Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
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.
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.
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.
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.
pronouns: he/she/they
^ Yup. This is the way.
There is also this text from the Spells chapter:
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.