D&D 5E (2024) Does Innate Sorcery grant True Strike advantage?

[jmartkdr2]

My response to that would be the same as yours :

Source on that?

The text only says "attack rolls". The spell calls for an "attack" .

Hmm. Fair point.

Of course, I still disagree that the spell calling out the rule means that the rule doesn't apply.

 

[Maxperson]

Does the Sorcerer's Innate Sorcery feature cause the attack made with the True Strike cantrip to have advantage?

Note: the question isn't whether you would allow it at your table, but whether you think it's allowed by the rules.

Innate Sorcery

An event in your past left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with simmering magic. As a Bonus Action, you can unleash that magic for 1 minute, during which you gain the following benefits:​

• The spell save DC of your Sorcerer spells increases by 1.
• You have Advantage on the attack rolls of Sorcerer spells you cast.

True Strike
Casting Time: Action
Range: Self
Components: S, M (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)
Duration: Instantaneous

Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using your Strength or Dexterity. If the attacks deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon's normal damage type (your choice).​

I would say no. Even though the weapon is part of the spell's casting, the attack is not a sorcerer spell attack like Firebolt would be. It took me a minute of considering to come up with that answer, though. I could totally see a ruling in the other direction, but wouldn't rule that way myself.

 

[Zardnaar]

Its ambiguous. RAI probably not.

RAW it seems it would. As long as you pick it via being a sorcerer.

I would say no probably but yeah it seems so. Its on srcerer spells you cast true strike involves an attack roll vs spell attack roll.

I don't tend to go with RAW until something is a problem. I dont like it as such but its a yes.

 

[Maxperson]

But you're not using the Attack action. You're using the Cast A Spell action, and the spell is calling for an attack.

It calls for an attack, not a spell attack.

 

[Maxperson]

That's only for Spell Attack rolls, not Weapon Attack rolls caused by spells.

Spell attacks are still called out, though.

"Clenched Fist. The hand strikes a target within 5 feet of it. Make a melee spell attack. On a hit, the target takes Sd8 Force damage."

You are not making a melee spell attack with True Strike. You are making an attack, which is like an attack from the attack action.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Spell attacks are still called out, though.

"Clenched Fist. The hand strikes a target within 5 feet of it. Make a melee spell attack. On a hit, the target takes Sd8 Force damage."

You are not making a melee spell attack with True Strike. You are making an attack, which is like an attack from the attack action.

Which is an attack from one of your sorcerer spells, correct? So Innate sorcery should apply, yes?

 

[Charlaquin]

No. The attack roll you make with True Strike is not “an attack roll of a sorcerer spell.” It’s an attack roll with a weapon, which you make as part of resolving the effect of True Strike.

This is a literal case of "the exception proves the rule." I.E. If the sign says "No Parking on Sunday", it is proof that parking is allowed on Monday.

Totally unimportant side note: that’s not really what that idiom means. To “prove” means to test (e.g. “proving grounds” are grounds where you are tested). “The exception that proves the rule” is an exception that puts an alleged rule to the test, providing a precedent case wherein the rule does not apply. For example, the word “neighbor” proves the rule that i comes before e except after c, because clearly the e is coming first there. The rule doesn’t hold up in all cases, and thus must either be discarded, or amended to account for the exception; hence the lesser-known addendum, “or when sounding like ‘ay’ as in neighbor or weigh.”

Which is also not correct in all cases, but I digress.

 

[pawsplay]

As written, yes. As intended? Probably. Why wouldn't it? Why single out this one spell?

 

[Charlaquin]

Spell attacks are still called out, though.

"Clenched Fist. The hand strikes a target within 5 feet of it. Make a melee spell attack. On a hit, the target takes Sd8 Force damage."

You are not making a melee spell attack with True Strike. You are making an attack, which is like an attack from the attack action.

Which is an attack from one of your sorcerer spells, correct? So Innate sorcery should apply, yes?

Notably, this version of True Strike is in the 2024 rules, which don’t use the “weapon attack” vs “spell attack” distinction that the 2014 rules had - probably due to the consternation those categories caused in cases like unarmed strikes where an attack that was not made with a weapon would still be considered a “weapon attack” because the only alternative was for it to be a spell attack. The terms “weapon attack” and “spell attack” don’t, to my knowledge, appear in the 2024 rules. There are only attack rolls of spells and attack rolls made with weapons. Even in monster stat blocks, attacks are listed as melee/ranged attack roll +X: instead of melee/ranged weapon/spell attack +X:

This spell clearly creates a new ambiguity, because it is objectively an attack roll made with a weapon, but it is made as part of the effect of a spell, so one could easily read it as also being an attack roll of a spell. This is a case where my preferred interpretation of True Strike, Green Flame Blade, and other such spells comes in: the spell’s effect is to allow you to make an attack, which has special effects on a hit. I know this is a controversial interpretation, but it very cleanly resolves this, and many other ambiguities these spells cause.

 

[Minigiant]

Really it depends.

Is the attack from True Strike a spell attack or weapon attack