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. [...]
From the Sage question: "Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?"
"First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do."
This would apply to True Strike as well. It involves a normal melee weapon attack, and the spell DOES NOT say it is a spell attack like any other spells that are.
Clear Sage advice ruling that would apply to True Strike. This: "A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do." Is RAW according to Sage Advice.
And if it isn't a spell attack, the Grimoire buff does NOT apply. I do think that Sage rules should be added to the spellcasting rules in the future PHB printings.
Guess we should have gone to the Sage Advice first. It was pretty clear there.
From the Sage question: "Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?"
"First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do."
This would apply to True Strike as well. It involves a normal melee weapon attack, and the spell DOES NOT say it is a spell attack like any other spells that are.
Clear Sage advice ruling that would apply to True Strike. This: "A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do." Is RAW according to Sage Advice.
I agree with the conclusion, but this is might not be a pattern in the 2024 rules. Sorcerous Burst is the only spell I can find with an attack that does not specify a spell attack or describe a weapon attack. Perhaps if Sorcerous Burst is the only outlier, the trend continues and Sorcerous Burst needs an errata.
I'm not sure where you were looking, but the above is just a few out of the 2024 class spell lists. There aren't many cleric ones (I listed all of those), but I didn't even get out of 1st level for wizard before stopping, and there are A LOT more, that clearly define they are spell attacks and require a spell attack roll. So I'd say they are still using the same rules.
Yes. All of those are spell attacks. I said Sorcerous Burst is the only spell with an attack that does not specify a spell or weapon attack. This could represent a break from the pattern or a need for an erratum. I merely mentioned Sorcerous Burst as a potential change in that stance. I expect that it will be corrected to explicitly says "spell attack", but they might also say that the Rules Glossary covers it.
And if you look at True Strike it does not say spell attack anywhere. Just a melee attack just like Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade which the Sage Advice refers to, both triggering attacks just like True Strike.
And so the Sage says, if it does NOT say it is a spell attack... it isn't.
And if it isn't a spell attack, the Grimoire buff does NOT apply. I do think that Sage rules should be added to the spellcasting rules in the future PHB printings.
Guess we should have gone to the Sage Advice first. It was pretty clear there.
Yes. All of that is correct. See my post 3 days ago for more reasons why True Strike is a Weapon Attack.
From the Sage question: "Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?"
"First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do."
This would apply to True Strike as well. It involves a normal melee weapon attack, and the spell DOES NOT say it is a spell attack like any other spells that are.
Clear Sage advice ruling that would apply to True Strike. This: "A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do." Is RAW according to Sage Advice.
This is a great explanation.
About Sorcerous Burst, I'd say it needs errata, but that's just my opinion.
Yes. All of those are spell attacks. I said Sorcerous Burst is the only spell with an attack that does not specify a spell or weapon attack. This could represent a break from the pattern or a need for an erratum. I merely mentioned Sorcerous Burst as a potential change in that stance. I expect that it will be corrected to explicitly says "spell attack", but they might also say that the Rules Glossary covers it.
Yes. All of that is correct. See my post 3 days ago for more reasons why True Strike is a Weapon Attack.
My bad, totally misread that. Yeah Sorcerous burst seems like an errata candidate.
I hope True Strike will soon get the same treatment
You mean for saying it's explicitly a weapon attack?
Previous wording for 2024 Sorcerous Burst was used to argue that True Strike was a spell attack (or even both things at once) but I don't agree with those interpretations.
I'm not trying to restart the discussion, but my recommendation would be to revisit the Smite POV comparison and explanation and that locked thread, taking the updated wording for Sorcerous Burst into account.
Yes, that's what I meant. I'd wish to see "you make a weapon attack roll" instead of "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting". Because the way it's worded now, you could argue either weapon or spell, because it's both made with a weapon and part of the spell's casting. Some people even argued it was both.
I remember the discussion you mentioned, and that's precisely why I'd like to see the wording change. Even though we came to a conclusion that it is indeed a weapon attack, it took way too much back and forth argument, and some people still don't agree.
Plus, I've played enough BG3 to understand how important Bounded Accuracy is for balance.
For future reference: Can True Strike and Savage Attacker work together? (2024)
From the Sage question: "Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?"
"First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do."
This would apply to True Strike as well. It involves a normal melee weapon attack, and the spell DOES NOT say it is a spell attack like any other spells that are.
Clear Sage advice ruling that would apply to True Strike.
This:
"A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do."
Is RAW according to Sage Advice.
And if it isn't a spell attack, the Grimoire buff does NOT apply. I do think that Sage rules should be added to the spellcasting rules in the future PHB printings.
Guess we should have gone to the Sage Advice first. It was pretty clear there.
I agree with the conclusion, but this is might not be a pattern in the 2024 rules. Sorcerous Burst is the only spell I can find with an attack that does not specify a spell attack or describe a weapon attack. Perhaps if Sorcerous Burst is the only outlier, the trend continues and Sorcerous Burst needs an errata.
How to add Tooltips.
Yes. All of those are spell attacks. I said Sorcerous Burst is the only spell with an attack that does not specify a spell or weapon attack. This could represent a break from the pattern or a need for an erratum. I merely mentioned Sorcerous Burst as a potential change in that stance. I expect that it will be corrected to explicitly says "spell attack", but they might also say that the Rules Glossary covers it.
Yes. All of that is correct. See my post 3 days ago for more reasons why True Strike is a Weapon Attack.
How to add Tooltips.
This is a great explanation.
About Sorcerous Burst, I'd say it needs errata, but that's just my opinion.
If not, you could use Sneak Attack with it.
My bad, totally misread that. Yeah Sorcerous burst seems like an errata candidate.
Interesting. Sorcerous Burst now states it's a ranged spell attack, but it's not listed in the changelog.
I hope True Strike will soon get the same treatment
You mean for saying it's explicitly a weapon attack?
Previous wording for 2024 Sorcerous Burst was used to argue that True Strike was a spell attack (or even both things at once) but I don't agree with those interpretations.
I'm not trying to restart the discussion, but my recommendation would be to revisit the Smite POV comparison and explanation and that locked thread, taking the updated wording for Sorcerous Burst into account.
Yes, that's what I meant. I'd wish to see "you make a weapon attack roll" instead of "you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting".
Because the way it's worded now, you could argue either weapon or spell, because it's both made with a weapon and part of the spell's casting. Some people even argued it was both.
I remember the discussion you mentioned, and that's precisely why I'd like to see the wording change. Even though we came to a conclusion that it is indeed a weapon attack, it took way too much back and forth argument, and some people still don't agree.
Plus, I've played enough BG3 to understand how important Bounded Accuracy is for balance.