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

[Paul Farquhar]

the thing in question must break a mundane law of physics

Source?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Nobody is arguing that it doesn't modify the attack. Modifying the attack, though, is different from the spell being the attack.

The spell is a weapon attack guided by magic. I feel you guys are working from the position of "I don't want sorcs to fight better than fighters" and working backwards to justify it.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I see it as thus: True Strike give you the ability to use your magical prowess (stat) in place of Dex/Str.
Then you make an attack.

Innate Sorcery makes magic stronger/more effective. True Strike swaps stats, there's nothing for Innate Sorcery to "empower".

RAI? Likely IMO.

RAW? Who knows, I cant keep up with the lawyer like clauses etc.

 

[aco175]

The PCs action for the round is being use to do what? Is it swing a sword or cast a spell?

It seems to me that it is used to cast a spell. Then the sword attack is part of that action.

 

[SkidAce]

The PCs action for the round is being use to do what? Is it swing a sword or cast a spell?

It seems to me that it is used to cast a spell. Then the sword attack is part of that action.

That does make sense...

 

[mellored]

Swinging the sword as a specific beats general exception to having to take the attack action.

Are you implying i can make "attacks with a weapon" without taking any kind of action?

Or can you point to where does it say "as part of" anything else besides casting True Stike?

 

[Maxperson]

I'd love the rules quote that says this.

"The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws."

and further, what do you mean its not breaking the mundane law of physics. I am making an attack roll that is based on my "force of personality". Do you know any physics that lets me make an attack better because I'm pretty, or I talk really well?

Your mundane attack is being modified by the spell which adds guidance based on your force of personality. The spell modifies the attack. The spell is not the attack, nor does it cause the attack.

The cantrip doesn't call out a spell attack, but all the language it uses is "spell attack". Its the spellcasting stat for attack and damage, even changes the damage to radiant if you want. Not sure what mundane sword of physics burns with the energy of the sun. Even the flavor of the spells says the attack is "guided by magical insight".

Clearly this attack roll is being influenced by the spell.

Yes. Influenced by the spell. It is not an attack of the spell, which is what is required to qualify for the Sorcerer ability. The attack itself is mundane and not a part of the spell's effect. The spell itself calls out the weapon as a component used to be able to cast the spell. Components are not a part of the spell. They just enable the spell to be cast.

 

[Maxperson]

Source?

5.5e PHB.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you implying i can make "attacks with a weapon" without taking any kind of action?

No I'm not implying it at all. I'm saying straight out that you can. You just need a specific beats general situation like True Strike.

Or can you point to where does it say "as part of" anything else besides casting True Stike?

It doesn't matter. The weapon isn't part of the spell. It's a component. The attack is not part of the spell, because it's not part of the spell's effect. Therefore, the attack is not part of a sorcerer spell being cast.

 

[Maxperson]

The spell is a weapon attack guided by magic. I feel you guys are working from the position of "I don't want sorcs to fight better than fighters" and working backwards to justify it.

I'm following the OP's request to comment on how the language works. I couldn't care less if sorcerer's are given the ability to use True Strike with their class feature by the DM. It's not broken or even over powered.