Wow...and you're saying that BeyondMisty is arguing in bad faith??
Thorn Whip literally says that you create a long whip covered in thorns that "lashes out" at the target. Your argument is like saying that because Shadow Blade has different hit dice than a dagger and it scales, then it's not really a dagger and you're not actually hitting anything with it.
Thorn Whip is not a (standard weapon) whip. literally not, and nothing in the spell should make you think that it is, because everything I mentioned that is different about that spell. Shadow Blade is actually a great example of this. The spell literally gives you the stats for the sword, some of which make it quite different than a (standard weapon) longsword, shortsword, or dagger, namely due to 1) the damage, 2) the special effects in darkness, and 3) "sword" is not a weapon in D&D, "longsword", "shortsword", and "dagger" are standard weapons. "sword" is not a standard weapon, and you won't find it in the PHB
The whole point of my argument was that both Thorn Whip and SWS have melee ranges of 30 feet because the spell makes it so. Saying that Thornwhip creates a "whip" does not invalidate that fact (even though you think it does for some reason)
Now if Steel Wind Strike said that you "lash out with the force of the wind" to strike your targets, you'd be 100% right. But the fact that it says that you "vanish to strike" means that you/the caster are making the strikes. There's no language about hurling, throwing, conjuring, whatever.
of course the caster is making the strikes! i've never said they weren't, and in both my narrative examples above, they are! but they are making them mechanically from a range of up to 30 feet, because nothing in the spell says you move until after the attacks are made.
I honestly think that one word change would make everyone here agree with BeyondMisty and me. What if we changed "teleport" to "appear"? That at the end of the spell you can choose to appear beside one of the targets. Would you not be teleporting? Even though you started in one place and instantaneously appear in another?
that would give some mechanical credence to my second narrative, but I don't see how it means using up to 6 teleports ( one to each target and one to the final space) to do so. it could mean one teleport, per the current mechanics, it could mean you just move so fast you can no longer be seen because you've exceeded light speed or the frame rate of the target's eyes. either of those would work in your situation. But that word isn't changed, so no matter how you narrate it, the mechanics of the spell only allow for one teleport, which occurs after all attacks are complete ("Then you teleport")
Whips are extremely relevant to this discussion, because Steel Wind Strike is castable with any sufficiently expensive weapon with a finite cost. In other words, you can cast it using a whip as your weapon. In fact, you can do it with a Fire Giant's greatsword, too. There's no requirement in the spell you be proficient in the thing, or be capable of wielding it. There's a potential argument to be had about needing to be carrying the weapon, so you can get into weeds about weight and strength if you like, but once you can hoist the thing (and presumably waggle if, if your GM wants to insist on the flourish part), you can cast the spell.
Anyway, point is, if someone is going to insist that Steel Wind Strike involves actually hitting targets with the weapon used as the material component (basically disregarding the spell's RAW and replacing it with the RAW from Booming Blade), there's a whole raft of house rules you'll need to attach, since the spell doesn't normally roll to hit or damage in any way based on the component. Just one facet of that raft is where you're declaring the caster to be when the strike occurs, if you want the weapon having Reach or not to matter.
If you're going to admit that, as per RAW, you don't hit anyone with the material component, then there's no reason to assume the caster is getting to within any given range of the target for their attacks. The caster vanishes, yes (if you want, we can have a separate conversation about whether or not Steel Wind Strike hits with advantage, since the attacker is by definition unseen, but that's not germane here). That's RAW. But why should they get any closer? What rule anywhere requires or even allows them to change location?
Whips are extremely relevant to this discussion, because Steel Wind Strike is castable with any sufficiently expensive weapon with a finite cost. In other words, you can cast it using a whip as your weapon. In fact, you can do it with a Fire Giant's greatsword, too. There's no requirement in the spell you be proficient in the thing, or be capable of wielding it. There's a potential argument to be had about needing to be carrying the weapon, so you can get into weeds about weight and strength if you like, but once you can hoist the thing (and presumably waggle if, if your GM wants to insist on the flourish part), you can cast the spell.
Anyway, point is, if someone is going to insist that Steel Wind Strike involves actually hitting targets with the weapon used as the material component (basically disregarding the spell's RAW and replacing it with the RAW from Booming Blade), there's a whole raft of house rules you'll need to attach, since the spell doesn't normally roll to hit or damage in any way based on the component. Just one facet of that raft is where you're declaring the caster to be when the strike occurs, if you want the weapon having Reach or not to matter.
If you're going to admit that, as per RAW, you don't hit anyone with the material component, then there's no reason to assume the caster is getting to within any given range of the target for their attacks. The caster vanishes, yes (if you want, we can have a separate conversation about whether or not Steel Wind Strike hits with advantage, since the attacker is by definition unseen, but that's not germane here). That's RAW. But why should they get any closer? What rule anywhere requires or even allows them to change location?
I'd argue its not the intent to grant advantage, as the spell doesn't grant invisibility or say you have advantage, and the entire slate of effects occur so fast that you are only "vanished" for the barest fraction of a second. It's certainly a debatable topic though, with greater merit to each side than the current argument we are having (and have been having for 6 pages now).
Thorn whip creates a whip that lashes out at your command. It doesn’t say you attack while wielding the whip. It doesn’t say the whip even comes from the caster. The spell has a range of 30ft, with no mention of self. I would imagine the whip could momentarily manifest in any space within the 30ft attack range. Spell doesn’t describe the whip as similar to the weapon, gives no properties,
it does however give the ability to make a 30ft melee spell attack. Like steel wind strike.
Looking past; (1) whether or not a whip is a whip (2) whether or not words carry any meaning when not directly attributed meaning in the rules (3) whether or not you should apply logic to your interpretation of RAW or only take it at face value (4) whether or not you vanish from line of sight and therefore get advantage on your attack roll (5) whether or not a melee attack is defined as hand-to-hand combat as a general rule (6) whether or not the Point of Origin of a spell without a range of self is fixed to the caster (7) whether or not you teleport/dash next to your opponent or stand still and elongate your weapon/send flying strikes at your opponent
Regardless of how we choose to rule the nature of the spell effect, we have to make sure that the consequences match the effect. If you get close to your opponent, aura effects will apply, good or bad. If you attack from range, you are subject to the cover rules. No matter which of the two ranges you end up striking from, all extra damage and effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply (e.g. Flame Tongue, Divine Favor etc.).
Thorn whip creates a whip that lashes out at your command. It doesn’t say you attack while wielding the whip. It doesn’t say the whip even comes from the caster. The spell has a range of 30ft, with no mention of self. I would imagine the whip could momentarily manifest in any space within the 30ft attack range. Spell doesn’t describe the whip as similar to the weapon, gives no properties,
it does however give the ability to make a 30ft melee spell attack. Like steel wind strike.
Well, the fact that you can use Thorn Whip to pull a target up to 10 ft. closer to you, would indeed indicate that at the very least it is between you and the target and at least 10 feet away from the given target.
It seems to me that the arguments on the other side boil down to this: "Each spell is its own mini rule book and it doesn't have to mesh with any other rules anywhere else." Because ya'll are just ignoring the melee spell attack portion of the spell and saying that you can make melee attacks at range because the spell doesn't explicitly say you or anything else in in melee range.
this is the crux of "specific overrides general" which is a core tenant of D&D rules, though worded in an extreme manner. Where a specific rule (like a spell rule) contradicts the general rule (like the rules for melee attacks in the PHB), the more specific rule overrides the general rule.
Saying that a spell defines a melee attacks range at 30 feet is an easy override using Specific overrides General, especially compared to saying that the spell implies (but doesn't state) movement or teleportation to get the caster in normal melee range (if that were true, you would actually be saying that General overrides Specific, which is not true in D&D)
Looking past; (1) whether or not a whip is a whip (2) whether or not words carry any meaning when not directly attributed meaning in the rules (3) whether or not you should apply logic to your interpretation of RAW or only take it at face value (4) whether or not you vanish from line of sight and therefore get advantage on your attack roll (5) whether or not a melee attack is defined as hand-to-hand combat as a general rule (6) whether or not the Point of Origin of a spell without a range of self is fixed to the caster (7) whether or not you teleport/dash next to your opponent or stand still and elongate your weapon/send flying strikes at your opponent
Regardless of how we choose to rule the nature of the spell effect, we have to make sure that the consequences match the effect. If you get close to your opponent, aura effects will apply, good or bad. If you attack from range, you are subject to the cover rules. No matter which of the two ranges you end up striking from, all extra damage and effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply (e.g. Flame Tongue, Shillelagh etc.).
Absolutely zero effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply, because Steel Wind Strike does not involve any strikes from the weapon. You're absolutely right that cover applies, and you're also absolutely right that if the DM houserules that SWS moves the caster, any rules that apply to where the spell moves the caster to should apply.
Looking past; (1) whether or not a whip is a whip (2) whether or not words carry any meaning when not directly attributed meaning in the rules (3) whether or not you should apply logic to your interpretation of RAW or only take it at face value (4) whether or not you vanish from line of sight and therefore get advantage on your attack roll (5) whether or not a melee attack is defined as hand-to-hand combat as a general rule (6) whether or not the Point of Origin of a spell without a range of self is fixed to the caster (7) whether or not you teleport/dash next to your opponent or stand still and elongate your weapon/send flying strikes at your opponent
Regardless of how we choose to rule the nature of the spell effect, we have to make sure that the consequences match the effect. If you get close to your opponent, aura effects will apply, good or bad. If you attack from range, you are subject to the cover rules. No matter which of the two ranges you end up striking from, all extra damage and effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply (e.g. Flame Tongue, Shillelagh etc.).
Absolutely zero effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply, because Steel Wind Strike does not involve any strikes from the weapon. You're absolutely right that cover applies, and you're also absolutely right that if the DM houserules that SWS moves the caster, any rules that apply to where the spell moves the caster to should apply.
It doesn't say that you don't use a weapon either. We only know that the weapon is a requirement for the spell to work (what that means is debatable until the rules get specified. I believe the weapon is used to attack). As is, the spell can also be interpreted to mean that you make an unarmed strike to hit your opponents. In that case, all extra damage and effects tied to attacks with your unnamed strikes apply.
It seems to me that the arguments on the other side boil down to this: "Each spell is its own mini rule book and it doesn't have to mesh with any other rules anywhere else."
Each spell should mesh with all the other rules, for the most part. Some part might be specific for that spell and those can break the general rules.
It seems to me that the arguments on your side likes to invent stuff that isn't in the written spell description. And that, generally speaking, isn't how it's done.
Because ya'll are just ignoring the melee spell attack portion of the spell and saying that you can make melee attacks at range because the spell doesn't explicitly say you or anything else in in melee range.
No one is ignoring anything tbh. The rules doesn't specify a general hard limit for how far away you can do a melee spell attack. Weapons are limited by their reach and spells are limited by their range. And this spell has a 30ft range. If those designing the spell can accept doing melee attacks from 30ft away I don't have an issue with following that.
Truthfully I think that the reason for this little quirk is that the designers wanted to create a spell with a cool effect while minimizing the mechanical problems (and also to cut out as much of the "inventive" shenanigans as possible).
Regardless of how we choose to rule the nature of the spell effect, we have to make sure that the consequences match the effect. If you get close to your opponent, aura effects will apply, good or bad. If you attack from range, you are subject to the cover rules. No matter which of the two ranges you end up striking from, all extra damage and effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply (e.g. Flame Tongue, Divine Favor etc.).
AND there it comes... A few pages of arguing about this and that all to set up for the "oh and I also want this completely OP stuff too". Bad faith arguing indeed.
No you DO NOT get to add any damage or effects from whatever weapon you use for your material component.
The other thing is that the designer was NOT okay with making melee attacks at 30 foot range and already said that the caster teleports. You are choosing to ignore that and assume you know that what they really mean is contrary to what one of them actually said.
I don't have to assume, they actually explicitly wrote it into the spell description. After all the text about how to target and attack they wrote "You can then teleport ...". That makes it's quite clear that the teleport part doesn't happens until after the attacks have taken place.
Regardless of how we choose to rule the nature of the spell effect, we have to make sure that the consequences match the effect. If you get close to your opponent, aura effects will apply, good or bad. If you attack from range, you are subject to the cover rules. No matter which of the two ranges you end up striking from, all extra damage and effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply (e.g. Flame Tongue, Divine Favor etc.).
AND there it comes... A few pages of arguing about this and that all to set up for the "oh and I also want this completely OP" bull****.
No you DO NOT get to add any damage or effects from whatever weapon you use for your material component.
I simply wanted to put focus on a separate part of the discussion, to see if we (the people in this thread) could agree on something despite our different interpretations on numerous other points. I discuss rules for the sake of understanding, not for the sake of getting my way. That is utterly pointless in a game you play at your own individual tables.
I mentioned extra damage and effects for weapons (and mentioned unarmed attacks later), not spell components.
I mentioned extra damage and effects for weapons (and mentioned unarmed attacks later), not spell components.
The weapon is is utterly irrelevant though apart from being a spell component. You are not using it to attack with, you are doing a spell attack.
If you want a spell that will allow for you to add any damage or effects from the weapon you wield then Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade is what you want.
I mentioned extra damage and effects for weapons (and mentioned unarmed attacks later), not spell components.
The weapon is is utterly irrelevant though apart from being a spell component. You are not using it to attack with, you are doing a spell attack.
If you want a spell that will allow for you to add any damage or effects from the weapon you wield then Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade is what you want.
Are you trying to say that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon?
I mentioned extra damage and effects for weapons (and mentioned unarmed attacks later), not spell components.
The weapon is is utterly irrelevant though apart from being a spell component. You are not using it to attack with, you are doing a spell attack.
If you want a spell that will allow for you to add any damage or effects from the weapon you wield then Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade is what you want.
Are you trying to say that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon?
Yes…there’s a reason they distinguish between melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks, one is made by weapons, one directly by spells. They are not interchangeable, you do the one the effect says to do. If one is not specifically described, you do the one that makes the most sense to do, asking the question: Am I attacking with a weapon (made by a spell or otherwise) or directly with a spell. SWS specifies a melee spell attack, so you are not attacking with a weapon
It seems to me that the arguments on the other side boil down to this: "Each spell is its own mini rule book and it doesn't have to mesh with any other rules anywhere else."
Each spell should mesh with all the other rules, for the most part. Some part might be specific for that spell and those can break the general rules.
It seems to me that the arguments on your side likes to invent stuff that isn't in the written spell description. And that, generally speaking, isn't how it's done.
Because ya'll are just ignoring the melee spell attack portion of the spell and saying that you can make melee attacks at range because the spell doesn't explicitly say you or anything else in in melee range.
No one is ignoring anything tbh. The rules doesn't specify a general hard limit for how far away you can do a melee spell attack. Weapons are limited by their reach and spells are limited by their range. And this spell has a 30ft range. If those designing the spell can accept doing melee attacks from 30ft away I don't have an issue with following that.
Truthfully I think that the reason for this little quirk is that the designers wanted to create a spell with a cool effect while minimizing the mechanical problems (and also to cut out as much of the "inventive" shenanigans as possible).
It seems that your side is just absolutely ignoring that the caster vanishes before any attacks are made. And that the range is which creatures are target-able, not the range of the melee spell attacks. I already listed all of the spells that call for a melee attack and have a range greater than self; all of them either summon something by the target(s) or create a long, thorn covered whip.
There is absolutely no basis in the spell description to say that these are different. Specific Beats General, and the range of melee attacks is not fixed per the rules (most creatures and weapons have a 5 foot reach, but i dare you to find where it says that reach cannot be anything other than 5 feet.
And "vanishing" is not a mechanic that means "teleporting" or "moving". At most, the caster becomes unseen. Anything beyond that is simple fabrication on your part.
The other thing is that the designer was NOT okay with making melee attacks at 30 foot range and already said that the caster teleports. You are choosing to ignore that and assume you know that what they really mean is contrary to what one of them actually said.
Were you the designer? Don't speak for him/her/them if you aren't. and it was already mentioned several pages ago that one writer's unpublished opinion has about as much weight as any of ours (and I'll give you a hint, JC is a designer, a writer, but not the only one by a long shot, and he has been known to be wrong, which is why some tweets don't get published in the SAC). Until it gets into the SAC, its not an official ruling, nor a rule. the RAW says you attack, then teleport. plain english. If that doesn't jive with his/your idea of how the spell should work, thats fine, but until it is errata'ed, the RAW is clearly nothing more than what I've stated.
I mentioned extra damage and effects for weapons (and mentioned unarmed attacks later), not spell components.
The weapon is is utterly irrelevant though apart from being a spell component. You are not using it to attack with, you are doing a spell attack.
If you want a spell that will allow for you to add any damage or effects from the weapon you wield then Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade is what you want.
Are you trying to say that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon?
Yes…there’s a reason they distinguish between melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks, one is made by weapons, one directly by spells. They are not interchangeable, you do the one the effect says to do. If one is not specifically described, you do the one that makes the most sense to do, asking the question: Am I attacking with a weapon (made by a spell or otherwise) or directly with a spell. SWS specifies a melee spell attack, so you are not attacking with a weapon
I mentioned extra damage and effects for weapons (and mentioned unarmed attacks later), not spell components.
The weapon is is utterly irrelevant though apart from being a spell component. You are not using it to attack with, you are doing a spell attack.
If you want a spell that will allow for you to add any damage or effects from the weapon you wield then Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade is what you want.
Are you trying to say that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon?
Yes…there’s a reason they distinguish between melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks, one is made by weapons, one directly by spells. They are not interchangeable, you do the one the effect says to do. If one is not specifically described, you do the one that makes the most sense to do, asking the question: Am I attacking with a weapon (made by a spell or otherwise) or directly with a spell. SWS specifies a melee spell attack, so you are not attacking with a weapon
Nope! They aren't given any of the stats or properties of weapons, their attacks are listed as melee spell attacks, and don't direct you to use weapons you are holding. Contrast to spells like shadow blade which do give the properties of the weapon created, and booming blade, which says to use the weapon you are holding. Furthermore Both of those do not define the attacks made as spell attacks, and therefore involve melee weapon attacks based on my question above.
Are you trying to say that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon?
No. I'm saying that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon unless said weapon is also being created by said spell.
If you want to make the attack with an actual weapon you are wielding then you need to look at spells like BB or GFB, but then you will be making a melee weapon attack.
Well, I see the argument has devolved from "this wording follows this other rule with different wording," to "I can do anything the rules don't say I can't."
I'm out. There are only so many ways to say "the spell does what it says it does." And I'm tired of reading these increasingly against the rules arguments.
Play the game however you want, but please stop asserting your house rules as RAW. That is how what should have been 1 comment that says "I play this way, it's fun," becomes a 7 page argument over whether you have to move within 5 feet of a target to make an attack with a RAW 30 foot range (and also whether spell attacks add weapon damage apparently?).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thorn Whip is not a (standard weapon) whip. literally not, and nothing in the spell should make you think that it is, because everything I mentioned that is different about that spell. Shadow Blade is actually a great example of this. The spell literally gives you the stats for the sword, some of which make it quite different than a (standard weapon) longsword, shortsword, or dagger, namely due to 1) the damage, 2) the special effects in darkness, and 3) "sword" is not a weapon in D&D, "longsword", "shortsword", and "dagger" are standard weapons. "sword" is not a standard weapon, and you won't find it in the PHB
The whole point of my argument was that both Thorn Whip and SWS have melee ranges of 30 feet because the spell makes it so. Saying that Thornwhip creates a "whip" does not invalidate that fact (even though you think it does for some reason)
of course the caster is making the strikes! i've never said they weren't, and in both my narrative examples above, they are! but they are making them mechanically from a range of up to 30 feet, because nothing in the spell says you move until after the attacks are made.
that would give some mechanical credence to my second narrative, but I don't see how it means using up to 6 teleports ( one to each target and one to the final space) to do so. it could mean one teleport, per the current mechanics, it could mean you just move so fast you can no longer be seen because you've exceeded light speed or the frame rate of the target's eyes. either of those would work in your situation. But that word isn't changed, so no matter how you narrate it, the mechanics of the spell only allow for one teleport, which occurs after all attacks are complete ("Then you teleport")
Whips are extremely relevant to this discussion, because Steel Wind Strike is castable with any sufficiently expensive weapon with a finite cost. In other words, you can cast it using a whip as your weapon. In fact, you can do it with a Fire Giant's greatsword, too. There's no requirement in the spell you be proficient in the thing, or be capable of wielding it. There's a potential argument to be had about needing to be carrying the weapon, so you can get into weeds about weight and strength if you like, but once you can hoist the thing (and presumably waggle if, if your GM wants to insist on the flourish part), you can cast the spell.
Anyway, point is, if someone is going to insist that Steel Wind Strike involves actually hitting targets with the weapon used as the material component (basically disregarding the spell's RAW and replacing it with the RAW from Booming Blade), there's a whole raft of house rules you'll need to attach, since the spell doesn't normally roll to hit or damage in any way based on the component. Just one facet of that raft is where you're declaring the caster to be when the strike occurs, if you want the weapon having Reach or not to matter.
If you're going to admit that, as per RAW, you don't hit anyone with the material component, then there's no reason to assume the caster is getting to within any given range of the target for their attacks. The caster vanishes, yes (if you want, we can have a separate conversation about whether or not Steel Wind Strike hits with advantage, since the attacker is by definition unseen, but that's not germane here). That's RAW. But why should they get any closer? What rule anywhere requires or even allows them to change location?
I'd argue its not the intent to grant advantage, as the spell doesn't grant invisibility or say you have advantage, and the entire slate of effects occur so fast that you are only "vanished" for the barest fraction of a second. It's certainly a debatable topic though, with greater merit to each side than the current argument we are having (and have been having for 6 pages now).
Thorn whip creates a whip that lashes out at your command. It doesn’t say you attack while wielding the whip. It doesn’t say the whip even comes from the caster. The spell has a range of 30ft, with no mention of self. I would imagine the whip could momentarily manifest in any space within the 30ft attack range. Spell doesn’t describe the whip as similar to the weapon, gives no properties,
it does however give the ability to make a 30ft melee spell attack. Like steel wind strike.
Looking past;
(1) whether or not a whip is a whip
(2) whether or not words carry any meaning when not directly attributed meaning in the rules
(3) whether or not you should apply logic to your interpretation of RAW or only take it at face value
(4) whether or not you vanish from line of sight and therefore get advantage on your attack roll
(5) whether or not a melee attack is defined as hand-to-hand combat as a general rule
(6) whether or not the Point of Origin of a spell without a range of self is fixed to the caster
(7) whether or not you teleport/dash next to your opponent or stand still and elongate your weapon/send flying strikes at your opponent
Regardless of how we choose to rule the nature of the spell effect, we have to make sure that the consequences match the effect. If you get close to your opponent, aura effects will apply, good or bad. If you attack from range, you are subject to the cover rules. No matter which of the two ranges you end up striking from, all extra damage and effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply (e.g. Flame Tongue, Divine Favor etc.).
this is the crux of "specific overrides general" which is a core tenant of D&D rules, though worded in an extreme manner. Where a specific rule (like a spell rule) contradicts the general rule (like the rules for melee attacks in the PHB), the more specific rule overrides the general rule.
Saying that a spell defines a melee attacks range at 30 feet is an easy override using Specific overrides General, especially compared to saying that the spell implies (but doesn't state) movement or teleportation to get the caster in normal melee range (if that were true, you would actually be saying that General overrides Specific, which is not true in D&D)
Absolutely zero effects tied to a strike from the weapon apply, because Steel Wind Strike does not involve any strikes from the weapon. You're absolutely right that cover applies, and you're also absolutely right that if the DM houserules that SWS moves the caster, any rules that apply to where the spell moves the caster to should apply.
It doesn't say that you don't use a weapon either. We only know that the weapon is a requirement for the spell to work (what that means is debatable until the rules get specified. I believe the weapon is used to attack). As is, the spell can also be interpreted to mean that you make an unarmed strike to hit your opponents. In that case, all extra damage and effects tied to attacks with your unnamed strikes apply.
Each spell should mesh with all the other rules, for the most part. Some part might be specific for that spell and those can break the general rules.
It seems to me that the arguments on your side likes to invent stuff that isn't in the written spell description. And that, generally speaking, isn't how it's done.
No one is ignoring anything tbh. The rules doesn't specify a general hard limit for how far away you can do a melee spell attack.
Weapons are limited by their reach and spells are limited by their range. And this spell has a 30ft range. If those designing the spell can accept doing melee attacks from 30ft away I don't have an issue with following that.
Truthfully I think that the reason for this little quirk is that the designers wanted to create a spell with a cool effect while minimizing the mechanical problems (and also to cut out as much of the "inventive" shenanigans as possible).
AND there it comes... A few pages of arguing about this and that all to set up for the "oh and I also want this completely OP stuff too". Bad faith arguing indeed.
No you DO NOT get to add any damage or effects from whatever weapon you use for your material component.
I don't have to assume, they actually explicitly wrote it into the spell description. After all the text about how to target and attack they wrote "You can then teleport ...".
That makes it's quite clear that the teleport part doesn't happens until after the attacks have taken place.
I simply wanted to put focus on a separate part of the discussion, to see if we (the people in this thread) could agree on something despite our different interpretations on numerous other points.
I discuss rules for the sake of understanding, not for the sake of getting my way. That is utterly pointless in a game you play at your own individual tables.
I mentioned extra damage and effects for weapons (and mentioned unarmed attacks later), not spell components.
The weapon is is utterly irrelevant though apart from being a spell component. You are not using it to attack with, you are doing a spell attack.
If you want a spell that will allow for you to add any damage or effects from the weapon you wield then Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade is what you want.
Are you trying to say that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon?
Yes…there’s a reason they distinguish between melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks, one is made by weapons, one directly by spells. They are not interchangeable, you do the one the effect says to do. If one is not specifically described, you do the one that makes the most sense to do, asking the question: Am I attacking with a weapon (made by a spell or otherwise) or directly with a spell.
SWS specifies a melee spell attack, so you are not attacking with a weapon
There is absolutely no basis in the spell description to say that these are different. Specific Beats General, and the range of melee attacks is not fixed per the rules (most creatures and weapons have a 5 foot reach, but i dare you to find where it says that reach cannot be anything other than 5 feet.
And "vanishing" is not a mechanic that means "teleporting" or "moving". At most, the caster becomes unseen. Anything beyond that is simple fabrication on your part.
Were you the designer? Don't speak for him/her/them if you aren't. and it was already mentioned several pages ago that one writer's unpublished opinion has about as much weight as any of ours (and I'll give you a hint, JC is a designer, a writer, but not the only one by a long shot, and he has been known to be wrong, which is why some tweets don't get published in the SAC). Until it gets into the SAC, its not an official ruling, nor a rule. the RAW says you attack, then teleport. plain english. If that doesn't jive with his/your idea of how the spell should work, thats fine, but until it is errata'ed, the RAW is clearly nothing more than what I've stated.
So you would consider neither of the weapons (for lack of a better term) used in spells such as Primal Savagery, Thorn Whip or Flame Blade, Mordenkainen's Sword, or Blade of Disaster to be weapons?
Nope! They aren't given any of the stats or properties of weapons, their attacks are listed as melee spell attacks, and don't direct you to use weapons you are holding. Contrast to spells like shadow blade which do give the properties of the weapon created, and booming blade, which says to use the weapon you are holding. Furthermore Both of those do not define the attacks made as spell attacks, and therefore involve melee weapon attacks based on my question above.
No. I'm saying that you can't make a melee spell attack using a weapon unless said weapon is also being created by said spell.
If you want to make the attack with an actual weapon you are wielding then you need to look at spells like BB or GFB, but then you will be making a melee weapon attack.
Well, I see the argument has devolved from "this wording follows this other rule with different wording," to "I can do anything the rules don't say I can't."
I'm out. There are only so many ways to say "the spell does what it says it does." And I'm tired of reading these increasingly against the rules arguments.
Play the game however you want, but please stop asserting your house rules as RAW. That is how what should have been 1 comment that says "I play this way, it's fun," becomes a 7 page argument over whether you have to move within 5 feet of a target to make an attack with a RAW 30 foot range (and also whether spell attacks add weapon damage apparently?).