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

[mellored]

The attack is not part of the spell, because it's not part of the spell's effect.

True Strike specifically says "make an attack with a weapon", beating any general rule of weapon attacks without using a spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

Some context for my question, I was wanting to compare Damage output of various level 2 classes and couldn’t decide which way to treat True Strike on Sorcerers.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

*presuming you took it as a Sorcerer

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.

So I agree the spell causes the attack. That doesn’t fully prove that the attack roll for that attack is from the spell.

Though perhaps exploring a fictional rendition of what is happening if it were could be helpful.

Caster casts true strike. Wiggles their fingers. A magical force guides their hand and sword toward the enemy. That’s closer to what I imagine going on with the spell. And if that’s true then it would get advantage IMO.

I think I’m going to change my vote.

I don’t think the arguments calling it an attack of the spell just because the spell causes the attack roll are persuasive though. Those points didn’t move me at all.

What did was focusing on whether the attack was included in the spell effect. I think it is. That doesn’t necessitate the attack roll is of the spell, but if the attack is, then the most natural stance would seem to be that the attack roll is as well.

 

[mellored]

Some context for my question I was wanting to compare Damage output of various level 2 classes and couldn’t decide which way to treat True Strike on Sorcerers.

Just remember that Sorcerer's only get simple weapon proficiency, no weapon mastery, nor armor. So very likely a short bow for 1d6+3 with Advantage. Or 1d8+3 in melee.

Lees thank a rogue with Vex and Nick (2d6+3 with "Advantage" on 1d6 sneak attack.)
Or will a Barbarian with Graze.
Or Ranger with Nick and Hunters Mark.
Maybe even a Fighter with Action Sugre and Graze, depending on how many rounds your counting.

And True Stike will fall further behind as you scale.

So better than other casters, but still behind damage focused weapon users.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

So an attack from my dagger dealing radiant energy from the heavens doesn't break the laws of physics?

 

[ECMO3]

It applies to spell attacks, "melee spell attack" or "ranged spell attack." Only spell attacks are made as part OF the spell. The rest are attacks made that are modified BY the spell. There's a difference.

By your own interpretation it doesn't. You said above that an attack needs to say the words "spell attack" to be a spell attack and anything does not use those words is not a "spell attack".

Back on post 42 you said: "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." Innate Sorcery does not say that, ergo it is not referring specifically to spell attacks by your own interpretation.

You can't have it both ways. If an attack needs to specify the words "spell attack" or else it is not talking about a spell attack then .... attack from a spell <> spell attack

 

[James Gasik]

Out of curiosity, if the intent was for True Strike to function with this feature, what wording would the feature require to make it clear by RAW?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

5.5e PHB.

I meant the exact quote, since lots of things you say are in the rules, are your inferences, not part of the text.

 

[Deset Gled]

Out of curiosity, if the intent was for True Strike to function with this feature, what wording would the feature require to make it clear by RAW?

In 5e2014, explicitly calling the strike from True Strike a Spell Attack would be the cleanest solution. But posts from others have shown that 5e2024 is revising some of that language, and I'm not sure what the cleanest way would be now.

In the other direction, True Strike could also explicitly call out that it's a normal weapon attack to show intent the other way.

 

[mellored]

Out of curiosity, if the intent was for True Strike to function with this feature, what wording would the feature require to make it clear by RAW?

Seems clean enough to me, but an alternative way would probably be something like.

"Make a spell attack roll within the weapons range. If you hit, then deal damage as if you had hit with the weapon, but use your spell casting modifier instead of Str/Dex."