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

[Maxperson]

Well, they differentiate between spells and attacks. Some spells have you make one or more attacks as part of their resolution, and those are spell attacks. But, again, “spell attacks” and “weapon attacks” (not “melee attacks,” but “weapon attacks”) used to be distinct categories that the rules referenced and cared about. They aren’t any more. There are attacks you make with weapons, and there are attacks you make as part of casting spells, the latter of which use your spell attack modifier, and either of which can be melee or ranged. But weapon attack and spell attack no longer exist as distinct Rules Objects. They’re just concepts expressed via natural language.

It's pretty clear to me that they do differentiate, even if there is no specific separate categories. There's not much point in arguing that here, though, because the weapon is not a part of the spell effect of True Strike. It's a component only, specifically used in the spells casting, which is different from being part of the spell(the effect). Then if you make an attack with that component, you can apply the effect of radiant damage if you so choose.

"COMPONENTS
A spell's components are physical requirements the spellcaster must meet to cast the spell. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires Verbal (V), Somatic (S ), or Material (M) comp onents. If the spellcaster can't provide one or more of a spell's components, the spellcaster can't cast the spell."

As you can see, components are requirements to be met in order to cast the spell, not part of the spell itself.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, spell attack is in fact a separate category. It has it's own paragraph.

"SPELL ATTACK
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also chapter 7 ("Casting Spells")."

To be a spell attack, it needs to say melee spell attack or ranged spell attack. If it doesn't, it's not a spell attack.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The ability doesn't specify "spell attack" though. "Attack roll with a spell" may or may not be the same thing as a "spell attack". The rules do not say. I.e. the correct answer is "the rules are vague, so the DM decides".

 

[pawsplay]

Also, spell attack is in fact a separate category. It has it's own paragraph.

"SPELL ATTACK
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also chapter 7 ("Casting Spells")."

To be a spell attack, it needs to say melee spell attack or ranged spell attack. If it doesn't, it's not a spell attack.

If it's an attack made as part of a spell, True Strike is definitely a spell attack.

 

[Maxperson]

The ability doesn't specify "spell attack" though. "Attack roll with a spell" may or may not be the same thing as a "spell attack". The rules do not say. I.e. the correct answer is "the rules are vague, so the DM decides".

There is no attack roll "of the spell" happening. The weapon is a material component that is a pre-requisite to casting the spell. The subsequent attack roll is not an attack roll of the spell. An attack "of the spell" would be a Firebolt or Bigby's Hand for example. The weapon is being used to make a melee attack and that melee attack is modified BY the spell to include radiant damage and some guidance which lets you use your spellcasting ability for the modifier.

 

[Maxperson]

If it's an attack made as part of a spell, True Strike is definitely a spell attack.

Not according to the rules. 19 spells have spell attacks and that isn't one of them. Probably because the attack isn't part of the spell, rather it's a melee attack with a weapon that is modified BY the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe this will help clarify.

With Firebolt, the bolt of fire has no separate existence from the spell, so the spell directs you to make a ranged spell attack. It is part of that spell.

With Bigby's Hand, the fist has no separate existence from the spell, so the spell directs you make a ranged spell attack. It is part of that spell.

With True Strike, the weapon does have a separate existence. It is not part of the spell, so the spell does not direct you to make a spell attack, instead you are making a melee attack with the weapon, modified by the spell.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is no attack roll "of the spell" happening. The weapon is a material component that is a pre-requisite to casting the spell. The subsequent attack roll is not an attack roll of the spell.

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

 

[Zardnaar]

The ability doesn't specify "spell attack" though. "Attack roll with a spell" may or may not be the same thing as a "spell attack". The rules do not say. I.e. the correct answer is "the rules are vague, so the DM decides".

This is correct.

Its down to interpretation.

 

[pawsplay]

Not according to the rules. 19 spells have spell attacks and that isn't one of them. Probably because the attack isn't part of the spell, rather it's a melee attack with a weapon that is modified BY the spell.

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:

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

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