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

[mellored]

Radiant Damage vulnerability with BPS resistance. Yes, it's unlikely, but there is a theoretical use case.

Shillelagh would be better for that.

You can still use Str, but deals Force damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

Shillelagh would be better for that.

You can still use Str, but deals Force damage.

Not if you don't have it.

 

[James Gasik]

Radiant Damage vulnerability with BPS resistance. Yes, it's unlikely, but there is a theoretical use case.

Ok so in some extreme corner case, you've proved the spell doesn't do what it says on the tin. I don't really see that as a criticism, there's edge cases where most spells don't work as advertised. Can't we just say that in almost all circumstances where someone would use it, the spell improves one's attack rolls?

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok so in some extreme corner case, you've proved the spell doesn't do what it says on the tin. I don't really see that as a criticism, there's edge cases where most spells don't work as advertised. Can't we just say that in almost all circumstances where someone would use it, the spell improves one's attack rolls?

Of course. I've never disputed that. But so what if that's the case?

 

[James Gasik]

Of course. I've never disputed that. But so what if that's the case?

Mostly to avert comments like the one in this post by Max, that claim True Strike doesn't do what it says it does.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Mostly to avert comments like the one in this post by Max, that claim True Strike doesn't do what it says it does.

I actually agree with Max. It’s pretty weak sauce for “magical guidance”. If you pick it up as a fighter using Magic Initiate, you’d think the “Magical Guidance” of a spell called “True Strike” would actually help you make a melee attack(which you’re already pretty good at) more accurate. But, it actually makes it worse. So it’s kind of a weird spell.

But that’s why I feel it’s not a real spell attack spell and, therefore a buff/transforming spell. Every other cantrip that lets you attack with your stat is specifically called out as a “spell attack”

This one is different. You’re still making a regular attack, the spell just changes the stat.

The spell would be better as a first level spell that changed a miss into a hit and a hit into a crit or something. It can still do radiant damage. Make it a bonus action to cast so you can’t stack it with smite spells.

I can see from the poll that I’m in the minority

 

[FrogReaver]

I actually agree with Max. It’s pretty weak sauce for “magical guidance”. If you pick it up as a fighter using Magic Initiate, you’d think the “Magical Guidance” of a spell called “True Strike” would actually help you make a melee attack(which you’re already pretty good at) more accurate. But, it actually makes it worse. So it’s kind of a weird spell.

Fictionally that would be because said fighter is worse at magic than he is at attacking normally. So it kind of makes sense if you view it as a spell attack. And regardless this interaction should really highlight that it's not simply a buff spell, because buffs improve the situation regardless and this makes it worse in some scenarios.

But that’s why I feel it’s not a real spell attack spell and, therefore a buff/transforming spell. Every other cantrip that lets you attack with your stat is specifically called out as a “spell attack”

I think we can rule out buff and i've already made my case for that.

For transforming - what is it transforming the 'normal weapon attack' into? I would say a spell attack with the weapon. What would you say?

*I think from a practical writing standpoint that calling it a 'spell attack with the weapon' would be just as ambiguous.

• I don't think it would make the interaction with true strike any clearer. One could still argue that it's a spell attack with the weapon and not a spell attack with the spell for example. (Innate Sorcery requires 'attack rolls with spells you cast').
• But also, the damage die of the hit would be less clear. I know how hit damage works on an attack with the weapon that uses casting stat instead of str/dex for damage. I don't know how hit damage works with spell attacks with the weapon as that's not a defined term anywhere.

This one is different. You’re still making a regular attack, the spell just changes the stat.

What specifically is a 'regular' attack? I would say it's an attack that behaves normally for attack and damage. What would you say it is?

The spell would be better as a first level spell that changed a miss into a hit and a hit into a crit or something. It can still do radiant damage. Make it a bonus action to cast so you can’t stack it with smite spells.

I think it's cool the way it is.

I can see from the poll that I’m in the minority

I once was too

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Fictionally that would be because said fighter is worse at magic than he is at attacking normally. So it kind of makes sense if you view it as a spell attack. And regardless this interaction should really highlight that it's not simply a buff spell, because buffs improve the situation regardless and this makes it worse in some scenarios.

This is a good point regarding being a better fighter than spellcaster but the description of the spell is still a misnomer even in that case. Why isn’t the fighter getting some insight?? He’s too dumb or not charismatic enough or wise enough to interpret the insights?

In any case, to me, it’s like casting disguise self and then trying to argue the sorcery ability should give you advantage on all your attacks because you cast a spell.

Actually, more accurately, it’s like casting Shillelagh and trying to argue that you should get advantage on all your attacks because you are using your spellcasting stat to attack. So, if you allow True Strike, you should also allow Shillelagh advantage. Which maybe some people have already argued in this thread (I don’t know because I skipped a bunch of pages). I wouldn’t allow that.

I think we can rule out buff and i've already made my case for that.

For transforming - what is it transforming the 'normal weapon attack' into? I would say a spell attack with the weapon. What would you say?

It’s transforming the caster and the delivery method of the attack. But the spell isn’t making the attack. It’s technically divination, isn’t it? Letting you see a weak point or something? It says a “moment of insight?” So it’s affecting you and letting know the exact perfect location and time to strike. It should have said, make a melee spell attack and do the weapon’s damage. Choose radiant or the weapon’s normal damage. That would have been clearer. I don’t know why they didn’t. Either unintentional poor wording or it’s not a spell attack. It’s a melee attack.

Maybe they should have used the same wording as shillelagh but had the spell only last one round.

*I think from a practical writing standpoint that calling it a 'spell attack with the weapon' would be just as ambiguous.

• I don't think it would make the interaction with true strike any clearer. One could still argue that it's a spell attack with the weapon and not a spell attack with the spell for example. (Innate Sorcery requires 'attack rolls with spells you cast').
• But also, the damage die of the hit would be less clear. I know how hit damage works on an attack with the weapon that uses casting stat instead of str/dex for damage. I don't know how hit damage works with spell attacks with the weapon as that's not a defined term anywhere.

What specifically is a 'regular' attack? I would say it's an attack that behaves normally for attack and damage. What would you say it is?

All good points. My point is there’s probably a better way to describe the spell which would be less ambiguous. (See my suggestion above). I can see how people interpret this as a regular damage cantrip like produce flame. (As Max did)

Produce Flame lets you do fire damage as a melee spell attack. The damage is fixed based on your level. True Strike has a totally different description and maybe that’s because the damage is fixed based on the weapon which makes it weirder.

I think it's cool the way it is.

I actually dislike this spell but not for its weird description. Mostly for the easy access to radiant damage. It kills most undead encounters. Radiant is too easy to access in 2024.

I once was too

Fair enough. I’m just sharing my PoV, not really trying to convince anyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is a good point regarding being a better fighter than spellcaster but the description of the spell is still a misnomer even in that case. Why isn’t the fighter getting some insight?? He’s too dumb or not charismatic enough or wise enough to interpret the insights?

Because in the case of a low int fighter using true strike, those magical insights are worse than his natural instincts.

In any case, to me, it’s like casting disguise self and then trying to argue the sorcery ability should give you advantage on all your attacks because you cast a spell.

Actually, more accurately, it’s like casting Shillelagh and trying to argue that you should get advantage on all your attacks because you are using your spellcasting stat to attack. So, if you allow True Strike, you should also allow Shillelagh advantage. Which maybe some people have already argued in this thread (I don’t know because I skipped a bunch of pages). I wouldn’t allow that.

Shillelagh is a good point IMO. It's worded very similar. I'd be curious to hear the logic as to why attacks with Shillelagh aren't attacks with a spell.

It’s technically divination, isn’t it? Letting you see a weak point or something? It says a “moment of insight?” So it’s affecting you and letting know the exact perfect location and time to strike. It should have said, make a melee spell attack and do the weapon’s damage. Choose radiant or the weapon’s normal damage. That would have been clearer. I don’t know why they didn’t. Either unintentional poor wording or it’s not a spell attack. It’s a melee attack.

I don't think that would be clearer. It would clear up some things but not others. A melee spell attack doesn't normally do mod damage. So you would only be doing weapon die damage with your wording.

Maybe they should have used the same wording as shillelagh but had the spell only last one round.

Then it works with extra attack. Not sure that is good.

All good points. My point is there’s probably a better way to describe the spell which would be less ambiguous. (See my suggestion above). I can see how people interpret this as a regular damage cantrip like produce flame. (As Max did)

I've tried. I cannot find one simple way to express it that doesn't change it or leave ambiguous other things about it.

Produce Flame lets you do fire damage as a melee spell attack. The damage is fixed based on your level. True Strike has a totally different description and maybe that’s because the damage is fixed based on the weapon which makes it weirder.

Yea, its because it's fixed on the weapon that makes it weird IMO.

Fair enough. I’m just sharing my PoV, not really trying to convince anyone.

All good.

 

[FrogReaver]

This might possibly make it clear it would work with innate sorcery without any other changes.

True Strike:
You have a flash of insight and strike with your weapon.
Make a spell attack. On a hit deal damage equal to the weapons damage dice + casting mod used for this spell. The damage can either be radiant or the damage type of the weapon.

****Actually, this doesn't account for magic weapons. Especially for +X weapons.