True Strike with +1 weapon and Bloodwell Vial (or equivalent)

RAW. If I cast True Strike with a +1 weapon while I have a +1 Bloodwell Vial as a focus. Would the attack benefit from both bonuses?

It's technically both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack

"Ask your DM." I would say yes, but this is a common flamewar on these forums.

True Strike is a spell with a range of Self, for that reason I would disallow it to benefit from +1 to spell attacks. As part of the spell, it does allow you to perform a weapon attack. I would rule that it only benefits from the +1 on the weapon.

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

True Strike is a spell with a range of Self, for that reason I would disallow it to benefit from +1 to spell attacks. As part of the spell, it does allow you to perform a weapon attack. I would rule that it only benefits from the +1 on the weapon.

I agree with this.  The spell effect for True Strike does not create a "spell attack" so you wouldn't get the bonus which depends on that.

That Rules Glossary definition is a bit misleading.  Although the attack is described within the effect block of the spell description, it's not really an attack that is made "as part of" the spell or magical effect.  The spell creates an effect which affects the spellcaster and that effect enables the spellcaster to immediately make a weapon attack using some special rules.  Examples of spells which create a "spell attack" include Chill Touch and Chromatic Orb.

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

True Strike is a spell with a range of Self, for that reason I would disallow it to benefit from +1 to spell attacks. As part of the spell, it does allow you to perform a weapon attack. I would rule that it only benefits from the +1 on the weapon.

 That's the definition of a spell attack.

Quote from SrChanchi >>

That's the definition of a spell attack.

I think you're correct, because the definitions are simple and laid out very clearly.

Plenty of people want the answer to be "no," probably because they think "yes" is overpowered. So they jump through rhetorical hoops to make a ruling (even though it's really just the DM's call). Thus you get sentences like "[t]hat Rules Glossary definition is a bit misleading."

Nothing in the rules says that weapon attacks and spell attacks are mutually exclusive. Nor does anything say that a range of self affects either of them. In fact, the rules say "[a] spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else" which is completely independent of range (which only limits how a spell originates).

Except, cases of making a spell attack like Chill Touch specifically indicate that they're using a spell attack, whereas True Strike requires specific language in the description clarifying that you're using your spellcasting mod rather than one of the standard weapon ones for the attack. If it was a spell attack, that language wouldn't be called for since the attack would already be using the mod.

Quote from SrChanchi >>

RAW. If I cast True Strike with a +1 weapon while I have a +1 Bloodwell Vial as a focus. Would the attack benefit from both bonuses?

It's technically both a Weapon Attack and a Spell Attack

For the record, the bonus from the Weapon, +1 pretty definitively does apply, regardless of what anyone says about whether the bonus from the Bloodwell Vial does or doesn't apply.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Except, cases of making a spell attack like Chill Touch specifically indicate that they're using a spell attack, whereas True Strike requires specific language in the description clarifying that you're using your spellcasting mod rather than one of the standard weapon ones for the attack. If it was a spell attack, that language wouldn't be called for since the attack would already be using the mod.

^ Yup.  This is the way.

Quote from kenclary >>

Nothing in the rules says that weapon attacks and spell attacks are mutually exclusive. 

Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure . . .

There is also this text from the Spells chapter:

Attack Rolls

Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target.

The True Strike spell cannot hit any target because it doesn't attack anything.  

__________

This issue is just a matter of reading and understanding what the spell description says that the spell actually does.  The True Strike spell just creates a spell effect which buffs the spellcaster.  It grants the spellcaster magical insight and compels the spellcaster to engage in the activity of making a weapon attack with modified rules.  If the intent was for the spell effect to allow the spellcaster to make a spell attack, then it would have said so.

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Except, cases of making a spell attack like Chill Touch specifically indicate that they're using a spell attack, whereas True Strike requires specific language in the description clarifying that you're using your spellcasting mod rather than one of the standard weapon ones for the attack. If it was a spell attack, that language wouldn't be called for since the attack would already be using the mod.

 

^ Yup.  This is the way.

 

Quote from kenclary >>

Nothing in the rules says that weapon attacks and spell attacks are mutually exclusive. 

 

Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure . . .

 

There is also this text from the Spells chapter:

Attack Rolls

Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target.

 

The True Strike spell cannot hit any target because it doesn't attack anything.  

__________

This issue is just a matter of reading and understanding what the spell description says that the spell actually does.  The True Strike spell just creates a spell effect which buffs the spellcaster.  It grants the spellcaster magical insight and compels the spellcaster to engage in the activity of making a weapon attack with modified rules.  If the intent was for the spell effect to allow the spellcaster to make a spell attack, then it would have said so.

 I'm talking about 2024 version of True Strike.

Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting.

So are we, I believe. Compare True Strike to any other attack roll cantrip in the 2024 PHB and they all specifically say “make a ranged/melee spell attack”. The lack of the same phrasing here as the sole outlier would strongly indicate that the roll is not a spell attack.

If they ever do more sage advice, I hope they comment on True Strike as there is so much ambiguity related to it.

Quote from Frachese >>

If they ever do more sage advice, I hope they comment on True Strike as there is so much ambiguity related to it.

In general, the weapon cantrips are a good idea with really poor execution

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Frachese >>

If they ever do more sage advice, I hope they comment on True Strike as there is so much ambiguity related to it.

 

In general, the weapon cantrips are a good idea with really poor execution

 I disagree that they were a good idea. They let casters invade the space of martials far too easily and turned the whole optimization meta into gishes, gishes, and more gishes. True Strike is so unambiguously the best cantrip now it's made 5.5e boring.

Quote from Agilemind >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Frachese >>

If they ever do more sage advice, I hope they comment on True Strike as there is so much ambiguity related to it.

 

In general, the weapon cantrips are a good idea with really poor execution

 I disagree that they were a good idea. They let casters invade the space of martials far too easily and turned the whole optimization meta into gishes, gishes, and more gishes. True Strike is so unambiguously the best cantrip now it's made 5.5e boring.

They allow for character concepts that otherwise are generally unsatisfying to play. They're fine. I even think that True strike is mechanically reasonable, within the rules paradigm that 5e works with.

As for what they do to the optimization meta, that's not important. It's not the game they're designing for.

Quote from Agilemind >>

turned the whole optimization meta

There's really no such thing in D&D

Quote from Agilemind >>

True Strike is so unambiguously the best cantrip now

Best for... what? It's pretty useless as a ranged attack, or for passing ability checks, or distracting guards, or finding creative solutions to a problem

And adding about 3 damage every five or so levels is not exactly a steep power curve. At the most basic action economy, a caster at 11th level using True Strike with a d8 weapon will deal 4+5+3+4 damage for  16 total. A Fighter making their three attacks with that same weapon does (4+5)*3 if we’re simplifying the math a bit for 27 damage before we apply any extra like a Fighting Style. Even cantrip weaving classes only add another 4+5 to the True Strike calculation- assuming they’ve maxed both their casting and weapon stat- for 25 damage.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Best for... what? It's pretty useless as a ranged attack, or for passing ability checks, or distracting guards, or finding creative solutions to a problem

It can be used just fine with ranged weapons. Though, to really "exploit" it you need to combine it with a martial weapon, a fighting style, a weapon mastery...and other stuff that's awkward to optimally stack on a spellcaster.

Mostly, I think people don't like that, with a good weapon, it kinda outruns the other damage cantrips except at the highest levels, and it gets the option for a really "good" damage type.