Given that it's the source of a lot of confusion here and elsewhere, it seems like the 2024 PHB was a missed opportunity to differentiate the terms "attack" and "Attack Action". We have the new term "Magic Action" why not a Strike Action or something 

I did the math on whether it's better to use Nick or True strike. Nick deals better damage until level 17. (Assuming we use a scimitar in both cases)

Edit: A case can be made for using it with the rapier, as weapon master with it gives us vex, which gives us advantage on attacks if we hit until the end of the next turn. It still does a little less damage then nick, 16.5 for the rapier and 17 for the scimitar at level 11, but we do get advantage and radiant damage. So, an intelligence based rogue could keep up in damage with the dexterity based rogue.

Sneak Attack should work.  Sneak only requires you do damage with an "attack roll", so this and other spells that use attack rolls like Firebolt should qualify.

Nick requires that the attack be part of the Attack action taken on your turn.  Casting a spell is typically a magic action, so it wouldn't qualify.  One possible exception is subclasses like Eldritch Knight that can replace an attack with a spell as part of their attack action.

So proud of True Strike for going from the most useless cantrip in history to being a super fun and useful cantrip that enables tons of interesting weapon mage builds.

This is a kind of neat change that helps casters be able to use a melee weapon in a pinch. Not sure what makes it "True Strike" though without either an additional bonus to hit or advantage, neither of which the spell gives.

Combine this with Pact of the Blade for Double Damage with your Charisma modifier!

Quote from Undaedalus >>

Sneak Attack should work.  Sneak only requires you do damage with an "attack roll", so this and other spells that use attack rolls like Firebolt should qualify.

Nick requires that the attack be part of the Attack action taken on your turn.  Casting a spell is typically a magic action, so it wouldn't qualify.  One possible exception is subclasses like Eldritch Knight that can replace an attack with a spell as part of their attack action.

 Firebolt is neither a Finesse nor a Ranged weapon, so Sneak Attack would not apply to it.

Quote from SorrowfulCheshire42 >>

Combine this with Pact of the Blade for Double Damage with your Charisma modifier!

 You could do that, but you don't get anything Pact of the Blade doesn't already give you until level 5, at which point you can just pick up Thirsting Blade. You could use this instead if you really wanted that extra Invocation, but even with the least damaging weapon you're losing out on damage potential from doing this. Depending on what kind of weapon you're using you might come ahead around level 11 or 17.

Question: Could you use a two-handed weapon (light-crossbow) with this? Since the crossbow is a two-handed weapon you wouldn't have a free hand, but can you use the free Interact action do perform the sematic component?

Quote from JestersMotley >>

Question: Could you use a two-handed weapon (light-crossbow) with this? Since the crossbow is a two-handed weapon you wouldn't have a free hand, but can you use the free Interact action do perform the sematic component?

 

 You don't need 2 hands to use the crossbow until you actually fire it. I expect true strike+light crossbow will be pretty common for spellcasters in a pinch.

Does anyone know if a rogue casts True Strike and makes their weapon damage Radiant, if the sneak attack will also be radiant?

Quote from RaykothMaugrim >>

Would this work with the Celestial Warlocks 6th level radiant soul feature?

 I dont think it would. Since TS cantrip isn't doing dmg, the weapon being used it. TS just allows you to use you spell cast modified for ATK and DMG rolls

Attack says melee. Does this have to be a melee weapon ? 

i was wondering the same thing, i just noticed though that only the the spell link for "True Strike" on D&D beyond has an "Attack/Save" section. If you look at the spell "True Strike" in the actual text in the book,  there is no "Attack/Save" under the spell. So im starting to think that its just a weird quirk on D&D beyond and is not an actual restriction, and the spell actually allows for both melee and ranged weapons per the text of the spell in the book, which does not have an "Attack/Save" restriction.

Quote from sunny_d_ >>

Quote from JestersMotley >>

Question: Could you use a two-handed weapon (light-crossbow) with this? Since the crossbow is a two-handed weapon you wouldn't have a free hand, but can you use the free Interact action do perform the sematic component?

 

 You don't need 2 hands to use the crossbow until you actually fire it. I expect true strike+light crossbow will be pretty common for spellcasters in a pinch.

When a spell requires both somatic and material components the spell can be cast performing the somatic components with the same hand as the material components (in this instance, the light-crossbow). https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/spells#Components

At level 5 dndbeyond is showing this doing just 1d6+5 radiant damage rather than the standard 1d6 + 1d6 for cantrip upgrade.

Its the same no matter what weapon is being wielded so presumably you also do the weapons damage.

Quote from Geldhart >>

Does anyone know if a rogue casts True Strike and makes their weapon damage Radiant, if the sneak attack will also be radiant?

 Sneak Attack says that it does extra damage of the weapon's type. So you attack with a Rapier you get Piercing Damage with your Sneak.

True Strike says that the damage can be Radiant or the weapon's normal damage type. So how I read it is that yes if you change the damage to Radiant then you get Radiant Sneak damage.

War caster should allow two handed weapons. The weapon is the M and war caster lets you do S with a weapon or shield in both hands.

Without war caster, while you can hold a two handed weapon in one hand, you need two to attack and the attack is part of the spell.

Sling would work without it, assuming other hand is free, as should the hand crossbow.

Does anyone have any views on whether or not using True Strike would allow Fighters or Paladins to use extra attacks? Sadly I'm leaning towards NO because this is still initiated with a "Magic" action rather than an "Attack" action. It also specifies 'one' attack in the spell description. 

Points against it however is the that the "Attack" action itself is defined simply as making a melee attack roll, which this spell does. 

So maybe this spell does proc extra attacks, however extra attacks would have to revert to STR/DEX. Bit open to interpretation here. Either way, fairly easy rule to bend and cool spell overall.

Was definitely not. Old one was the absolute worse spell in any game ever created in the history of the universe. It was an action to give advantage on your next attack on your following turn. You literally waste a turn. I agree tho that the change was pointless and instead they should have made truestrike either a bonus action or reaction. This new one is just a weaker booming blade. Although not needing dex or str does help wizards, but if you’re gonna go a spellsword there’s better options.