesn't accomplish anything. I'm not trying to make a ruling for your table; I'm just demonstrating that a sensible ruling is easy.
Ok, so then you feel that the creature attack from Antagonize is a Spell Attack?
No, and I already explained why, based solely on the spell mechanics as written. (It happens outside of the spell's duration, basically.)
I started to copy/paste the text on duration from chapter 7, but that's clearly not worth my time. The text doesn't provide a(nother) definition of "spell attack" anyway.
What's True Strikes Duration again?
Duration
Instantaneous
Attack/Save
Melee
You are contradicting yourself on how you enforce it. True Strike cast buffed the caster and now is done instantaneously. The attack occurs outside of that instant cast
Ok, so then you feel that the creature attack from Antagonize is a Spell Attack?
No, and I already explained why, based solely on the spell mechanics as written. (It happens outside of the spell's duration, basically.)
I started to copy/paste the text on duration from chapter 7, but that's clearly not worth my time. The text doesn't provide a(nother) definition of "spell attack" anyway.
What's True Strikes Duration again?
Duration
Instantaneous
Attack/Save
Melee
You are contradicting yourself on how you enforce it. True Strike cast buffed the caster and now is done instantaneously. The attack occurs outside of that instant cast
Attack/Save is a D&D Beyond artifact and is not part of the actual Physical Rules. (Do we need a Rules As Printed notation?)
However, the range is Self, meaning True Strike is a spell you cast on yourself and then make an attack. It is not a spell you cast on a target of an attack.
Ok, so then you feel that the creature attack from Antagonize is a Spell Attack?
No, and I already explained why, based solely on the spell mechanics as written. (It happens outside of the spell's duration, basically.)
I started to copy/paste the text on duration from chapter 7, but that's clearly not worth my time. The text doesn't provide a(nother) definition of "spell attack" anyway.
What's True Strikes Duration again?
Duration
Instantaneous
Attack/Save
Melee
You are contradicting yourself on how you enforce it. True Strike cast buffed the caster and now is done instantaneously. The attack occurs outside of that instant cast
However, the range is Self, meaning True Strike is a spell you cast on yourself and then make an attack. It is not a spell you cast on a target of an attack.
That was not anything I was arguing for, but showing how the person I was quoting's instantaneous argument contradicts his argument it is a spell attack and not just an instant buff.
The spell goes off instantly, anything occurring after, aka the melee attack is just that, a melee attack. And there is plenty of Sage of Advice examples to support the same. The spell instantly buffs the caster, then they attack. They are separate occurrences.
I made another post asking if True Strike was considered a weapon attack so I could use the Savage Attacker feat and the Great Weapon Fighting style with it. I was directed to Sage Advice which explicit says "no" because True Strike, Divine Smite, Hex and other weapon attack enhancing spells in themselves aren't weapon attacks.
So if Sage Advice says "it's not a weapon attack", we can't say it's not a spell attack either. It could theoretically be considered both, but it makes no sense whatsoever to consider it neither. It's, at the very least, one or the other. And if we take what Sage Advice says at face value, for all intents and purposes, it's a spell, and should therefore be affected by the grimoire.
Also, there's no "stacking" taking place here. You cast a spell of which the damage is based on your weapon's stats, and you receive a bonus to that spell from your grimoire. You're not "stacking" anything. The bonus received from the grimoire and true strike are of a different nature. It's not even a bonus really. It's simply how the spell's damage is calculated. You wouldn't even ask yourself that question if it was eldritch blast or fire bolt.
I made another post asking if True Strike was considered a weapon attack so I could use the Savage Attacker feat and the Great Weapon Fighting style with it. I was directed to Sage Advice which explicit says "no" because True Strike, Divine Smite, Hex and other weapon attack enhancing spells in themselves aren't weapon attacks.
When make one attack with the weapon via True Strike and hit, Savage Attacker should let you roll the weapon’s damage dice twice and use either roll against the target.
I made another post asking if True Strike was considered a weapon attack so I could use the Savage Attacker feat and the Great Weapon Fighting style with it. I was directed to Sage Advice which explicit says "no" because True Strike, Divine Smite, Hex and other weapon attack enhancing spells in themselves aren't weapon attacks.
So if Sage Advice says "it's not a weapon attack", we can't say it's not a spell attack either. It could theoretically be considered both, but it makes no sense whatsoever to consider it neither. It's, at the very least, one or the other. And if we take what Sage Advice says at face value, for all intents and purposes, it's a spell, and should therefore be affected by the grimoire.
Also, there's no "stacking" taking place here. You cast a spell of which the damage is based on your weapon's stats, and you receive a bonus to that spell from your grimoire. You're not "stacking" anything. The bonus received from the grimoire and true strike are of a different nature. It's not even a bonus really. It's simply how the spell's damage is calculated. You wouldn't even ask yourself that question if it was eldritch blast or fire bolt.
Sage Advice (see here) says Savage Attacker only applies to the weapon's actual damage die, not to any additional damage effects that are tacked onto it.
No. The benefit of Savage Attacker applies only to rolls of the weapon’s damage dice, not to any extra damage that a feature or other ability might grant.
What it is saying is that it only applies the weapon's damage dice. It has no mention of weapon attack or not. True Strike deals the weapon's damage and at higher level adds extra dice. Savage Attacker would allow you to reroll only the weapon dice. The extra damage doesn't get rerolled because it is not the base weapon damage. The base weapon damage can be rerolled whether or not you replace the damage type is the normal Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing or you have substituted it for Radiant.
Spell Attack contain the definition of what an attack labeled as "spell attack" normally is but isn't 100% applicable since there's existing feature that make spell attack and aren't part of spell.
IMO sorcerous burst should be a "spell attack" so it isn't an exception that confirm the rule but a mistake in need of errata as i believe it's the only 2024 attack spell not labeled as such.
Features that allow you to make a spell attack are (according to this way of thinking) exceptions to that rule.
Right, but there is nothing saying that true strike is no longer a spell attack. (emphasis mine)
You clipped the second sentence. 'The language just isn't there to support it except through slavish literalism.'
In all fairness, slavish literalism is probably overstating it, however.
The problem is that some people feel the attack by the first creature hit with the Antagonize spell is 'part of the spell.' The spell directly calls for it, and the spellcaster can't decide to have the first creature do something other than attack.
Again, you don't have to agree that the attack is 'part of the spell.' That's your interpretation, and that's fine. Just understand that other people can reasonably disagree with you on that.
Accepting that the attack is 'part of the spell', the fact that the creature has to use its Reaction is irrelevant. Nothing in the definition of Spell Attack says the attack can't use another creature's Action or Reaction.
Now, just because their interpretation is that the creature's attack is 'part of the spell' doesn't mean they want its attack to be a Spell Attack. I think we are in complete agreement that having that roll be a Spell Attack would be wrong. That leaves them deciding that the definition is poorly written and probably doesn't mean all attack rolls made as part of a spell are Spell Attacks. It probably means the majority of them are, and there are probably some exceptions, such as when the target of the spell is a creature, and that creature then makes the attack.
Again, my intention was not to say that your interpretation is wrong. It may very well turn out that we eventually get a clarification from the designers and that they agree with you. I intended to point out that there is a relatively reasonable alternative interpretation, and until a clarification from the designers comes out, this disagreement will continue.
(please excuse further clipping)
If someone is confused by a rule while willingly refusing to take the text at face value (i.e. not "literalism"), they aren't gonna be convinced by further clarification. That'd just be more text to not take literally. It's not on the designers to explain all the ways the game doesn't work. No rule is immune to rules lawyering or misinterpretation.
Ok, so then you feel that the creature attack from Antagonize is a Spell Attack?
Please point to the rules that state that it isn't. Note that the creature's attack is 'part of the spell.' Please do not try to claim it isn't.
Claiming otherwise is not taking the text at 'face value' since the spell directly calls for it, and the spellcaster can't decide to have the first creature do something other than attack.
No, and I already explained why, based solely on the spell mechanics as written. (It happens outside of the spell's duration, basically.)
I started to copy/paste the text on duration from chapter 7, but that's clearly not worth my time. The text doesn't provide a(nother) definition of "spell attack" anyway.
Happening outside of the spell's duration isn't mentioned in the definition. I already pointed this out. That argument does not constitute a 'face value' explanation.
Please try again.
Fine. (bits of emphasis added.)
First: "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”)."
Second: "Each spell description has a series of entries that provide the details needed to cast the spell. The following sections explain each of those entries, which follow a spell’s name."
Third: "A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists after it is cast."
Fourth: "An instantaneous duration means the spell’s magic appears only for a moment and then disappears."
Fifth, for good measure: "The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry."
(There's a whole chapter on spells, and I've quoted merely 4 sentences of it; this is not the sum total of the spell rules that mean what they say. I'm sure you can read the chapter yourself.)
In other words, the duration is part of the spell's description, which (in total) determines what is part of the spell. Things outside of the duration are not "part of the spell" (because the spell does not persist outside of the duration), ergo attacks related to the spell are not part of the spell if they are outside the duration, even if they are described in the description.
You understand that Reactions don't occur outside of the triggering action, right? If you attack and I have a Reaction that changes my AC my AC does not change after your attack.
Assuming that the first creature has an available Reaction their attack occurs just as quickly as the Attack from True Strike.
The attack for True Strike must occur after the spell is cast because True Strike has a Somatic component and a Somatic component can't simply be an attack.
Again, this is just taking rules at 'face value'.
"The game uses actions to govern how much you can do at one time. You can take only one action at a time." A spell is cast with a Magic action, and if instantaneous, would not extend to another action, especially someone else's action.
Also, "In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise."
True Strike is confined to a Magic action, which is the only game delineation of "only for a moment" (from the Instaneous rules) you're going to find.
...
If you need even more examples of how this has actually been thought out and written for you...each of Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade have 2 damage rolls (but only 1 attack, which is both a weapon attack and a spell attack in 2024). And their durations are set to include the followup damage: Booming Blade's is "1 round" (and even ends early once the second damage is done) whereas Green-Flame Blade is "Instantaneous."
This may be complicated, but it's all easily derived from the written rules. <insert "face value" or "literalism" snark here>
Sorry. Trus Strike is not confined to a Magic Action. Plenty of characters can cast True Strike as part of an Attack Action.
'Immediately after its trigger' is not the same as 'after the action has completed.' Reactions frequently occur during someone else's action, even though they occurred after the trigger. e.g., attack of opportunity, defensive use of Combat Inspiration or a monk using Deflect Attack against the first of several attacks.
So again, I see nothing specifying that the Reaction used in Antagonize means the attack is not 'part of the spell.' You are making an interpretation.
Unfortunately, you want to say that making any interpretations is 'wrong.'
The other problem with your chain of logic is that if the 'duration of the spell' is the critical component, then any attack caused by Confusion is now a Spell Attack. After all, it is in the text of the spell, and it occurs only during the duration of the spell.
At the end of the day, do you know why there is a 'Bad Faith Rule' in the DMG? It is precisely because a DM may need to say, 'Yes, the face-value text says that, but I don't believe the designers intended that.' (e.g., face value text says that if my CoV bard/rogue uses their +2 shortsword as a focus for casting Witchbolt they get +2 to the attack roll and damage and are allowed to do Sneak Attack damage since the rules for magical weapons say you get the bonus 'when you use them' and the rules for Sneak Attack says 'an attack using a finesse or ranged weapon'. However, I don't believe the designers intended that when they used the words 'attack using a weapon' instead of 'attack made with.')
You're trying to argue that people are wrong because they don't believe the designers intended the roll to be a Spell Attack.
In order for an attack to be both a Spell Attack and a Weapon Attack, it must fit both definitions in the Rules Glossary. Once that is the case, the attack bonus is equal to proficiency bonus (if proficient) plus spellcasting modifier and, at the same time, it is equal to proficiency bonus (if proficient) plus strength modifier (if melee) or Dexterity modifier (if ranged).
Before we get to any specific spells, there is already an impossible contradiction. The attack bonus cannot be calculated by both of these formulas at the same time.
Now arguments for True Strike being only a Weapon Attack:
Arguments for True Strike being also a Spell Attack:
That said, if you want to allow it to be both a Spell Attack and a Weapon Attack, there are issues.
Those are the issues I could think of. There could be more. I don't recommend going down the dual status route.
How to add Tooltips.
I'm not saying that at all. All language requires interpretation. It's the DM's job to make rulings; this isn't a computer game.
I'm not the one trying to play "gotcha" games with off-topic spells. (Even if I think those spells are straightforward, too.)
All I'm arguing is that the text is clear. I have no problem telling the difference between (an attack made as part of a spell) and (an attack made by someone else as a consequence of the spell), and I have no problem understanding that difference from the text. I don't think there's a hidden system to uncover.
You say it needs clarification, and I say people who argue with the text are going to argue with the clarification, too. "That'd just be more text to not take literally."
If you are the DM, it's your "job" to interpret the text. If you are the player, it's your "job" to play by the DM's interpretation. Saying you can't play/run the game until the designers "provide clarification" doesn't accomplish anything. I'm not trying to make a ruling for your table; I'm just demonstrating that a sensible ruling is easy.
What's True Strikes Duration again?
You are contradicting yourself on how you enforce it. True Strike cast buffed the caster and now is done instantaneously.
The attack occurs outside of that instant cast
Attack/Save is a D&D Beyond artifact and is not part of the actual Physical Rules. (Do we need a Rules As Printed notation?)
However, the range is Self, meaning True Strike is a spell you cast on yourself and then make an attack. It is not a spell you cast on a target of an attack.
How to add Tooltips.
That was not anything I was arguing for, but showing how the person I was quoting's instantaneous argument contradicts his argument it is a spell attack and not just an instant buff.
The spell goes off instantly, anything occurring after, aka the melee attack is just that, a melee attack. And there is plenty of Sage of Advice examples to support the same.
The spell instantly buffs the caster, then they attack. They are separate occurrences.
I made another post asking if True Strike was considered a weapon attack so I could use the Savage Attacker feat and the Great Weapon Fighting style with it.
I was directed to Sage Advice which explicit says "no" because True Strike, Divine Smite, Hex and other weapon attack enhancing spells in themselves aren't weapon attacks.
So if Sage Advice says "it's not a weapon attack", we can't say it's not a spell attack either. It could theoretically be considered both, but it makes no sense whatsoever to consider it neither.
It's, at the very least, one or the other. And if we take what Sage Advice says at face value, for all intents and purposes, it's a spell, and should therefore be affected by the grimoire.
Also, there's no "stacking" taking place here. You cast a spell of which the damage is based on your weapon's stats, and you receive a bonus to that spell from your grimoire. You're not "stacking" anything. The bonus received from the grimoire and true strike are of a different nature. It's not even a bonus really. It's simply how the spell's damage is calculated. You wouldn't even ask yourself that question if it was eldritch blast or fire bolt.
When make one attack with the weapon via True Strike and hit, Savage Attacker should let you roll the weapon’s damage dice twice and use either roll against the target.
That's not what the Sage Advice said.
The Sage Advice you were linked to by wagnarokkr was Does the benefit of the Savage Attacker feat apply to additional effects like the rogue’s Sneak Attack or the paladin’s Divine Smite?
What it is saying is that it only applies the weapon's damage dice. It has no mention of weapon attack or not. True Strike deals the weapon's damage and at higher level adds extra dice. Savage Attacker would allow you to reroll only the weapon dice. The extra damage doesn't get rerolled because it is not the base weapon damage. The base weapon damage can be rerolled whether or not you replace the damage type is the normal Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing or you have substituted it for Radiant.
How to add Tooltips.