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

[FrogReaver]

Does the Sorcerer's Innate Sorcery feature cause the attack made with the True Strike cantrip to have advantage?

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

Innate Sorcery

An event in your past left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with simmering magic. As a Bonus Action, you can unleash that magic for 1 minute, during which you gain the following benefits:​

• The spell save DC of your Sorcerer spells increases by 1.
• You have Advantage on the attack rolls of Sorcerer spells you cast.

True Strike
Casting Time: Action
Range: Self
Components: S, M (a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP)
Duration: Instantaneous

Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell's casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using your Strength or Dexterity. If the attacks deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon's normal damage type (your choice).​

 

[jmartkdr2]

I would say yes; it's an attack roll that you're rolling because of the spell, and the spell specifically affects the attack roll.

If Innate sorcery said you gain advantage on spell attack rolls then I would say no.

It does need to be a sorcerer cantrip, though, not one gained through multiclassing, feats, or species features.

 

[Deset Gled]

My gut instinct is no, but I'm open to more discussion.

IMNSHO, you are making a standard attack roll, using the normal attack action. If you were using "the attack roll of [a] Sorcerer spell", the attack would already use the spellcasting ability (instead of Dex/Str), and there would be no reason to specify that detail in the spell.

This is a literal case of "the exception proves the rule." I.E. If the sign says "No Parking on Sunday", it is proof that parking is allowed on Monday. By calling out that it is an exception to the attack action, it is evidence that the attack is a modified version of the attack action rather than a spell attack.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My gut instinct is no, but I'm open to more discussion.

IMNSHO, you are making a standard attack roll, using the normal attack action. If you were using "the attack roll of [a] Sorcerer spell", the attack would already use the spellcasting ability (instead of Dex/Str), and there would be no reason to specify that detail in the spell.

This is a literal case of "the exception proves the rule." I.E. If the sign says "No Parking on Sunday", it is proof that parking is allowed on Monday.

But you're not using the Attack action. You're using the Cast A Spell action, and the spell is calling for an attack.

 

[Deset Gled]

But you're not using the Attack action. You're using the Cast A Spell action, and the spell is calling for an attack.

Yes, but "attack rolls of Sorcerers spells" use the modifier of the spellcasting ability, not Str/Dex. So, by pointing out that the attack roll would otherwise be done with Str/Dex, the spell text is calling it out as using the attack action.

Admittedly, this is a very "3rd edition" way of thinking. I haven't gotten my head around 5e 2024 logic quite as well yet.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yes, but "attack rolls of Sorcerers spells" use the modifier of the spellcasting ability, not Str/Dex. So, by pointing out that the attack roll would otherwise be done with Str/Dex, the spell text is calling it out as using the attack action.

Source on that?

 

[Deset Gled]

Source on that?

In 2014, it would be:

"Attack Rolls

Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus."

I'm searching for the 2024 equivalent.

Edit: Here's the 2024 version.

"Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell hits a target. Here’s how to calculate the attack modifier for your spells:

Spell attack modifier = your spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus"

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yes, but "attack rolls of Sorcerers spells" use the modifier of the spellcasting ability, not Str/Dex. So, by pointing out that the attack roll would otherwise be done with Str/Dex, the spell text is calling it out as using the attack action.

Admittedly, this is a very "3rd edition" way of thinking. I haven't gotten my head around 5e 2024 logic quite as well yet.

Also this makes no sense, since the Attack Action can allow for multiple attacks, and is already distint from many other ways to make attacks like bonus action attacks and opportunity attacks. The Attack action is exclusive with the Cast a Spell action, which is the action you use the cast a cantrip.

Plus you can swap out the Str/Dex for your casting ability as a warlock for all attacks, so "used to use Str/Dex" isn't a viable standard for breaking up the Attack Action form all attacks.

 

[jmartkdr2]

In 2014, it would be:

"Attack Rolls

Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus."

I'm searching for the 2024 equivalent.

That's only for Spell Attack rolls, not Weapon Attack rolls caused by spells.

 

[Deset Gled]

That's only for Spell Attack rolls, not Weapon Attack rolls caused by spells.

My response to that would be the same as yours :

Source on that?

The text only says "attack rolls". The spell calls for an "attack" .