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

[FrogReaver]

Just to be fair, I think Maxperson's getting beat up a bit on their side of the argument, but I respect that this really isn't cut and dry.

We are getting a bit off topic on some of the nuances of spell and attack and what all of that means. It all comes back to this line:

• You have Advantage on the attack rolls of Sorcerer spells you cast.

The way I read that is, if a sorc spell generates an attack roll (I don't care how just that it does), than it gets advantage. This interpretation means that True Strike would get advantage. But it also means anything you summoned or conjured with a sorc spell would also get advantage on all the attacks it makes....and that might be the step too far. I don't know if innate sorcery was meant to advantage to all summon attacks for example.

IMO
‘Attack roll of the spell’ need not be construed so broadly that it includes summons or so narrowly that it excludes true strike.

 

[Maxperson]

You said “the weapon does no damage”. You said nothing about hitting or missing.

You need to read better. I said the SWING OF the weapon(the attack) does no damage. I never said the impact of the weapon(the hit) does no damage. Just that the attack doesn't.

 

[FrogReaver]

You need to read better. I said the SWING OF the weapon(the attack) does no damage. I never said the impact of the weapon(the hit) does no damage. Just that the attack doesn't.

In 5e, the attack is both the swing and damage?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. The fiction of the spell is that the magic guides the attack, then the weapon does damage in accordance with physical laws*, much like Guidance, Mage Hand, and the Druid spell for throwing rocks at people.

But the ability talks about attacking with a spell, not hitting with a spell or damaging with a spell.


*unless you choose to convert the damage to radiant of course.

Unless you are arguing that I can walk into a store and any weapon I buy can do radiant damage if I choose, the spell is breaking the natural laws of physics simply by empowering the sword with that energy(used or not). And if the caster is 5th level or higher, the radiant energy emerges regardless of what the caster wants.

 

[Maxperson]

In 5e, the attack is both the swing and damage?

Not really. If it were, you would do damage even if you miss. The attack as a general rule can either hit or miss. If you hit, you then move on to damage dealing. An attack itself deals no damage. Hits do.

The rules lump it together kinda sorta, but it's separate rolls. Once for the attack roll, and then if you hit, a separate roll for damage. So they aren't really the same thing, even though they are both in the attack section.

 

[ECMO3]

I suggest you read the combat rules, because attacks don't do damage.

To start with, specific beats general, in the Truestrike spell the "attack" can cause Radiant damage and that overrides anything that would contradict in in the general section about attacks.

However the section on attacks does not contradict it, it acctually affirms it. You should the very combat rules you are referencing:

This from the section on Making an Attack: "Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."

So yes "attacks" can cause damage according to the very rules you told me to read AND according to the Truestrike spell itself.

Hits do. If the attack hits, you can do radiant damage.

In Truestrike attacks cause damage. It is right there in the spell and the damage it causes defies the laws of physics.

The attack can miss, so it cannot be the attack that does the damage, or it couldn't miss.

The attack itself causes damage as per the Truestrike description. I think that means the attack causes damage when a hit occurs, but it is still the attack is causing it, as per the description.

Now if you want I suppose you could interpret that to mean the attack causes damage regardless a hit or on a miss. I don't think that is correct and I don't I think that is reasoable, but it is not specifically refuted.

What is not up to interpretation though is that the attack itself can cause the Radiant damage because it says that specifically in the spell. So the attack itself can defy the laws of physics, therefore by your logic it is part of the spell.

LOL No. You can change it to radiant. It's a mundane weapon, so the default isn't radiant.

The "attack" can do Radiant damage.

And let's be clear you don't "change" anything. It does not say you can change the damage to Radiant it says you can choose for the damage of the attack (not of the hit or of the weapon) to be Radiant or the weapon's type. You don't replace or change anything.

"If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."

This claim of yours that attack=damage, means that damage=attack, which is absurd on its face.

That is not my claim. I never said attack=damage, I said the attack can cause Radiant damage because that is what the rules say. Also the section on Combat you referenced also says attacks can cause damage.

Attack does not equal damage, but attacks clearly can cause damage.

You can jump up and down and claim attacks can't cause damage, but both the general rules on combat and the specific rules on Truestrike say they can.

Next time I play, I'm going to tell the DM I just stare at the enemy and don't swing my sword, then roll an attack to do damage and see how far that gets me.

That would nto fly in my game but your game, your DM, do whatever you want.

None of this changes that fact that the rules say attacks can cause daamge and the truestrike spell says that attack can cause Radiant damage.

 

[Maxperson]

To start with, specific beats general, in the Truestrike spell the "attack" can cause Radiant damage and that overrides anything that would contradict in in the general section about attacks.

However the section on attacks does not contradict it, it acctually affirms it. You should the very combat rules you are referencing:

This from the section on Making an Attack: "Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."

So yes "attacks" can cause damage according to the very rules you told me to read AND according to the Truestrike spell itself.




In Truestrike attacks cause damage. It is right there in the spell and the damage it causes defies the laws of physics.



The attack itself causes damage as per the Truestrike description. I think that means the attack causes damage when a hit occurs, but it is still the attack is causing it, as per the description.

Now if you want I suppose you could interpret that to mean the attack causes damage regardless a hit or on a miss. I don't think that is correct and I don't I think that is reasoable, but it is not specifically refuted.

What is not up to interpretation though is that the attack itself can cause the Radiant damage because it says that specifically in the spell. So the attack itself can defy the laws of physics, therefore by your logic it is part of the spell.





That is not my claim. I never said attack=damage, I said the attack can cause Radiant damage because that is what the rules say. Also the section on Combat you referenced also says attacks can cause damage.

Attack does not equal damage, but you can jump up and down and claim attacks can't cause damage, but both the general rules on combat and the specific rules on Truestrike say they can.




That would nto fly in my game but your game, your DM, do whatever you want.


None of this changes that fact that the rules say attacks can cause daamge and the truestrike spell says that attack can cause Radiant damage.

Except no. From True Strike.

"The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity."

This is what I mean. You need to read everything and stop trying to use things in isolation to win the internet. That sentence sets the context for the following one which talks about the attack doing damage. It's talking about it doing damage with a damage roll which happens after you hit. If you miss, there is no damage, because it's not the attack that does the damage. It's the hit.

 

[ECMO3]

Unlike a spell like fire bolt which targets an enemy, The range of true strike is “Self” so, no it doesn’t give you advantage to attack someone else.

Nothing in innate sorcery limits the ability based on the target of the spell.

 

[ECMO3]

Except no. From True Strike.

"The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity."

How does that contradict anything I've said?

This is what I mean. You need to read everything and stop trying to use things in isolation to win the internet.

The rules say what the rules say and the rules say attacks can cause damage and the damage in the case of Truestrike defies the laws of Physics.

It's talking about it doing damage with a damage roll which happens after you hit.

I agree it is talking about the ATTACK doing damage if you hit. It says "attack" explicitly and the requirement for a hit is implicit for any reasonable interpretation. The attack is still dealing Radiant damage which means the attack is defying the laws of physics.

If you miss, there is no damage, because it's not the attack that does the damage. It's the hit.

If you miss there is no damage, if you hit the attack causes damage. The latter is unequivocal in the wording.

If the attack does not cause any damage how can you choose Radiant damage at all, since the spell only let's you choose that if the "attack deals damage"

If you hit and the hit does damage but the "attack" does no damage then the "attack" did not "deal damage".