The Seeking Spell Metamagic from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything reads:

Seeking Spell
If you make an attack roll for a spell and miss, you can spend 2 sorcery points to reroll the d20, and you must use the new roll.

My question is, what exactly counts as "an attack roll for a spell"? Obviously something like Inflict Wounds does, but does the weapon attack roll generated by a spell like Booming Blade count? What about a weapon attack roll for a weapon buffed by Magic Weapon?


If the spell effect says to make an attack roll, Seeking Spell works.

When a spell description instructs you to make an attack roll, the attack is part of the spell’s effect. The rules for spellcasting in the Player's Handbook make this clear:

Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.

So Seeking Spell will work on any spell where making an attack roll is explicitly part of the spell’s effect. This includes booming blade, since the attack rolls is part of the spell’s effect.

However, this will not work for magic weapon, since making attacks are not a part of the spell’s effect, the effect only modifies attacks, should you choose to make them. Indeed, magic weapon says:

You touch a nonmagical weapon. Until the spell ends, that weapon becomes a magic weapon with a +1 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls.

Magic weapon modified the properties of a weapon you touch - this is the whole effect of the spell. So Seeking Spell cannot be used with magic weapon.

It is important to note that Seeking Spell does not require the attack made to be a "spell attack", just that the attack made is part of the spell's effect:

If you make an attack roll for a spell and miss...

  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you comment on the interaction with magic stone, which defines an attack that can be made but doesn't directly tell you to make the attack? \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Wells Dec 18 '20 at 16:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, give me a minute. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Dec 18 '20 at 16:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells That's a tough one. Based on my argument above, I think it probably works, but I also think it reasonable to rule that it doesn't. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Dec 18 '20 at 16:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells A sorcerer with magic stone would be exceedingly rare, we're looking at multiclassing or someone taking the metamagic adept feat, so it's possible you'll never have to rule on that. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Dec 18 '20 at 16:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.