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

[ECMO3]

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."

So again - you don't think a dagger damaging you with Holy Energy and Searing Radiation "ignores mundane physics laws"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Mage Hand can exert 5 lb of force. Force is a physical law, ergo Mage Hand is not a spell.

 

[Maxperson]

So again - you don't think a dagger damaging you with Holy Energy and Searing Radiation "ignores mundane physics laws"

The attack does not. The attack is just a swing of a dagger.

 

[Maxperson]

Mage Hand can exert 5 lb of force. Force is a physical law, ergo Mage Hand is not a spell.

Not in the way the spell uses it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That completely gets my argument wrong.

The acrobatics are not part of the spell. That is correct. The guidance itself is supernatural in origin and obeys no physical laws. Just like the modification of the attack from True Strike is supernatural and obeys no physical laws.

So yes, Guidance is a spell according to my position, as is True Strike.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not in the way the spell uses it.

Sure it is. You apply a force and it moves an object. The source of the force might be magic, but the effect of the force follows physical laws. But this is just applying your level of interpretation to the text. None of it is part of the author's intent. It's supposed to be interpreted in general terms, not legalistically. That's what "plain English" means.

according to my position

Quite. You are reading meaning into the text that was never intended by the author, and using it to insist that your answer is definitive, when actually, it's just, your position. Which is fair enough, for you, but doesn't invalidate anyone else's position.

The text is vague. Often, it's intentionally vague, to allow players to interpret it in whatever way suits them best.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it is. You apply a force and it moves an object. The source of the force might be magic, but the effect of the force follows physical laws. But this is just applying your level of interpretation to the text. None of it is part of the author's intent. It's supposed to be interpreted in general terms, not legalistically. That's what "plain English" means.

Show me what is physically creating the force. You can't, because it's being generated out of nothingness in defiance of the laws of physics. Force also often has physicality in D&D.

Force generated through spells is not using the laws of physics to do it.

 

[Maxperson]

So again - you don't think a dagger damaging you with Holy Energy and Searing Radiation "ignores mundane physics laws"

So again, the actual dagger attack does not. It's just a dagger swing. The rest of it does, but that doesn't make the dagger swing anything other than a dagger swing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Show me what is physically creating the force. You can't, because it's being generated out of nothingness in defiance of the laws of physics. Force also often has physicality in D&D.

Force generated through spells is not using the laws of physics to do it.

Your ability to consistently miss the point is astonishing,

 

[Maxperson]

Your ability to consistently miss the point is astonishing,

The same with your ability to give bad examples.