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

[Maxperson]

I meant the exact quote, since lots of things you say are in the rules, are your inferences, not part of the text.

I mean, sure. It's not like I haven't quoted it 3 or 4 times in the last few pages, but I guess I can do it again for you. Here it is taken from post #97.

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

 

[pawsplay]

It does not meet the definition, because look at the spell.

"Components: S, M (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth l+ CP)"

The sword is just a material component which allows the spell to be cast. That's its part.

That doesn't refute what I said. The word "just" is doing a lot of work in your explanation.

It does not meet that definition, since for that to be the case you have to ignore the fact that they have gone out of their way to use melee spell attack and ranged spell attack when spell attacks are being used.

I don't have to ignore that, I challenge you to explain the relevance of what you are claiming, in addition to its factuality. I see noting in the book that demonstrates they have gone out of their way to specify anything. If that were true, the spell would specify it was making a weapon attack, and it does not do so, refuting your assertion that care and specificity went into that phrasing.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

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.

1. This is not natural laws of physics -----> Caster casts true strike. Wiggles their fingers. A magical force guides their hand and sword toward the enemy
2. I don't believe the rule you are quoting means that spells cannot cause any non-physics breaking effects. I take it to mean that they can break physics and the surrounding context explains that when they do, the GM decides what happens outside the explicit spell effects.

 

[Maxperson]

1. This is not natural laws of physics -----> Caster casts true strike. Wiggles their fingers. A magical force guides their hand and sword toward the enemy

The bolded is not. I agree. The attack, though, is just someone swinging a sword.

I will also note that there is zero actual guidance being done in the spell. Like not even a smidge. No advantage to the attack. No bonuses to hit. Nothing. You get to use your magical stat, but that's not magical guidance. It's just you doing what you normally do when you aim a ranged or melee spell attack. All True Strike really does is radiant damage, which has nothing to do with guidance or striking true. They really should have renamed the spell or given it a different effect.

 

[James Gasik]

x

The bolded is not. I agree. The attack, though, is just someone swinging a sword.

I will also note that there is zero actual guidance being done in the spell. Like not even a smidge. No advantage to the attack. No bonuses to hit. Nothing. You get to use your magical stat, but that's not magical guidance. It's just you doing what you normally do when you aim a ranged or melee spell attack. All True Strike really does is radiant damage, which has nothing to do with guidance or striking true. They really should have renamed the spell or given it a different effect.

I mean, if your character has a Str of 10, being allowed to use your 19 Charisma for attack and damage rolls with a weapon sure feels like magical guidance!

 

[mellored]

I will also note that there is zero actual guidance being done in the spell. Like not even a smidge. No advantage to the attack. No bonuses to hit. Nothing

it's +3 or 4 to hit and damage for most sorcerers.
Scaling to +5 or +6.

You get to use your magical stat, but that's not magical guidance. It's just you doing what you normally do when you aim a ranged or melee spell attack.

You don't use Dex to aim fire bolt. It's based on your magic abilities.
Similarly, True Stike aims your bow with magic.

All True Strike really does is radiant damage, which has nothing to do with guidance or striking true.

Agreed, not sure where the radiant comes from.
The spell is still good enough without it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean, sure. It's not like I haven't quoted it 3 or 4 times in the last few pages, but I guess I can do it again for you. Here it is taken from post #97.

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

Good example of why your comprehension is off. This is saying a spell may ignore physical laws, not that it must ignore physical laws.

 

[Maxperson]

Good example of why your comprehension is off.

 

[Stalker0]

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

Guidance allows a cleric to have as good an acrobatics check as the party rogue. The rogue's acrobatics, while good, obeys physical laws.

Ergo....Guidance is not a spell.

 

[Stalker0]

I will also note that there is zero actual guidance being done in the spell. Like not even a smidge. No advantage to the attack. No bonuses to hit. Nothing. You get to use your magical stat, but that's not magical guidance. It's just you doing what you normally do when you aim a ranged or melee spell attack. All True Strike really does is radiant damage, which has nothing to do with guidance or striking true. They really should have renamed the spell or given it a different effect.

If its not magical guidance, how am I using my magical stat?

So I do what I normally do when I aim a ranged spell attack....aka the attack that is guided by magic.

And while radiant damage is not a guiding effect....its certainly a magical one.