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

[jmartkdr2]

Seems clean enough to me, but an alternative way would probably be something like.

"Make a spell attack roll within the weapons range. If you hit, then deal damage as if you had hit with the weapon, but use your spell casting modifier instead of Str/Dex."

This wording would remove any bonuses to hit with the weapon, so you'd need to add in a line about that.

 

[mellored]

This wording would remove any bonuses to hit with the weapon, so you'd need to add in a line about that.

Also not including Graze.
So yea, my wording probably not the best wording.

 

[FrogReaver]

Out of curiosity, if the intent was for True Strike to function with this feature, what wording would the feature require to make it clear by RAW?

I’m trying to think of the opposite. If the intent was for it not to function How could it be worded to make that clear? I don’t see any good way as anything in the spell is a spell effect, thus always making the attack a spell effect.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

True. But as more than enough people had already made cases for how the wording worked and no one was able to come to any agreement... adding additional voices to both sides of an ambiguous rule is pointless. Thus the next practical question becomes whether there is any reason why someone would not want that combination to be used.

At some point when the first part cannot be conclusively decided... one has to move on the second part. And that's why I posted my opinion on that part.

 

[mellored]

I’m trying to think of the opposite. If the intent was for it not to function How could it be worded to make that clear? I don’t see any good way as anything in the spell is a spell effect, thus always making the attack a spell effect.

You gain an extra action this turn. That action can be used to take only the Attack (one attack only).

As it is with Haste.

Or like a Smite spell.
Or Shillelagh.

 

[Stalker0]

I’m trying to think of the opposite. If the intent was for it not to function How could it be worded to make that clear?

If the sorc ability had said any spell attack, that would have made it clear that true strike does not work.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the sorc ability had said any spell attack, that would have made it clear that true strike does not work.

I think you’d still see arguments it was a spell attack. That’s part of why I don’t find that line of reasoning persuasive.

 

[Stalker0]

I think you’d still see arguments it was a spell attack. That’s part of why I don’t find that line of reasoning persuasive.

yes but they would be much weaker arguments. Spell Attack is a technical term the rules use. If a spell doesn't have a spell attack, then its not a spell attack

 

[Maxperson]

By your own interpretation it doesn't. You said above that an attack needs to say the words "spell attack" to be a spell attack and anything does not use those words is not a "spell attack".

No.

Back on post 42 you said: "To be a spell attack, it needs to say melee spell attack or ranged spell attack. If it doesn't, it's not a spell attack." Innate Sorcery does not say that, ergo it is not referring specifically to spell attacks by your own interpretation.

If you have tunnel vision, sure. I also said the attack had to be part of the spell like it says in the Sorcerer ability.

 

[Maxperson]

Caster casts true strike. Wiggles their fingers. A magical force guides their hand and sword toward the enemy. That’s closer to what I imagine going on with the spell. And if that’s true then it would get advantage IMO.

Yeah. The change to the spell made the name nonsense. The spell as written does not help you strike true. It does radiant damage which is completely different.

What did was focusing on whether the attack was included in the spell effect. I think it is. That doesn’t necessitate the attack roll is of the spell, but if the attack is, then the most natural stance would seem to be that the attack roll is as well.

You still haven't answered how you think an attack with a weapon breaks the natural laws of physics. If it doesn't break the natural laws of physics, then per RAW it's not part of the effect.