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

[Maxperson]

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?

The attack with the weapon is not a part of the spell. The spell is the effect and it is explicitly not part of the effect, since effect is defined by the game as only that which ignores mundane physical laws. The spell description tells us that we make that attack, but it is not actually part of the spell(effect).

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.

Sure there is. You are swinging a weapon. What mundane law of physics is being ignored?

 

[mellored]

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.

True Strike is a Sorcerer spell you cast.
No one is arguing against that.

*presuming you took it as a Sorcerer

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.

It's an attack, directly from the spell.

Nothing says in Innate Sorcery needs to be a "Spell" attack roll. Weapon or unarmed attacks are just as valid.

And it's not telling you to do "as part of an Attack Action". Or "the next attack you make" or anything like that.

The spell is making the attack.

 

[Stalker0]

The problem with the "spell attack" language is..... if it was that cut and dry why not just use that for innate sorcery?

When making a spell attack from a sorceror spell, you gain advantage.


That would remove any ambiguity. In the abscence of that, we have to take seriously that "attacks of a sorceror spell" might include non-spell attacks.

Bigby's hand was an example. Is it really that different that I create a construct that attacks for me using the magics of a spell, and my sword makes an attack using the magics of a spell?

Not that does open the door for summons and conjurations. If I summon a creature that attacks outside of my routine, do they get advantage on all of their attacks? (if you think the true strike = yes, than you likely would need to agree that the attacks of all summoned creatures also get advantage)

 

[Maxperson]

It's an attack, directly from the spell.

No it isn't. The spell says to make an attack, but it's not a part of the spell or the spell effect, per RAW which I have quoted.

Nothing says in Innate Sorcery needs to be a "Spell" attack roll. Weapon or unarmed attacks are just as valid.

But it has to be part of the spell, which the weapon and attack are not.

The spell is making the attack.

It is not. If it were, then it would be part of the spell's effect, and by RAW it is not, because no mundane law of physics is being broken by the attack.

 

[Maxperson]

Bigby's hand was an example. Is it really that different that I create a construct that attacks for me using the magics of a spell, and my sword makes an attack using the magics of a spell?

The attack is not made using the magic of the spell, though. The only magic of the spell is the radiant damage. Per RAW, for something to be part of the spell's effect, it has to break a mundane law of physics and the attack isn't doing that.

It's not using the attack action, but neither is the spell making the attack. It's a specific exception that allows an attack to be made without the attack action.

 

[mellored]

But it doesn't say make it as part of the spell.

If not the spell, where does the attack come from?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

RAW and RAW I'd say yes. It empowers your magic which is what is guiding your hand with the weapon.

 

[Maxperson]

If not the spell, where does the attack come from?

Swinging the sword as a specific beats general exception to having to take the attack action. It's like War Caster feat allowing you to cast a spell as your OA. Or the Bladesinger ability to cast a cantrip as part of the attack action. These are exceptions to the rules, but are not magical in nature.

Per RAW, to be part of the spell(effect) the thing in question must break a mundane law of physics which the attack does not. We also know from the spell that the weapon is just a component used in order TO cast the spell, not a part of the spell itself.

 

[Maxperson]

RAW and RAW I'd say yes. It empowers your magic which is what is guiding your hand with the weapon.

Nobody is arguing that it doesn't modify the attack. Modifying the attack, though, is different from the spell being the attack.

 

[Stalker0]

Per RAW, for something to be part of the spell's effect, it has to break a mundane law of physics and the attack isn't doing that.

I'd love the rules quote that says this.

and further, what do you mean its not breaking the mundane law of physics. I am making an attack roll that is based on my "force of personality". Do you know any physics that lets me make an attack better because I'm pretty, or I talk really well?

The cantrip doesn't call out a spell attack, but all the language it uses is "spell attack". Its the spellcasting stat for attack and damage, even changes the damage to radiant if you want. Not sure what mundane sword of physics burns with the energy of the sun. Even the flavor of the spells says the attack is "guided by magical insight".

Clearly this attack roll is being influenced by the spell.