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

[Maxperson]

Here's another nail in the coffin. The sword attack is not part of the spell effect, making it not part of the spell.

"The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry."

So far so good. If it stopped there you guys would be correct. Unfortunately, it does not stop there and goes on to the next sentence.

"Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws."

So the effects of the spell are only those things in the spell entry that ignore mundane physical laws like say a bolt of fire being created out of thin air and sent towards a target. A sword attack is not something that ignores mundane physical laws, so is not a part of the True Strike's spell effect. It's not part of the spell, and the Sorcerer ability requires that "of" to be there.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"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.

"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.

Which is completely irrelevant - the ability says nothing about components or “spell attacks” either way.

Maybe think about what the rules mean rather than applying an over literal interpretation apply to something it was never intended to be connected to.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's my issue -

Attack with weapon != Attack roll of spell you cast

I think too many are getting caught up on the single word attack instead of the whole phrase in both abilities.

 

[mellored]

It says, "make an attack ..."

This. It's an attack. That's the only condition.

It applies to spell attacks,

You're adding a word that isn't there.

It says
"Advantage on the attack rolls"
Not
Advantage on Spell attack rolls"

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not going to bother arguing the actual wording of the two features as people have done this enough. Instead, I will argue about the following-- does the weapon-using Sorcerer become overpowered by having the possibility of twice per day making all their weapon attacks for 1 minute have Advantage? This is the actual worry about the combination of Innate Sorcery and True Strike. Does using these two features working in conjunction cause the weapon-using Sorcerer to be overpowered compared to other weapon-using characters?

Well... let's look at other classes wherein they can get multiple attempts at weapon attacking with Advantage:

- Barbarians starting at 2nd level can make every attack they take with Advantage because of Reckless Attack, however they receive attacks back with Advantage as well. But starting at 5th level the Barbarian gets to attack twice each round, something the Innate True Striking Sorcerer cannot. So they get many more attacks with Advantage than the Sorcerer, but they receive a punishment for doing so.

- Oath of Vengeance Paladins have two uses of Channel Divinity per day starting at 3rd level, and that allows them to make all attacks with Advantage for 1 minute (same duration as the Sorcerer). They also get Extra Attack at 5th level like the Barbarian, so in both cases the Paladin and Barbarian are making twice as many weapon attacks with Advantage as an Innate True Striking Sorcerer does, once those classes hit 5th level.

- The Innate True Striking Sorcerer is the only one of the three with the ability to make every attack have Advantage starting at 1st level... but due to the fact they have to cast a spell to do so, they only ever can make a single attack with Advantage per round as per the rules of the spell (even if they acquired Extra Attack some other time later via multiclassing.)

So the question we must ask is whether the Sorcerer gaining the ability to weapon attack with Advantage at 1st level (rather than 2nd for the Barbarian and 3rd for the Paladin) but only getting one attack per round to do so... makes them overpowered compared to the Barbarian and Paladin who will get to attack twice each round with Advantage starting at 5th level? To me, I would say No. They are not more powerful than Barbarians and Paladins because that one slight bonus (gaining the ability one level or two levels earlier) is more than offset by the fact they won't ever get to attack twice per round with it.

Now I'm sure some people would also want to compare the weapon-using Sorcerer to its natural comparable rival, the weapon-using Warlock, to see if the Sorcerer is overpowered compared to it as well. Well, the weapon-using Warlock would take Pact of the Blade at 1st level, and thus will use Charisma for attacks and damage the same as the Sorcerer (with True Strike) would. But they would not get to make their attacks with Advantage like the Sorcerer could. However... at 2nd level with the selection of the Eldritch Smite invocation, they can add an extra 1d8 damage per slot level twice per short rest (or more if they take 1 minute to regain some slots via Magical Cunning)... and at 5th level with Thirsting Blade they can attack twice per round, and three times per round at 12th level Devouring Blade.

So this question is whether the Sorcerer attacking once per round with Advantage is overpowered compared to a Pact of the Blade Warlock who won't attack with Advantage, but will have the opportunity to add many multiple d8s of damage to each hit when they make them, plus the opportunity to attack twice / three times per round down the line. To me? Again, I would say No. They are not more powerful than a Pact of the Blade Warlock.

So what does that mean? It means that at least to me... there is no reason balance-wise to not allow the combination of Innate Sorcery and True Strike work together for a weapon-using Sorcerer. So I wouldn't even bother waiting around for some final person at WotC to explain the common English Ruled-As-Intended version they were trying to get across... and instead just allow it from the go. It just isn't powerful enough to feel the need to not allow it, or waste my time waiting for someone from WotC to get around to telling me its okay.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not going to bother arguing the actual wording of the two features as people have done this enough. Instead, I will argue about the following-- does the weapon-using Sorcerer become overpowered by having the possibility of twice per day making all their weapon attacks for 1 minute have Advantage? This is the actual worry about the combination of Innate Sorcery and True Strike. Does using these two features working in conjunction cause the weapon-using Sorcerer to be overpowered compared to other weapon-using characters?

Well... let's look at other classes wherein they can get multiple attempts at weapon attacking with Advantage:

- Barbarians starting at 2nd level can make every attack they take with Advantage because of Reckless Attack, however they receive attacks back with Advantage as well. But starting at 5th level the Barbarian gets to attack twice each round, something the Innate True Striking Sorcerer cannot. So they get many more attacks with Advantage than the Sorcerer, but they receive a punishment for doing so.

- Oath of Vengeance Paladins have two uses of Channel Divinity per day starting at 3rd level, and that allows them to make all attacks with Advantage for 1 minute (same duration as the Sorcerer). They also get Extra Attack at 5th level like the Barbarian, so in both cases the Paladin and Barbarian are making twice as many weapon attacks with Advantage as an Innate True Striking Sorcerer does, once those classes hit 5th level.

- The Innate True Striking Sorcerer is the only one of the three with the ability to make every attack have Advantage starting at 1st level... but due to the fact they have to cast a spell to do so, they only ever can make a single attack with Advantage per round as per the rules of the spell (even if they acquired Extra Attack some other time later via multiclassing.)

So the question we must ask is whether the Sorcerer gaining the ability to weapon attack with Advantage at 1st level (rather than 2nd for the Barbarian and 3rd for the Paladin) but only getting one attack per round to do so... makes them overpowered compared to the Barbarian and Paladin who will get to attack twice each round with Advantage starting at 5th level? To me, I would say No. They are not more powerful than Barbarians and Paladins because that one slight bonus (gaining the ability one level or two levels earlier) is more than offset by the fact they won't ever get to attack twice per round with it.

Now I'm sure some people would also want to compare the weapon-using Sorcerer to its natural comparable rival, the weapon-using Warlock, to see if the Sorcerer is overpowered compared to it. Well, the weapon-using Warlock would take Pact of the Blade at 1st level, and thus will use Charisma for attacks and damage the same as the Sorcerer (with True Strike) would. But they would not get to make their attacks with Advantage like the Sorcerer could. However... at 2nd level with the selection of the Eldritch Smite invocation, they can add an extra 1d8 damage per slot level twice per short rest (or more if they take 1 minute for regain some via Magical Cunning)... and at 5th level with Thirsting Blade they can attack twice per round, and three times per round at 12th level Devouring Blade.

So this question is whether the Sorcerer attacking once per round with Advantage is overpowered compared to a Pact of the Blade Warlock who won't attack with Advantage, but will have the opportunity to add multiple d8s of damage to each hit when they make them, plus the opportunity to attack twice / three times per round down the line. To me? Again, I would say No. They are not more powerful than a Pact of the Blade Warlock.

So what does that mean? It means that at least to me... there is no reason balance-wise to not allow the combination of Innate Sorcery and True Strike work together for a weapon-using Sorcerer. So I wouldn't even bother waiting around for some finalized person to explain the common English Ruled-As-Intended version they were trying to get across... and instead just allow it from the go. It just isn't powerful enough to feel the need to not allow it.

In the OP:
Note: the question isn't whether you would allow it at your table, but whether you think it's allowed by the rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

This. It's an attack. That's the only condition.

You're adding a word that isn't there.

It says
"Advantage on the attack rolls"
Not
Advantage on Spell attack rolls"

The condition is 'attack rolls of Sorcerer spells you cast.'

Trying to shorten it to 'advantage on the attack rolls' is not what it says either.

The question is whether the 'one attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting' is an attack roll of a Sorcerer spell you cast or whether it is not.

 

[Maxperson]

This. It's an attack. That's the only condition.

Wrong. It also MUST be part OF the spell, which by RAW the sword is not. It is a material component and components are not part of the spell, being only requirements to cast the spell. It also is not part of the spell's effect. At no point is it part OF the spell.

You're adding a word that isn't there.

It says
"Advantage on the attack rolls"
Not
Advantage on Spell attack rolls"

Again, wrong. You are subtracting a word that is there and that word makes all the difference.

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

The be part of the spell, it has to be in the spell's effect.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not going to bother arguing the actual wording of the two features as people have done this enough. Instead, I will argue about the following-- does the weapon-using Sorcerer become overpowered by having the possibility of twice per day making all their weapon attacks for 1 minute have Advantage? This is the actual worry about the combination of Innate Sorcery and True Strike. Does using these two features working in conjunction cause the weapon-using Sorcerer to be overpowered compared to other weapon-using characters?

Well... let's look at other classes wherein they can get multiple attempts at weapon attacking with Advantage:

- Barbarians starting at 2nd level can make every attack they take with Advantage because of Reckless Attack, however they receive attacks back with Advantage as well. But starting at 5th level the Barbarian gets to attack twice each round, something the Innate True Striking Sorcerer cannot. So they get many more attacks with Advantage than the Sorcerer, but they receive a punishment for doing so.

- Oath of Vengeance Paladins have two uses of Channel Divinity per day starting at 3rd level, and that allows them to make all attacks with Advantage for 1 minute (same duration as the Sorcerer). They also get Extra Attack at 5th level like the Barbarian, so in both cases the Paladin and Barbarian are making twice as many weapon attacks with Advantage as an Innate True Striking Sorcerer does, once those classes hit 5th level.

- The Innate True Striking Sorcerer is the only one of the three with the ability to make every attack have Advantage starting at 1st level... but due to the fact they have to cast a spell to do so, they only ever can make a single attack with Advantage per round as per the rules of the spell (even if they acquired Extra Attack some other time later via multiclassing.)

So the question we must ask is whether the Sorcerer gaining the ability to weapon attack with Advantage at 1st level (rather than 2nd for the Barbarian and 3rd for the Paladin) but only getting one attack per round to do so... makes them overpowered compared to the Barbarian and Paladin who will get to attack twice each round with Advantage starting at 5th level? To me, I would say No. They are not more powerful than Barbarians and Paladins because that one slight bonus (gaining the ability one level or two levels earlier) is more than offset by the fact they won't ever get to attack twice per round with it.

Now I'm sure some people would also want to compare the weapon-using Sorcerer to its natural comparable rival, the weapon-using Warlock, to see if the Sorcerer is overpowered compared to it as well. Well, the weapon-using Warlock would take Pact of the Blade at 1st level, and thus will use Charisma for attacks and damage the same as the Sorcerer (with True Strike) would. But they would not get to make their attacks with Advantage like the Sorcerer could. However... at 2nd level with the selection of the Eldritch Smite invocation, they can add an extra 1d8 damage per slot level twice per short rest (or more if they take 1 minute to regain some slots via Magical Cunning)... and at 5th level with Thirsting Blade they can attack twice per round, and three times per round at 12th level Devouring Blade.

So this question is whether the Sorcerer attacking once per round with Advantage is overpowered compared to a Pact of the Blade Warlock who won't attack with Advantage, but will have the opportunity to add many multiple d8s of damage to each hit when they make them, plus the opportunity to attack twice / three times per round down the line. To me? Again, I would say No. They are not more powerful than a Pact of the Blade Warlock.

So what does that mean? It means that at least to me... there is no reason balance-wise to not allow the combination of Innate Sorcery and True Strike work together for a weapon-using Sorcerer. So I wouldn't even bother waiting around for some final person at WotC to explain the common English Ruled-As-Intended version they were trying to get across... and instead just allow it from the go. It just isn't powerful enough to feel the need to not allow it, or waste my time waiting for someone from WotC to get around to telling me its okay.

I agree. As I said in my first post in this thread, what I am arguing is how I would rule it based on the wording. However, I can see how someone else might allow it and I wouldn't dream of trying to argue with a DM that did allow it. It's not broken or even over powered to allow it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wrong. It also MUST be part OF the spell, which by RAW the sword is not. It is a material component and components are not part of the spell, being only requirements to cast the spell. It also is not part of the spell's effect. At no point is it part OF the spell.

Again, wrong. You are subtracting a word that is there and that word makes all the difference.

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

The be part of the spell, it has to be in the spell's effect.

Question Max. Is your position that the attack with the weapon is part of the spell but the attack roll with the weapon is not? Or is your position that the attack with the weapon is not part of the spell?

I don't know that either holds up to scrutiny, but especially the 2nd - as there's no mundane way to make the attack with the weapon in true strike without it being part of the spell's effect.