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

[mellored]

It's not an attack roll OF the spell.

It directly says "make one attack " in the spell.

Same as Fire Bolt says "Make a (condition) attack"

It doesn't say "take an Attack action" or anything like that.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not? None of this is in the rules. It's just your interpretation.

Incorrect. It says straight out that it's a material component. That makes it a component and not part of the spell, since if you read about components, it says that they are requirements that must be met in order to cast the spell. That means that they are not a part OF the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

It directly says "make one attack " in the spell.

Same as Fire Bolt says "Make a (condition) attack"

It doesn't say "take an Attack action" or anything like that.

But the sword is not part of the spell. It has existence outside of it as a component. It does not say, "as part of the spell make an attack..." It says, "make an attack with the weapon used in the casting..." which was used as a component to be able to cast the spell, not as part of the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

That's an assertion unfounded by any text of which I am aware.

True Strike says Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting. That fits the definition of an attack roll that occurs as part of a spell. It fits Innate Sorcery entirely. Meanwhile, if you want to quibble over what is a spell attack:

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's the closest thing the rules have to a definition of a spell attack roll, and True Strike fits that definition as well.

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. What you are doing is taking that paragraph in isolation, which is giving you the wrong answer. Rules are part of a greater whole that interact with other rules to create the picture. Here's an analogy.

"A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear."

 

[Maxperson]

Well you are making an attack with Chill Touch and Firebolt too and any spell that requires an attack roll.

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

If that doesn't apply to attacks you make with spells then what does it apply to?

It applies to spell attacks, "melee spell attack" or "ranged spell attack." Only spell attacks are made as part OF the spell. The rest are attacks made that are modified BY the spell. There's a difference.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That makes it a component and not part of the spell

No. The rules do not state that. You are doing “the rules state X therefore Y follows…” when that is not at all implied.

 

[Maxperson]

A attack roll being made as part of a spell is not the same thing as an ‘attack roll of the spell’.



If one takes the distinction of spell attack to be evidence of or defining of what is an attack roll of a spell then it most certainly would need to say those exact words.



If this was a stand alone point it might be more persuasive, but when you coupled it with the ‘attack rolls made as part of the spell’, I would say all those meet that definition whether they can be counterspelled or not. Which to me highlights the problem, maybe more with the arguments consistency than the conclusion, but still a problem.

If melee attacks cannot be pointed to as a differentiator for what is an attack roll of the spell then being counterspellable shouldn’t either.

But if it is then the counterspell criteria is conflicting with the previous attack roll made as part of the spell criteria.

Regardless, at no point is the weapon part of the spell, because by RAW it's just a listed material component.

The attack you make is just modified by the spell you were able to cast because you had the component to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

No. The rules do not state that.

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

It's just a component.

"COMPONENTS
A spell's components are physical requirements the spellcaster must meet to cast the spell."

Maybe read the rules before you declare what I said not what the rules say.

 

[FrogReaver]

It directly says "make one attack " in the spell.

Same as Fire Bolt says "Make a (condition) attack"

It doesn't say "take an Attack action" or anything like that.

It actually says ‘Make one attack with the weapon.’

ie. with the weapon, not with the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

It directly says "make one attack " in the spell.

But it doesn't say make it as part of the spell. The spell is modifying the attack, not making the attack as part of the spell. That's why it doesn't say, "Make one melee spell attack."

Same as Fire Bolt says "Make a (condition) attack"

Firebolt says, "Make a ranged spell attack" since the bolt of fire actually is a part of the spell itself.

It doesn't say "take an Attack action" or anything like that.

It doesn't need to. Specific beats general. You are making a melee attack with a weapon that is not part of the spell itself(not created as part of the magic).