I don't think its necessary to step in and say that a weapon can't make a spell attack, or that a spell can't make a weapon attack. Good rational design and editing would dictate that spells should follow that guidance... but Magic Stone shows pretty clearly that reason doesn't always prevail, as a Sling may be used to make a ranged spell attack. And (supposedly, though once-upon-a-better-time the reverse) Unarmed Strikes are not weapons, but are used to make weapon attacks. It is enough to say that generally, attacks with weapons are weapon attacks, and attacks with spells are spell attacks, but that a spell can be expected to specifically tell you what it does.
Steel Wind Strike does not make weapon attacks. It does make spell attacks, after flourishing a weapon. Did you "use" the weapon to cast spell? Yeah, arguably, I think there's some edge cases with artificer infusions or Pact of the Blade warlocks and Sneak Attack where you can get cheeky and make arguments that you "used" a weapon to make a Spell Attack/Cast a Spell in a significant way. But for the purpose of arguing about "does Steel Wind Strike imply that you've moved around and made melee weapon attacks, which the spell for some reason calls melee spell attacks, and deals different damage type, with different damage dice, without weapon properties, without describing any of this"? Come on, no, the spell doesn't do any of that. You vanish, make spell attacks, and "then" teleport to a single location. Its a very straightforward spell (other than that troubling question of whether those attacks are at advantage because you are unseen, that one is really keeping me up at night now).
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.
I had honestly never considered that melee spell attacks cannot be made using weapons. I had always thought that the mention of the spell producing a "Blade", "Sword" or ""Weapon" in the spell's description (or even the mention of what can only be described as a natural weapon) qualified them as weapons. I guess another way of looking at it is that for something to qualify as a weapon you must be able to use it with the Attack Action (although this is not described in the rules)? EDIT: I guess the Magic Stone example rules this idea out.
In the same manner I likewise believed that the wording in Thorn Whip, "you create a long, vine-like whip" , was an explanation (some might say specific rule) as to why a melee attack could be made from a distant range. The equipment Whip is after all a game-defined item known to divert from the general rules regarding 5-foot reach for melee attacks (depending on character size) with its unique property of Reach. On the other hand, Steel Wind Strike explains in no way how its melee attack is an exception to the general rules.
However if spells are to be understood only in relation to what is explicitly stated in their descriptions without applying logical reasoning, it would explain how the whip created by Thorn Whip share no inferred properties with a whip, as it is not explicitly stated. Using the same reasoning, the fact that Steel Wind Strike states that you vanish without the mention of reappearing before making the attacks must mean you have advantage on all your attacks as per the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. It would therefore also rule out the use of spells like Hellish Rebuke and Temporal Shunt with regards to the attack rolls. This is of course a totally viable interpretation following RAW. Consistency is key.
In the end I still have a hard time buying the "because the spell states a range and asks for a melee attack" argument, because it doesn't line up with the general rules for melee attacks and doesn't provide a specific rule that says otherwise. Is there something I am missing regarding the rules for melee attacks? Are spells, by virtue of being spells, exceptions to the general rules?
In the end I still have a hard time buying the "because the spell states a range and asks for a melee attack" argument, because it doesn't line up with the general rules for melee attacks and doesn't provide a specific rule that says otherwise. Is there something I am missing regarding the rules for melee attacks? Are spells, by virtue of being spells, exceptions to the general rules?
It doesn't have to provide a rule, it IS the rule that says otherwise.
I can see how people can have some difficulty with the whole "melee with range" idea but I think the spell is written that way to make it usable.
Because if you take away the range of the spell then you have to solve how the caster is getting around to all targets (teleports, extra speed, something else) and you have to solve how obstacles/space is handled (terrain, free space around targets and so on) and you have to solve how effects are handled (auras or such on the caster or in space that the caster will pass through between attacks) and you have to solve how to handle opportunity attacks and likely a whole host of other stuff I didn't think off just now. All in all it creates a crapload of stuff to explain in the spell (or make consistent with the general rules) and makes it needlessly complicated and opens up possibilities for abuse.
And if you instead call it a ranged spell attack then you would automatically have disadvantage on all attacks by it if you used it while being in melee (which seems like an expected use of the spell). And that would make it really un-fun tbh.
However if you make it be a melee spell with a range then the mechanics works as is, it doesn't get unnecessarily complex and all that is needed is some narrative, like what icon did a few pages back. It really is a quite elegant solution IMO.
In the end I still have a hard time buying the "because the spell states a range and asks for a melee attack" argument, because it doesn't line up with the general rules for melee attacks and doesn't provide a specific rule that says otherwise. Is there something I am missing regarding the rules for melee attacks? Are spells, by virtue of being spells, exceptions to the general rules?
It doesn't have to provide a rule, it IS the rule that says otherwise.
I can see how people can have some difficulty with the whole "melee with range" idea but I think the spell is written that way to make it usable.
Because if you take away the range of the spell then you have to solve how the caster is getting around to all targets (teleports, extra speed, something else) and you have to solve how obstacles/space is handled (terrain, free space around targets and so on) and you have to solve how effects are handled (auras or such on the caster or in space that the caster will pass through between attacks) and you have to solve how to handle opportunity attacks and likely a whole host of other stuff I didn't think off just now. All in all it creates a crapload of stuff to explain in the spell (or make consistent with the general rules) and makes it needlessly complicated and opens up possibilities for abuse.
And if you instead call it a ranged spell attack then you would automatically have disadvantage on all attacks by it if you used it while being in melee (which seems like an expected use of the spell). And that would make it really un-fun tbh.
However if you make it be a melee spell with a range then the mechanics works as is, it doesn't get unnecessarily complex and all that is needed is some narrative, like what icon did a few pages back. It really is a quite elegant solution IMO.
I'm not sure I agree how adding teleportation ("vanish to attack") and effects related your positioning to be more complicated than adding cover and invisibility. But then again I am still of the understanding that you can move into an opponents space as long as you don't move through it. The only one who has addressed this understanding of mine is DxJxC with his analogy explaining how moving into a wall most commonly carries the same meaning as moving through a space in common English. I might be very wrong here, and If that is indeed the case, then I agree that positioning issues would be a problem.
I also was under the impression that a spell's range simply was an expression regarding legal targeting of spells and nothing more.
Do you have any insights regarding the rest of my post/questions?
Simplest answer for all of this. There is a lot of room for interpretation on these things. That is how everything goes. At the end of the day there is one rule that answers all of these: Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world. The best thing any player can do and something a player should be doing any ways is talking to their DM. Every DM will see things from their POV and let the player know. One may allow it another may not.
I agree it's not straight forward and the text is arguably a little too flavourful.
The flourish seems to describe the somatic component so let's ignore that.
The argument for thorn whip equivalency seems like a moot point given the material component of this spell being a weapon with a value of at least 1sp.
Same could be said with spiritual weapon but the bigger argument against that is it still has to move within melee range to make attacks.
Personally I believe it's worded the way it is to avoid, terrain issues, friendly fire from aoe damage.
I understand not everyone will have English as their first language but wind is often used to describe quick movement, "run/fly like the wind". Also wind over there doesn't effect me until wind is where I am.
The force damage is flat, (I think because they did not want to make any one class's casting of this inherently weaker/stronger than any others due to weapon proficiencies), but it is a spell attack and importantly a melee one using a weapon worth at least one sp as a material component. As no melee weapon in the game has a reach exceeding 10' that implies to make each melee spell attack you must pass within the weapons range.
"Strike like the wind". So thematically I see the caster flourish their weapon, vanish from sight as the they whirl around these maximum of 5 targets passing over them as quickly as the wind, making an attack on each as they pass. With the option of coming to rest beside any of your targets or where they started so as to make the added mobility element limited.
After all I'm pretty sure that's why it's got "Steel*", "Wind" and "Strike" in the name.
*Yes I understand other materials can be used to make weapons worth more than 1sp, so please don't be "that person", that attempts to attack a non consequencal point in order to disprove all other points.
So with all that in mind I would say Spirit Shroud should apply. As it's range maximum is the same as the maximum range of any material component and thematically to fit the mechanics and wording I feel what I described fits.
That said and as I said at the start of this, it's extremely vague so other interpretations are totally valid. Most importantly the DM has final say at their table so if you want to build to this best check with them first before starting down this path. However both spells are individually still fantastic for a melee build so you may still wish to continue.
I agree it's not straight forward and the text is arguably a little too flavourful.
The flourish seems to describe the somatic component so let's ignore that.
The argument for thorn whip equivalency seems like a moot point given the material component of this spell being a weapon with a value of at least 1sp.
Same could be said with spiritual weapon but the bigger argument against that is it still has to move within melee range to make attacks.
Personally I believe it's worded the way it is to avoid, terrain issues, friendly fire from aoe damage.
I understand not everyone will have English as their first language but wind is often used to describe quick movement, "run/fly like the wind". Also wind over there doesn't effect me until wind is where I am.
The force damage is flat, (I think because they did not want to make any one class's casting of this inherently weaker/stronger than any others due to weapon proficiencies), but it is a spell attack and importantly a melee one using a weapon worth at least one sp as a material component. As no melee weapon in the game has a reach exceeding 10' that implies to make each melee spell attack you must pass within the weapons range.
"Strike like the wind". So thematically I see the caster flourish their weapon, vanish from sight as the they whirl around these maximum of 5 targets passing over them as quickly as the wind, making an attack on each as they pass. With the option of coming to rest beside any of your targets or where they started so as to make the added mobility element limited.
After all I'm pretty sure that's why it's got "Steel*", "Wind" and "Strike" in the name.
*Yes I understand other materials can be used to make weapons worth more than 1sp, so please don't be "that person", that attempts to attack a non consequencal point in order to disprove all other points.
So with all that in mind I would say Spirit Shroud should apply. As it's range maximum is the same as the maximum range of any material component and thematically to fit the mechanics and wording I feel what I described fits.
That said and as I said at the start of this, it's extremely vague so other interpretations are totally valid. Most importantly the DM has final say at their table so if you want to build to this best check with them first before starting down this path. However both spells are individually still fantastic for a melee build so you may still wish to continue.
Just to make it clear, I never claimed that Thorn Whip was in any way similar to Steel Wind Strike, but because it seemed the general consensus in the thread was that every word in a spell description is to be understood literally, I wanted to point out that Thorn Whip mentions the creation of a Whip, which is a defined item in the PHB with the Reach property, and which sets a mechanical precedence that logically explains how a melee attack can reach beyond 5 feet (Steel Wind Strike carries no such inferred precedence in its spell description). Again, I'm not saying that the whip created in Thorn Whip has to have all the properties of a whip as defined in PHB, I'm simply saying that the mechanics of a Whip explains how the Thorn Whip spell makes sense.
However, it seems that people want to discount the literal meaning of "whip" in Thorn Whip when trying to explain how the spell works, while keeping the literal meaning of words such as "vanish" from Steel Wind Strike to explain how the spell works. The implications of discounting the literal meaning of "whip" (a weapon clearly defined in the PHB) would be that spells like Spiritual Weapon doesn't really create a weapon (because no properties are given to the weapon, as is argued to be a requirement for mechanically-understood weapons in this thread). Mechanically this may be sound for this spell in particular. However what about a spell like Stone Shape? Would the weapon created by this spell not function mechanically as the weapon created? Would it at best function as an improvised weapon?
When I hear steal wind strike, I see two possible interpretations.
The ranger and his steel move so fast they become a blur like the wind.
the ranger moves his weapon so fast that the wind becomes like steel and cuts from a distance.
Both of these options are seen in fighting anime and shows all the time. The whole weapon is needed to be in range to make the attack is moot.
The general rules of the game come first then the exceptions listed in the spell. Vanish is not directly tied to movement (unless they are actually using the ranger vanish ability, unlikely what is referenced. even if you assume it is the Ranger: vanish ability keeps location). The range of each spell gives you a zone of options. steel wind strike then creates a rules exception for distance and damage. so we should no longer care about what the weapon does. We now have two overlapping circles from the two spells. Any creature attacked within the spirit shroud zone should be viable for both effects to apply.
I agree it's not straight forward and the text is arguably a little too flavourful.
The flourish seems to describe the somatic component so let's ignore that.
The argument for thorn whip equivalency seems like a moot point given the material component of this spell being a weapon with a value of at least 1sp.
Same could be said with spiritual weapon but the bigger argument against that is it still has to move within melee range to make attacks.
Personally I believe it's worded the way it is to avoid, terrain issues, friendly fire from aoe damage.
I understand not everyone will have English as their first language but wind is often used to describe quick movement, "run/fly like the wind". Also wind over there doesn't effect me until wind is where I am.
The force damage is flat, (I think because they did not want to make any one class's casting of this inherently weaker/stronger than any others due to weapon proficiencies), but it is a spell attack and importantly a melee one using a weapon worth at least one sp as a material component. As no melee weapon in the game has a reach exceeding 10' that implies to make each melee spell attack you must pass within the weapons range.
"Strike like the wind". So thematically I see the caster flourish their weapon, vanish from sight as the they whirl around these maximum of 5 targets passing over them as quickly as the wind, making an attack on each as they pass. With the option of coming to rest beside any of your targets or where they started so as to make the added mobility element limited.
After all I'm pretty sure that's why it's got "Steel*", "Wind" and "Strike" in the name.
*Yes I understand other materials can be used to make weapons worth more than 1sp, so please don't be "that person", that attempts to attack a non consequencal point in order to disprove all other points.
So with all that in mind I would say Spirit Shroud should apply. As it's range maximum is the same as the maximum range of any material component and thematically to fit the mechanics and wording I feel what I described fits.
That said and as I said at the start of this, it's extremely vague so other interpretations are totally valid. Most importantly the DM has final say at their table so if you want to build to this best check with them first before starting down this path. However both spells are individually still fantastic for a melee build so you may still wish to continue.
Just to make it clear, I never claimed that Thorn Whip was in any way similar to Steel Wind Strike, but because it seemed the general consensus in the thread was that every word in a spell description is to be understood literally, I wanted to point out that Thorn Whip mentions the creation of a Whip, which is a defined item in the PHB with the Reach property, and which sets a mechanical precedence that logically explains how a melee attack can reach beyond 5 feet (Steel Wind Strike carries no such inferred precedence in its spell description). Again, I'm not saying that the whip created in Thorn Whip has to have all the properties of a whip as defined in PHB, I'm simply saying that the mechanics of a Whip explains how the Thorn Whip spell makes sense.
Again, Thorn Whip has none of the properties of a whip, not even reach. Reach as defined in the PHB adds 5 feet to your normal reach. You still have to "break" the rule to get that property to align with anything Thorn Whip does, and besides, it is a spell, it does what it says it does, which is make a melee spell attack with a long thorny vine you make with the spell. No weapons are involved at all.
However, it seems that people want to discount the literal meaning of "whip" in Thorn Whip when trying to explain how the spell works, while keeping the literal meaning of words such as "vanish" from Steel Wind Strike to explain how the spell works. The implications of discounting the literal meaning of "whip" (a weapon clearly defined in the PHB) would be that spells like Spiritual Weapon doesn't really create a weapon (because no properties are given to the weapon, as is argued to be a requirement for mechanically-understood weapons in this thread). Mechanically this may be sound for this spell in particular. However what about a spell like Stone Shape? Would the weapon created by this spell not function mechanically as the weapon created? Would it at best function as an improvised weapon?
Spiritual Weapon doesn't create a weapon in the sense of anything that is defined in the weapons section of the PHB, just like Thorn Whip doesn't create a whip in the sense of what is defined in the PHB. In both cases the spell creates a spell effect taking the form of a weapon (or a vine reminiscent of one) that makes melee spell attacks.
Stone Shape can be used to make a weapon, but nothing about that weapon is inherently magical, so at best you have a club or sling bullets (at least if you aren't adding other material), but it would be entirely reasonable for a DM to say the attacks made with said shaped stone weapon are improvised weapon strikes unless they were modified into proper weapons (personally, I'd allow you to make stone hammerheads and stone axeheads to use in making weapons, but they wouldn't be fully useable weapons by the spell since an all-stone version would 1) likely be too heavy and unwieldy to use, and 2) would probably break on first strike/swing (there's a reason why you don't make the handles out of stone).
But why on earth would you vanish to swing your weapon really fast? And how would swinging your weapon really fast let you teleport to a target? Also, woulnd't "throwing" the wind be a ranged attack that would benefit from cover?
The only way I could see this working without the caster moving is if they threw their weapon, vanish, the weapon darts between the targets (ala Yondu's arrow from GotG), and then they appear where the weapon stops. BUT these would then need to be ranged spell attacks as they would most certainly benefit from cover. I think that people are being willfully ignorant to believe that the caster would not be "striking like the wind" and moving between targets.
Steel Wind Strike doesn't work this way.
I don't know what you're envisioning, but a, let's say, halfling wizard with a greatsword strapped across their back (INT 20, STR 8, level let's say 9) wielding a shield they're proficient in (e.g. from multiclassing into Druid) can cast Steel Wind Strike using the greatsword as the component. Their one and only free hand can perform the S component while also touching the M component, which is a two-handed weapon the wizard physically cannot wield right now due to only having one hand. When the spell is cast, each target suffers an attack at accuracy +9 without disadvantage, even though the wizard's accuracy with a greatsword is theoretically -1 with disadvantage (and their accuracy with a kick is +3), because the wizard isn't even proficient in greatswords. Each attack that lands deals force damage, not the slashing damage of a greatsword or the bludgeoning damage of an unarmed strike.
There's just no relation in any way between SWS and the weapon used as a component for it. The greatsword doesn't do anything, it's just a spell catalyst, like bat guano for Fireball. The wizard "flourishes" the weapon, vanishes when the spell is cast, and then strikes like the wind. There is no text in the spell indicating that these strikes occur with the greatsword, and there is strong evidence which I just provided that these strikes do not occur with the greatsword.
Spiritual Weapon doesn't create a weapon in the sense of anything that is defined in the weapons section of the PHB, just like Thorn Whip doesn't create a whip in the sense of what is defined in the PHB. In both cases the spell creates a spell effect taking the form of a weapon (or a vine reminiscent of one) that makes melee spell attacks.
Stone Shape can be used to make a weapon, but nothing about that weapon is inherently magical, so at best you have a club or sling bullets (at least if you aren't adding other material), but it would be entirely reasonable for a DM to say the attacks made with said shaped stone weapon are improvised weapon strikes unless they were modified into proper weapons (personally, I'd allow you to make stone hammerheads and stone axeheads to use in making weapons, but they wouldn't be fully useable weapons by the spell since an all-stone version would 1) likely be too heavy and unwieldy to use, and 2) would probably break on first strike/swing (there's a reason why you don't make the handles out of stone).
What makes you rule differently on Stone Shape than you do on Spiritual Weapon and Thorn Whip? Spiritual Weapon and Stone Shape both create a weapon. What makes one more valid than the other in the way they are worded? I know you don't consider a whip to be a weapon in this context, but surely if you consider the spell description from Stone Shape as a valid description of a rules-recognized weapon, then it should apply to all other such instances as well?
But why on earth would you vanish to swing your weapon really fast? And how would swinging your weapon really fast let you teleport to a target? Also, woulnd't "throwing" the wind be a ranged attack that would benefit from cover?
The only way I could see this working without the caster moving is if they threw their weapon, vanish, the weapon darts between the targets (ala Yondu's arrow from GotG), and then they appear where the weapon stops. BUT these would then need to be ranged spell attacks as they would most certainly benefit from cover. I think that people are being willfully ignorant to believe that the caster would not be "striking like the wind" and moving between targets.
Steel Wind Strike doesn't work this way.
I don't know what you're envisioning, but a, let's say, halfling wizard with a greatsword strapped across their back (INT 20, STR 8, level let's say 9) wielding a shield they're proficient in (e.g. from multiclassing into Druid) can cast Steel Wind Strike using the greatsword as the component. Their one and only free hand can perform the S component while also touching the M component, which is a two-handed weapon the wizard physically cannot wield right now due to only having one hand. When the spell is cast, each target suffers an attack at accuracy +9 without disadvantage, even though the wizard's accuracy with a greatsword is theoretically -1 with disadvantage (and their accuracy with a kick is +3), because the wizard isn't even proficient in greatswords. Each attack that lands deals force damage, not the slashing damage of a greatsword or the bludgeoning damage of an unarmed strike.
There's just no relation in any way between SWS and the weapon used as a component for it. The greatsword doesn't do anything, it's just a spell catalyst, like bat guano for Fireball. The wizard "flourishes" the weapon, vanishes when the spell is cast, and then strikes like the wind. There is no text in the spell indicating that these strikes occur with the greatsword, and there is strong evidence which I just provided that these strikes do not occur with the greatsword.
There is indeed nothing in the spell that could indicates that the weapon is used at all except for the mention of the weapon being a material component for the spell and the fact that the damage is dealt from a melee attack. However your own "strong evidence" rests on the assumption that all melee spell attacks are made without a weapon, which is stated nowhere. Magic Stone is an example that spell attacks can be made with something that can be considered a weapon.
An entirely different perspective one could take when considering Thorn Whip that should be completely valid following your logic, would be that since the spell asks for a melee attack within 30 feet, the whip simply emerges right next to the target to strike, as there is no mention of the caster being the one to hold the whip. Would this be a valid interpretation in your eyes?
You have quoted Quindranco, while dodging most of the arguments in their post that are so compelling, while also adding a conclusion (that a spell attack is never made "with" a weapon as a general rule) that they didn't offer and which isn't meaningful in this debate.
The melee spell attacks' modifier is in no way linked to the modifier that one would use when making a weapon attack with the flourished weapon... and indeed, can be made even if the caster is physically incapable of making an attack with the flourished weapon.
The melee spell attacks do not share a damage type, or damage dice, with the flourished weapon.
The melee spell attacks do not benefit (or suffer) from any features that interact with weapon attacks made with the flourished weapon, like Great Weapon Master or Dueling fighting style.
The melee spell attacks do not require wielding the flourished weapon, just accessing it with a free hand as a somatic component.
The melee spell attacks have literally nothing to do with melee weapon attacks. The spell doesn't describe them as being melee weapon attacks, doesn't describe the caster moving around in a way that would allow them to make melee weapon attacks, there's just nothing there. If you pile up everything on one side that might suggest you're swinging a weapon, you're left with the tag "melee" and the fact that you "flourish" a weapon. If you pile up everything on the other side, you're left with.... a mountain of evidence that the spell never invites you to move, asks you to make weapon attacks, answers any of the obvious questions about placement on the battlefield, etc.
This is such an obviously not-RAI interpretation, and blatantly not-RAW, that it's hard to believe that the thread has gone 8 pages.
Spiritual Weapon doesn't create a weapon in the sense of anything that is defined in the weapons section of the PHB, just like Thorn Whip doesn't create a whip in the sense of what is defined in the PHB. In both cases the spell creates a spell effect taking the form of a weapon (or a vine reminiscent of one) that makes melee spell attacks.
Stone Shape can be used to make a weapon, but nothing about that weapon is inherently magical, so at best you have a club or sling bullets (at least if you aren't adding other material), but it would be entirely reasonable for a DM to say the attacks made with said shaped stone weapon are improvised weapon strikes unless they were modified into proper weapons (personally, I'd allow you to make stone hammerheads and stone axeheads to use in making weapons, but they wouldn't be fully useable weapons by the spell since an all-stone version would 1) likely be too heavy and unwieldy to use, and 2) would probably break on first strike/swing (there's a reason why you don't make the handles out of stone).
What makes you rule differently on Stone Shape than you do on Spiritual Weapon and Thorn Whip? Spiritual Weapon and Stone Shape both create a weapon. What makes one more valid than the other in the way they are worded? I know you don't consider a whip to be a weapon in this context, but surely if you consider the spell description from Stone Shape as a valid description of a rules-recognized weapon, then it should apply to all other such instances as well?
I'm not. I'm allowing what the spell itself allows. Spiritual Weapon creates a "weapon" yes, but not one that has any semblance to the weapons described in the PHB. Thorn whip creates a "whip" yes, but not one that has any semblance to the weapons described in the PHB. Both of these are describing spell effects that use the terms "weapon/whip" descriptively, but do not create anything with properties given to weapons, damage dice and types given to weapons, or the ability to make melee weapon attacks.
Stone Shape allows you to create a weapon out of stone using the spell effect, but likewise gives no other descriptors or properties of any weapon created. however, the created "weapon" is not itself a spell effect (the effect is the creation itself), so it is a mundane item that then can be assigned properties by the DM (and I indicated how I myself would allow and do so). The difference, there is that the item created by Stone Shape can be conceivably used to make melee weapon attacks (either as an improvised strike or using weapon properties given by the DM), and is in no way making melee spell attacks.
But why on earth would you vanish to swing your weapon really fast? And how would swinging your weapon really fast let you teleport to a target? Also, woulnd't "throwing" the wind be a ranged attack that would benefit from cover?
The only way I could see this working without the caster moving is if they threw their weapon, vanish, the weapon darts between the targets (ala Yondu's arrow from GotG), and then they appear where the weapon stops. BUT these would then need to be ranged spell attacks as they would most certainly benefit from cover. I think that people are being willfully ignorant to believe that the caster would not be "striking like the wind" and moving between targets.
Steel Wind Strike doesn't work this way.
I don't know what you're envisioning, but a, let's say, halfling wizard with a greatsword strapped across their back (INT 20, STR 8, level let's say 9) wielding a shield they're proficient in (e.g. from multiclassing into Druid) can cast Steel Wind Strike using the greatsword as the component. Their one and only free hand can perform the S component while also touching the M component, which is a two-handed weapon the wizard physically cannot wield right now due to only having one hand. When the spell is cast, each target suffers an attack at accuracy +9 without disadvantage, even though the wizard's accuracy with a greatsword is theoretically -1 with disadvantage (and their accuracy with a kick is +3), because the wizard isn't even proficient in greatswords. Each attack that lands deals force damage, not the slashing damage of a greatsword or the bludgeoning damage of an unarmed strike.
There's just no relation in any way between SWS and the weapon used as a component for it. The greatsword doesn't do anything, it's just a spell catalyst, like bat guano for Fireball. The wizard "flourishes" the weapon, vanishes when the spell is cast, and then strikes like the wind. There is no text in the spell indicating that these strikes occur with the greatsword, and there is strong evidence which I just provided that these strikes do not occur with the greatsword.
There is indeed nothing in the spell that could indicates that the weapon is used at all except for the mention of the weapon being a material component for the spell and the fact that the damage is dealt from a melee attack. However your own "strong evidence" rests on the assumption that all melee spell attacks are made without a weapon, which is stated nowhere. Magic Stone is an example that spell attacks can be made with something that can be considered a weapon.
Magic Stone explicitly tells you how that melee spell attack with an actual weapon works. SWS doesn't, at all. If you can't tell the difference there I don't know what to tell you, but the two are not comparable.
An entirely different perspective one could take when considering Thorn Whip that should be completely valid following your logic, would be that since the spell asks for a melee attack within 30 feet, the whip simply emerges right next to the target to strike, as there is no mention of the caster being the one to hold the whip. Would this be a valid interpretation in your eyes?
Sure! but that interpretation is speculation and does nothing to change the mechanics of that spell, how you attack with it, how it hits, the damage it does, or the effect afterwards. The interpretation you want in SWS absolutely change the mechanics of SWS. It adds teleports, allows auras to both travel with you and affect you, and potentially bypasses Wall of Force. Again, if you can't tell the blatant difference here, and why the Thorn Whip interpretation is "ok" and the SWS one isn't, then I don't know what else to tell you.
Spiritual Weapon doesn't create a weapon in the sense of anything that is defined in the weapons section of the PHB, just like Thorn Whip doesn't create a whip in the sense of what is defined in the PHB. In both cases the spell creates a spell effect taking the form of a weapon (or a vine reminiscent of one) that makes melee spell attacks.
Stone Shape can be used to make a weapon, but nothing about that weapon is inherently magical, so at best you have a club or sling bullets (at least if you aren't adding other material), but it would be entirely reasonable for a DM to say the attacks made with said shaped stone weapon are improvised weapon strikes unless they were modified into proper weapons (personally, I'd allow you to make stone hammerheads and stone axeheads to use in making weapons, but they wouldn't be fully useable weapons by the spell since an all-stone version would 1) likely be too heavy and unwieldy to use, and 2) would probably break on first strike/swing (there's a reason why you don't make the handles out of stone).
What makes you rule differently on Stone Shape than you do on Spiritual Weapon and Thorn Whip? Spiritual Weapon and Stone Shape both create a weapon. What makes one more valid than the other in the way they are worded? I know you don't consider a whip to be a weapon in this context, but surely if you consider the spell description from Stone Shape as a valid description of a rules-recognized weapon, then it should apply to all other such instances as well?
I'm not. I'm allowing what the spell itself allows. Spiritual Weapon creates a "weapon" yes, but not one that has any semblance to the weapons described in the PHB. Thorn whip creates a "whip" yes, but not one that has any semblance to the weapons described in the PHB. Both of these are describing spell effects that use the terms "weapon/whip" descriptively, but do not create anything with properties given to weapons, damage dice and types given to weapons, or the ability to make melee weapon attacks.
Stone Shape allows you to create a weapon out of stone using the spell effect, but likewise gives no other descriptors or properties of any weapon created. however, the created "weapon" is not itself a spell effect (the effect is the creation itself), so it is a mundane item that then can be assigned properties by the DM (and I indicated how I myself would allow and do so). The difference, there is that the item created by Stone Shape can be conceivably used to make melee weapon attacks (either as an improvised strike or using weapon properties given by the DM), and is in no way making melee spell attacks.
But why on earth would you vanish to swing your weapon really fast? And how would swinging your weapon really fast let you teleport to a target? Also, woulnd't "throwing" the wind be a ranged attack that would benefit from cover?
The only way I could see this working without the caster moving is if they threw their weapon, vanish, the weapon darts between the targets (ala Yondu's arrow from GotG), and then they appear where the weapon stops. BUT these would then need to be ranged spell attacks as they would most certainly benefit from cover. I think that people are being willfully ignorant to believe that the caster would not be "striking like the wind" and moving between targets.
Steel Wind Strike doesn't work this way.
I don't know what you're envisioning, but a, let's say, halfling wizard with a greatsword strapped across their back (INT 20, STR 8, level let's say 9) wielding a shield they're proficient in (e.g. from multiclassing into Druid) can cast Steel Wind Strike using the greatsword as the component. Their one and only free hand can perform the S component while also touching the M component, which is a two-handed weapon the wizard physically cannot wield right now due to only having one hand. When the spell is cast, each target suffers an attack at accuracy +9 without disadvantage, even though the wizard's accuracy with a greatsword is theoretically -1 with disadvantage (and their accuracy with a kick is +3), because the wizard isn't even proficient in greatswords. Each attack that lands deals force damage, not the slashing damage of a greatsword or the bludgeoning damage of an unarmed strike.
There's just no relation in any way between SWS and the weapon used as a component for it. The greatsword doesn't do anything, it's just a spell catalyst, like bat guano for Fireball. The wizard "flourishes" the weapon, vanishes when the spell is cast, and then strikes like the wind. There is no text in the spell indicating that these strikes occur with the greatsword, and there is strong evidence which I just provided that these strikes do not occur with the greatsword.
There is indeed nothing in the spell that could indicates that the weapon is used at all except for the mention of the weapon being a material component for the spell and the fact that the damage is dealt from a melee attack. However your own "strong evidence" rests on the assumption that all melee spell attacks are made without a weapon, which is stated nowhere. Magic Stone is an example that spell attacks can be made with something that can be considered a weapon.
Magic Stone explicitly tells you how that melee spell attack with an actual weapon works. SWS doesn't, at all. If you can't tell the difference there I don't know what to tell you, but the two are not comparable.
An entirely different perspective one could take when considering Thorn Whip that should be completely valid following your logic, would be that since the spell asks for a melee attack within 30 feet, the whip simply emerges right next to the target to strike, as there is no mention of the caster being the one to hold the whip. Would this be a valid interpretation in your eyes?
Sure! but that interpretation is speculation and does nothing to change the mechanics of that spell, how you attack with it, how it hits, the damage it does, or the effect afterwards. The interpretation you want in SWS absolutely change the mechanics of SWS. It adds teleports, allows auras to both travel with you and affect you, and potentially bypasses Wall of Force. Again, if you can't tell the blatant difference here, and why the Thorn Whip interpretation is "ok" and the SWS one isn't, then I don't know what else to tell you.
You say you're not ruling differently between Stone Shape and Spiritual Weapon, yet in the same breath say one creates a weapon while the other doesn't. From what I can tell you're saying that, because the weapon created with Stone Shape is not a magical effect itself, it is a weapon as recognized by the rules? Does that mean that a weapon created with Creation would then not be considered a weapon as per the rules?
Yes, Magic Stone does tell you that you can make a melee spell attack with a weapon. It sets a precedence. Glad we can agree on that much. I hope we can also agree that Steel Wind Strike doesn't mention making an attack with neither a weapon nor anything else. As such it should be up to the caster what they strike with, as long as the attack is a melee spell attack dealing a set amount of damage. Personally I don't think the spell requires you to attack with a weapon, but when you say that you have "strong evidence" suggesting the opposite, I get curious.
If you agree that Thorn Whip is a melee attack made from melee range, then you have no precedence arguing that a melee attack can be made from range. Hopefully we don't have to get into a discussion about the meaning of "melee" and "hand-to-hand combat".
The reason why I keep coming back to this is because your "blatant difference" is entirely based on personal opinion despite the effects being worded in the same manner.
You say you're not ruling differently between Stone Shape and Spiritual Weapon, yet in the same breath say one creates a weapon while the other doesn't. From what I can tell you're saying that, because the weapon created with Stone Shape is not a magical effect itself, it is a weapon as recognized by the rules? Does that mean that a weapon created with Creation would then not be considered a weapon as per the rules?
I'm not ruling "differently" because in each case I'm ruling based on the spell in question (ie I'm ruling 'consistently'). The spells do different things, so the end result of ruling on those spells will be different. Spiritual weapon describes a "weapon", the form and properties of which don't matter, because they are part of the spell effect and will never be anything else. Stone Shape and the creations of Creation allow you to feasibly create objects that can be used as weapons, but it is entirely up to the DM to say what they are and how they can be used. So the answer to your question is "It is up to the DM."
Yes, Magic Stone does tell you that you can make a melee spell attack with a weapon. It sets a precedence. Glad we can agree on that much. I hope we can also agree that Steel Wind Strike doesn't mention making an attack with neither a weapon nor anything else. As such it should be up to the caster what they strike with, as long as the attack is a melee spell attack dealing a set amount of damage. Personally I don't think the spell requires you to attack with a weapon, but when you say that you have "strong evidence" suggesting the opposite, I get curious.
SWS mentions making an attack with a spell, as in a melee spell attack. and no, you don't have to attack with anything else, because the spell is doing the attacking. Magic stone tells you to make a melee spell attack with a weapon, but that doesnt mean that you do so with any other spell that doesn't explicitly say that. My argument was that these are two different things, because they describe two different things.
If you agree that Thorn Whip is a melee attack made from melee range, then you have no precedence arguing that a melee attack can be made from range. Hopefully we don't have to get into a discussion about the meaning of "melee" and "hand-to-hand combat".
I said Thorn Whip could be interpreted that way, not that it has to be, and the reason I gave was because interpreting it that way does not change the mechanics of the spell at all. The RAW doesn't change if that spell works either way. The RAW changes drastically if you interpret SWS the way you want to. That is the difference.
The reason why I keep coming back to this is because your "blatant difference" is entirely based on personal opinion despite the effects being worded in the same manner.
I'm done with you and this thread. you want to basically throw out RAW, throw out all the standard published ways to interpret it, and rule however you want? then fine. that's what you are doing, and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
You say you're not ruling differently between Stone Shape and Spiritual Weapon, yet in the same breath say one creates a weapon while the other doesn't. From what I can tell you're saying that, because the weapon created with Stone Shape is not a magical effect itself, it is a weapon as recognized by the rules? Does that mean that a weapon created with Creation would then not be considered a weapon as per the rules?
I'm not ruling "differently" because in each case I'm ruling based on the spell in question (ie I'm ruling 'consistently'). The spells do different things, so the end result of ruling on those spells will be different. Spiritual weapon describes a "weapon", the form and properties of which don't matter, because they are part of the spell effect and will never be anything else. Stone Shape and the creations of Creation allow you to feasibly create objects that can be used as weapons, but it is entirely up to the DM to say what they are and how they can be used. So the answer to your question is "It is up to the DM."
Yes, Magic Stone does tell you that you can make a melee spell attack with a weapon. It sets a precedence. Glad we can agree on that much. I hope we can also agree that Steel Wind Strike doesn't mention making an attack with neither a weapon nor anything else. As such it should be up to the caster what they strike with, as long as the attack is a melee spell attack dealing a set amount of damage. Personally I don't think the spell requires you to attack with a weapon, but when you say that you have "strong evidence" suggesting the opposite, I get curious.
SWS mentions making an attack with a spell, as in a melee spell attack. and no, you don't have to attack with anything else, because the spell is doing the attacking. Magic stone tells you to make a melee spell attack with a weapon, but that doesnt mean that you do so with any other spell that doesn't explicitly say that. My argument was that these are two different things, because they describe two different things.
If you agree that Thorn Whip is a melee attack made from melee range, then you have no precedence arguing that a melee attack can be made from range. Hopefully we don't have to get into a discussion about the meaning of "melee" and "hand-to-hand combat".
I said Thorn Whip could be interpreted that way, not that it has to be, and the reason I gave was because interpreting it that way does not change the mechanics of the spell at all. The RAW doesn't change if that spell works either way. The RAW changes drastically if you interpret SWS the way you want to. That is the difference.
The reason why I keep coming back to this is because your "blatant difference" is entirely based on personal opinion despite the effects being worded in the same manner.
I'm done with you and this thread. you want to basically throw out RAW, throw out all the standard published ways to interpret it, and rule however you want? then fine. that's what you are doing, and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
I get that this discussion has been more than a little frustrating to take part in, and I apologise for pushing you this far. However just because you feel one interpretation of RAW makes more sense than another interpretation of RAW, it doesn't mean that the other is completely wrong when yours isn't a 100% solid. Your whole argument rests on a mechanic that has only been used once in a single case in which it was literally explained why it worked, while you discount the counterargument because it has been used in a single case in which it was specified to work a certain way. The exact same reasoning.
I think we (clearly) differ in the way we interpret RAW generally. I think it is wrong to completely divorce all logical inference from the interpretation where you clearly don't. All in all, the spell is poorly written and leaves rules gaps that are open to interpretation where they shouldn't be.
Not gonna lie, I didnt expect this thread to get so much traction. Goes to show how umm.... passionate players can get when it comes to game mechanics.
PASSIONATE players is one way to view it,CHILDISH bickering is another. It's quite OFF PUTTING , do people even play this game? Or just WASTE MONTHS arguing over the same few differing viewpoints over and over trying to get the last word in and be RIGHT and/or prove them WRONG, rather than agreeing to disagree move on and play the game and have fun. After reading through way too many posts, maybe I was WRONG to try and get into the game to begin with. If this is what I can look forward too after finding a "GOOD" table/group to play with,I probably should not,was I guess I was ILLOGICAL thinking the goal of play was to HAVE FUN ... :( Stoopid Me
PASSIONATE players is one way to view it,CHILDISH bickering is another. It's quite OFF PUTTING , do people even play this game? Or just WASTE MONTHS arguing over the same few differing viewpoints over and over trying to get the last word in and be RIGHT and/or prove them WRONG, rather than agreeing to disagree move on and play the game and have fun. After reading through way too many posts, maybe I was WRONG to try and get into the game to begin with. If this is what I can look forward too after finding a "GOOD" table/group to play with,I probably should not,was I guess I was ILLOGICAL thinking the goal of play was to HAVE FUN ... :( Stoopid Me
I would say this is not representative of the community at large. I have found lots of great people and discussion. This forum has attracted some trolls and both wizards and ddbeyond (separate entities I know) have a hesitance to call out certain vague abuse of their rules. some times people causing trouble need to be told no. There are some threads about improving dnd beyond and there is a new management team so things may improve in the future.
He literally says "...You do vanish from your starting location, as you start teleporting around the battlefield, but you blink into view as you make each attack and then teleport to your final destination." which to me is a pretty clear indication that you are teleporting around the battlefield to make your attacks, not just vanishing and making long range attacks.
I don't think its necessary to step in and say that a weapon can't make a spell attack, or that a spell can't make a weapon attack. Good rational design and editing would dictate that spells should follow that guidance... but Magic Stone shows pretty clearly that reason doesn't always prevail, as a Sling may be used to make a ranged spell attack. And (supposedly, though once-upon-a-better-time the reverse) Unarmed Strikes are not weapons, but are used to make weapon attacks. It is enough to say that generally, attacks with weapons are weapon attacks, and attacks with spells are spell attacks, but that a spell can be expected to specifically tell you what it does.
Steel Wind Strike does not make weapon attacks. It does make spell attacks, after flourishing a weapon. Did you "use" the weapon to cast spell? Yeah, arguably, I think there's some edge cases with artificer infusions or Pact of the Blade warlocks and Sneak Attack where you can get cheeky and make arguments that you "used" a weapon to make a Spell Attack/Cast a Spell in a significant way. But for the purpose of arguing about "does Steel Wind Strike imply that you've moved around and made melee weapon attacks, which the spell for some reason calls melee spell attacks, and deals different damage type, with different damage dice, without weapon properties, without describing any of this"? Come on, no, the spell doesn't do any of that. You vanish, make spell attacks, and "then" teleport to a single location. Its a very straightforward spell (other than that troubling question of whether those attacks are at advantage because you are unseen, that one is really keeping me up at night now).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I had honestly never considered that melee spell attacks cannot be made using weapons. I had always thought that the mention of the spell producing a "Blade", "Sword" or ""Weapon" in the spell's description (or even the mention of what can only be described as a natural weapon) qualified them as weapons. I guess another way of looking at it is that for something to qualify as a weapon you must be able to use it with the Attack Action (although this is not described in the rules)?
EDIT: I guess the Magic Stone example rules this idea out.
In the same manner I likewise believed that the wording in Thorn Whip, "you create a long, vine-like whip" , was an explanation (some might say specific rule) as to why a melee attack could be made from a distant range. The equipment Whip is after all a game-defined item known to divert from the general rules regarding 5-foot reach for melee attacks (depending on character size) with its unique property of Reach. On the other hand, Steel Wind Strike explains in no way how its melee attack is an exception to the general rules.
However if spells are to be understood only in relation to what is explicitly stated in their descriptions without applying logical reasoning, it would explain how the whip created by Thorn Whip share no inferred properties with a whip, as it is not explicitly stated.
Using the same reasoning, the fact that Steel Wind Strike states that you vanish without the mention of reappearing before making the attacks must mean you have advantage on all your attacks as per the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. It would therefore also rule out the use of spells like Hellish Rebuke and Temporal Shunt with regards to the attack rolls.
This is of course a totally viable interpretation following RAW. Consistency is key.
In the end I still have a hard time buying the "because the spell states a range and asks for a melee attack" argument, because it doesn't line up with the general rules for melee attacks and doesn't provide a specific rule that says otherwise. Is there something I am missing regarding the rules for melee attacks? Are spells, by virtue of being spells, exceptions to the general rules?
It doesn't have to provide a rule, it IS the rule that says otherwise.
I can see how people can have some difficulty with the whole "melee with range" idea but I think the spell is written that way to make it usable.
Because if you take away the range of the spell then you have to solve how the caster is getting around to all targets (teleports, extra speed, something else) and you have to solve how obstacles/space is handled (terrain, free space around targets and so on) and you have to solve how effects are handled (auras or such on the caster or in space that the caster will pass through between attacks) and you have to solve how to handle opportunity attacks and likely a whole host of other stuff I didn't think off just now. All in all it creates a crapload of stuff to explain in the spell (or make consistent with the general rules) and makes it needlessly complicated and opens up possibilities for abuse.
And if you instead call it a ranged spell attack then you would automatically have disadvantage on all attacks by it if you used it while being in melee (which seems like an expected use of the spell). And that would make it really un-fun tbh.
However if you make it be a melee spell with a range then the mechanics works as is, it doesn't get unnecessarily complex and all that is needed is some narrative, like what icon did a few pages back. It really is a quite elegant solution IMO.
I'm not sure I agree how adding teleportation ("vanish to attack") and effects related your positioning to be more complicated than adding cover and invisibility. But then again I am still of the understanding that you can move into an opponents space as long as you don't move through it. The only one who has addressed this understanding of mine is DxJxC with his analogy explaining how moving into a wall most commonly carries the same meaning as moving through a space in common English. I might be very wrong here, and If that is indeed the case, then I agree that positioning issues would be a problem.
I also was under the impression that a spell's range simply was an expression regarding legal targeting of spells and nothing more.
Do you have any insights regarding the rest of my post/questions?
Simplest answer for all of this. There is a lot of room for interpretation on these things. That is how everything goes. At the end of the day there is one rule that answers all of these: Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world. The best thing any player can do and something a player should be doing any ways is talking to their DM. Every DM will see things from their POV and let the player know. One may allow it another may not.
I agree it's not straight forward and the text is arguably a little too flavourful.
The flourish seems to describe the somatic component so let's ignore that.
The argument for thorn whip equivalency seems like a moot point given the material component of this spell being a weapon with a value of at least 1sp.
Same could be said with spiritual weapon but the bigger argument against that is it still has to move within melee range to make attacks.
Personally I believe it's worded the way it is to avoid, terrain issues, friendly fire from aoe damage.
I understand not everyone will have English as their first language but wind is often used to describe quick movement, "run/fly like the wind". Also wind over there doesn't effect me until wind is where I am.
The force damage is flat, (I think because they did not want to make any one class's casting of this inherently weaker/stronger than any others due to weapon proficiencies), but it is a spell attack and importantly a melee one using a weapon worth at least one sp as a material component. As no melee weapon in the game has a reach exceeding 10' that implies to make each melee spell attack you must pass within the weapons range.
"Strike like the wind". So thematically I see the caster flourish their weapon, vanish from sight as the they whirl around these maximum of 5 targets passing over them as quickly as the wind, making an attack on each as they pass. With the option of coming to rest beside any of your targets or where they started so as to make the added mobility element limited.
After all I'm pretty sure that's why it's got "Steel*", "Wind" and "Strike" in the name.
*Yes I understand other materials can be used to make weapons worth more than 1sp, so please don't be "that person", that attempts to attack a non consequencal point in order to disprove all other points.
So with all that in mind I would say Spirit Shroud should apply. As it's range maximum is the same as the maximum range of any material component and thematically to fit the mechanics and wording I feel what I described fits.
That said and as I said at the start of this, it's extremely vague so other interpretations are totally valid. Most importantly the DM has final say at their table so if you want to build to this best check with them first before starting down this path. However both spells are individually still fantastic for a melee build so you may still wish to continue.
Just to make it clear, I never claimed that Thorn Whip was in any way similar to Steel Wind Strike, but because it seemed the general consensus in the thread was that every word in a spell description is to be understood literally, I wanted to point out that Thorn Whip mentions the creation of a Whip, which is a defined item in the PHB with the Reach property, and which sets a mechanical precedence that logically explains how a melee attack can reach beyond 5 feet (Steel Wind Strike carries no such inferred precedence in its spell description). Again, I'm not saying that the whip created in Thorn Whip has to have all the properties of a whip as defined in PHB, I'm simply saying that the mechanics of a Whip explains how the Thorn Whip spell makes sense.
However, it seems that people want to discount the literal meaning of "whip" in Thorn Whip when trying to explain how the spell works, while keeping the literal meaning of words such as "vanish" from Steel Wind Strike to explain how the spell works. The implications of discounting the literal meaning of "whip" (a weapon clearly defined in the PHB) would be that spells like Spiritual Weapon doesn't really create a weapon (because no properties are given to the weapon, as is argued to be a requirement for mechanically-understood weapons in this thread). Mechanically this may be sound for this spell in particular. However what about a spell like Stone Shape? Would the weapon created by this spell not function mechanically as the weapon created? Would it at best function as an improvised weapon?
When I hear steal wind strike, I see two possible interpretations.
Both of these options are seen in fighting anime and shows all the time. The whole weapon is needed to be in range to make the attack is moot.
The general rules of the game come first then the exceptions listed in the spell. Vanish is not directly tied to movement (unless they are actually using the ranger vanish ability, unlikely what is referenced. even if you assume it is the Ranger: vanish ability keeps location). The range of each spell gives you a zone of options. steel wind strike then creates a rules exception for distance and damage. so we should no longer care about what the weapon does. We now have two overlapping circles from the two spells. Any creature attacked within the spirit shroud zone should be viable for both effects to apply.
Again, Thorn Whip has none of the properties of a whip, not even reach. Reach as defined in the PHB adds 5 feet to your normal reach. You still have to "break" the rule to get that property to align with anything Thorn Whip does, and besides, it is a spell, it does what it says it does, which is make a melee spell attack with a long thorny vine you make with the spell. No weapons are involved at all.
Spiritual Weapon doesn't create a weapon in the sense of anything that is defined in the weapons section of the PHB, just like Thorn Whip doesn't create a whip in the sense of what is defined in the PHB. In both cases the spell creates a spell effect taking the form of a weapon (or a vine reminiscent of one) that makes melee spell attacks.
Stone Shape can be used to make a weapon, but nothing about that weapon is inherently magical, so at best you have a club or sling bullets (at least if you aren't adding other material), but it would be entirely reasonable for a DM to say the attacks made with said shaped stone weapon are improvised weapon strikes unless they were modified into proper weapons (personally, I'd allow you to make stone hammerheads and stone axeheads to use in making weapons, but they wouldn't be fully useable weapons by the spell since an all-stone version would 1) likely be too heavy and unwieldy to use, and 2) would probably break on first strike/swing (there's a reason why you don't make the handles out of stone).
Steel Wind Strike doesn't work this way.
I don't know what you're envisioning, but a, let's say, halfling wizard with a greatsword strapped across their back (INT 20, STR 8, level let's say 9) wielding a shield they're proficient in (e.g. from multiclassing into Druid) can cast Steel Wind Strike using the greatsword as the component. Their one and only free hand can perform the S component while also touching the M component, which is a two-handed weapon the wizard physically cannot wield right now due to only having one hand. When the spell is cast, each target suffers an attack at accuracy +9 without disadvantage, even though the wizard's accuracy with a greatsword is theoretically -1 with disadvantage (and their accuracy with a kick is +3), because the wizard isn't even proficient in greatswords. Each attack that lands deals force damage, not the slashing damage of a greatsword or the bludgeoning damage of an unarmed strike.
There's just no relation in any way between SWS and the weapon used as a component for it. The greatsword doesn't do anything, it's just a spell catalyst, like bat guano for Fireball. The wizard "flourishes" the weapon, vanishes when the spell is cast, and then strikes like the wind. There is no text in the spell indicating that these strikes occur with the greatsword, and there is strong evidence which I just provided that these strikes do not occur with the greatsword.
What makes you rule differently on Stone Shape than you do on Spiritual Weapon and Thorn Whip? Spiritual Weapon and Stone Shape both create a weapon. What makes one more valid than the other in the way they are worded? I know you don't consider a whip to be a weapon in this context, but surely if you consider the spell description from Stone Shape as a valid description of a rules-recognized weapon, then it should apply to all other such instances as well?
There is indeed nothing in the spell that could indicates that the weapon is used at all except for the mention of the weapon being a material component for the spell and the fact that the damage is dealt from a melee attack. However your own "strong evidence" rests on the assumption that all melee spell attacks are made without a weapon, which is stated nowhere.
Magic Stone is an example that spell attacks can be made with something that can be considered a weapon.
An entirely different perspective one could take when considering Thorn Whip that should be completely valid following your logic, would be that since the spell asks for a melee attack within 30 feet, the whip simply emerges right next to the target to strike, as there is no mention of the caster being the one to hold the whip. Would this be a valid interpretation in your eyes?
You have quoted Quindranco, while dodging most of the arguments in their post that are so compelling, while also adding a conclusion (that a spell attack is never made "with" a weapon as a general rule) that they didn't offer and which isn't meaningful in this debate.
The melee spell attacks have literally nothing to do with melee weapon attacks. The spell doesn't describe them as being melee weapon attacks, doesn't describe the caster moving around in a way that would allow them to make melee weapon attacks, there's just nothing there. If you pile up everything on one side that might suggest you're swinging a weapon, you're left with the tag "melee" and the fact that you "flourish" a weapon. If you pile up everything on the other side, you're left with.... a mountain of evidence that the spell never invites you to move, asks you to make weapon attacks, answers any of the obvious questions about placement on the battlefield, etc.
This is such an obviously not-RAI interpretation, and blatantly not-RAW, that it's hard to believe that the thread has gone 8 pages.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not. I'm allowing what the spell itself allows. Spiritual Weapon creates a "weapon" yes, but not one that has any semblance to the weapons described in the PHB. Thorn whip creates a "whip" yes, but not one that has any semblance to the weapons described in the PHB. Both of these are describing spell effects that use the terms "weapon/whip" descriptively, but do not create anything with properties given to weapons, damage dice and types given to weapons, or the ability to make melee weapon attacks.
Stone Shape allows you to create a weapon out of stone using the spell effect, but likewise gives no other descriptors or properties of any weapon created. however, the created "weapon" is not itself a spell effect (the effect is the creation itself), so it is a mundane item that then can be assigned properties by the DM (and I indicated how I myself would allow and do so). The difference, there is that the item created by Stone Shape can be conceivably used to make melee weapon attacks (either as an improvised strike or using weapon properties given by the DM), and is in no way making melee spell attacks.
Magic Stone explicitly tells you how that melee spell attack with an actual weapon works. SWS doesn't, at all. If you can't tell the difference there I don't know what to tell you, but the two are not comparable.
Sure! but that interpretation is speculation and does nothing to change the mechanics of that spell, how you attack with it, how it hits, the damage it does, or the effect afterwards. The interpretation you want in SWS absolutely change the mechanics of SWS. It adds teleports, allows auras to both travel with you and affect you, and potentially bypasses Wall of Force. Again, if you can't tell the blatant difference here, and why the Thorn Whip interpretation is "ok" and the SWS one isn't, then I don't know what else to tell you.
You say you're not ruling differently between Stone Shape and Spiritual Weapon, yet in the same breath say one creates a weapon while the other doesn't.
From what I can tell you're saying that, because the weapon created with Stone Shape is not a magical effect itself, it is a weapon as recognized by the rules? Does that mean that a weapon created with Creation would then not be considered a weapon as per the rules?
Yes, Magic Stone does tell you that you can make a melee spell attack with a weapon. It sets a precedence. Glad we can agree on that much. I hope we can also agree that Steel Wind Strike doesn't mention making an attack with neither a weapon nor anything else. As such it should be up to the caster what they strike with, as long as the attack is a melee spell attack dealing a set amount of damage. Personally I don't think the spell requires you to attack with a weapon, but when you say that you have "strong evidence" suggesting the opposite, I get curious.
If you agree that Thorn Whip is a melee attack made from melee range, then you have no precedence arguing that a melee attack can be made from range.
Hopefully we don't have to get into a discussion about the meaning of "melee" and "hand-to-hand combat".
The reason why I keep coming back to this is because your "blatant difference" is entirely based on personal opinion despite the effects being worded in the same manner.
I'm not ruling "differently" because in each case I'm ruling based on the spell in question (ie I'm ruling 'consistently'). The spells do different things, so the end result of ruling on those spells will be different. Spiritual weapon describes a "weapon", the form and properties of which don't matter, because they are part of the spell effect and will never be anything else. Stone Shape and the creations of Creation allow you to feasibly create objects that can be used as weapons, but it is entirely up to the DM to say what they are and how they can be used. So the answer to your question is "It is up to the DM."
SWS mentions making an attack with a spell, as in a melee spell attack. and no, you don't have to attack with anything else, because the spell is doing the attacking. Magic stone tells you to make a melee spell attack with a weapon, but that doesnt mean that you do so with any other spell that doesn't explicitly say that. My argument was that these are two different things, because they describe two different things.
I said Thorn Whip could be interpreted that way, not that it has to be, and the reason I gave was because interpreting it that way does not change the mechanics of the spell at all. The RAW doesn't change if that spell works either way. The RAW changes drastically if you interpret SWS the way you want to. That is the difference.
I'm done with you and this thread. you want to basically throw out RAW, throw out all the standard published ways to interpret it, and rule however you want? then fine. that's what you are doing, and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
I get that this discussion has been more than a little frustrating to take part in, and I apologise for pushing you this far. However just because you feel one interpretation of RAW makes more sense than another interpretation of RAW, it doesn't mean that the other is completely wrong when yours isn't a 100% solid. Your whole argument rests on a mechanic that has only been used once in a single case in which it was literally explained why it worked, while you discount the counterargument because it has been used in a single case in which it was specified to work a certain way. The exact same reasoning.
I think we (clearly) differ in the way we interpret RAW generally. I think it is wrong to completely divorce all logical inference from the interpretation where you clearly don't. All in all, the spell is poorly written and leaves rules gaps that are open to interpretation where they shouldn't be.
Not gonna lie, I didnt expect this thread to get so much traction. Goes to show how umm.... passionate players can get when it comes to game mechanics.
PASSIONATE players is one way to view it,CHILDISH bickering is another. It's quite OFF PUTTING , do people even play this game? Or just WASTE MONTHS arguing over the same few differing viewpoints over and over trying to get the last word in and be RIGHT and/or prove them WRONG, rather than agreeing to disagree move on and play the game and have fun. After reading through way too many posts, maybe I was WRONG to try and get into the game to begin with. If this is what I can look forward too after finding a "GOOD" table/group to play with,I probably should not,was I guess I was ILLOGICAL thinking the goal of play was to HAVE FUN ... :( Stoopid Me
I would say this is not representative of the community at large. I have found lots of great people and discussion. This forum has attracted some trolls and both wizards and ddbeyond (separate entities I know) have a hesitance to call out certain vague abuse of their rules. some times people causing trouble need to be told no. There are some threads about improving dnd beyond and there is a new management team so things may improve in the future.
Didn't Crawdaddy resolve this when he posted the following: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/963484164333846528
He literally says "...You do vanish from your starting location, as you start teleporting around the battlefield, but you blink into view as you make each attack and then teleport to your final destination." which to me is a pretty clear indication that you are teleporting around the battlefield to make your attacks, not just vanishing and making long range attacks.