So does Truestrike.
D&D 5E (2024) Does Innate Sorcery grant True Strike advantage?
- Thread starter FrogReaver
- Start date
So does Truestrike.
There is no such distinction in the 2024 rules.
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?
The part you quoted doesn't say what is in red and it is a stretch to draw this conclusion, I would also say Truestrike is an attack roll made as part of a spell.
Moreover, I will point out that Innate Sorcery feature itself does NOT say "spell attack" so if something "needs" to say to say the exact words "spell attack" and without those words it means another kind of attack, then the Innate Sorcery ability must be referring to a different and broader set off attacks and not just "spell attacks".
This is a MORE permissive interpretation. If I am to take this "need" like you say, then Innate Sorcery must refer to all attacks made as any result of a sorcerer spell since it does not specify "spell attack". So the extra attack I make with Haste would get advantage or the attacks I make when polymorphed would get advantage since it does not just apply to "spell attacks".
For me it is pretty simple - if the spell and thereby the attack can be counterspelled then it is an "attack roll of a sorcerer spell" and it would have advantage. So Truestrike yes, Booming Blade yes, Chill Touch yes, Chromatic Orb yes, attack from Bigby's Hand no, attack by a summoned creature no, extra Haste attack no, attack with a Shadowblade or Flameblade no.
Last edited:
The distinction is whether or not it's a attack from the spell which uses your spellcasting modifier or an attack from your weapon which uses your weapon's chosen modifiers.
SWIFT QUIVER
When you cast the spell and as a Bonus Action until it ends, you can make two attacks with a weapon that fires Arrows or Bolts, such as a Longbow or a Light Crossbow. The spell magically creates the ammunition needed for each attack. Each Arrow or Bolt created by the spell deals damage like a nonmagical piece of ammunition of its kind and disintegrates immediately after it hits or misses
Swift quivers attacks are not attacked from the spell that uses the spell casting modifier. The spell takes your already basic attack and lets you do it two times as a bonus action.
That's the distinction whether or not it's an attack part of the spell or attack granted from the spell.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
True Strike doesn’t say attack rolls ‘with a spell’, it says ‘attack rolls of spells.’
Hypothetically, If a spell said make a melee attack. Add 1d8 damage on a hit, would you say that attack roll was of the melee attack or was of the spell?
Last edited:
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
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.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
The case against advantage.
The target of true strike is self. Under the spell targeting rules it says ‘a typical spell requires one or more targets to be affected by the spells magic.’ Thus the one being effected by the magic of true strike is the caster and not the target of the weapon attack.
In the effect section of true strike it says you make one attack with a weapon. Making an attack with a weapon means the attack roll is of the weapon and not of the spell. Also, under the effects section of spells it says the details present exactly what the spell does.
Attack rolls of spells are calculated by default as using your spell casting ability modifier for hit and damage. If true strike really was a spell attack it wouldn’t need to specify to use casting stat instead of str/dex, it would do so by default.
The case for advantage
This seems to hinge on claiming that any attack in the spell effect results in an ‘attack roll of the spell’. But we have numerous examples where this is agreed to not hold. Further, if exceptions are made for other spells due to non-explicit ‘of the spell vs not of the spell wording’ there is no good reason an exception due to the wording of true strike isn’t being made here.
I know which case seems more persuasive to me.
The target of true strike is self. Under the spell targeting rules it says ‘a typical spell requires one or more targets to be affected by the spells magic.’ Thus the one being effected by the magic of true strike is the caster and not the target of the weapon attack.
In the effect section of true strike it says you make one attack with a weapon. Making an attack with a weapon means the attack roll is of the weapon and not of the spell. Also, under the effects section of spells it says the details present exactly what the spell does.
Attack rolls of spells are calculated by default as using your spell casting ability modifier for hit and damage. If true strike really was a spell attack it wouldn’t need to specify to use casting stat instead of str/dex, it would do so by default.
The case for advantage
This seems to hinge on claiming that any attack in the spell effect results in an ‘attack roll of the spell’. But we have numerous examples where this is agreed to not hold. Further, if exceptions are made for other spells due to non-explicit ‘of the spell vs not of the spell wording’ there is no good reason an exception due to the wording of true strike isn’t being made here.
I know which case seems more persuasive to me.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I'm starting to think True Strike is the problem here. This feels like Agonizing Blast + True Strike all over again.
Similar Threads
