Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
It's a melee spell attack at a target within 30 feet. There's no movement. Have you read the spell description? It's pretty clear. I'm sincerely not sure what point you think you're making.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
here you go; my interpretation of order and effect:
You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. (Introductory Summary of Spell, formatted the same as every other spell). Choose up to five creatures you can see within range (You select the targets) . Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage. (You make your attacks.)
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. (You teleport as described)
So mechanically, you select targets, then make a melee spell attack (at increased range, allowed per specific v. general), then teleport as described. I rule the "vanishing" is part of the summary of the spell, which is traditionally the first sentence and describes the spell effect as a whole. I rule you teleport after the attacks because the sentence indicating a teleport says "You can then..." which clearly means it happens after the other mechanics (attacks) are complete. Finally, "vanish" is not used in a mechanical description of teleportation spells, or invisibility spells, except in this spell and in describing instances of extraplanar travel (it is used in blink, wristpocket, and temporal shunt in addition to this spell, and in no others), so I don't believe it is an actual game mechanic (if it were, the spell would mention the [condition]invisible[/spell] condition, and the attacks would be made with advantage, but I believe that is not the RAI of this spell because again, nothing in the spell uses the actual mechanical terms (unseen/invisible) when making the attacks.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
here you go; my interpretation of order and effect:
You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. (Introductory Summary of Spell, formatted the same as every other spell). Choose up to five creatures you can see within range (You select the targets) . Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage. (You make your attacks.)
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. (You teleport as described)
So mechanically, you select targets, then make a melee spell attack (at increased range, allowed per specific v. general), then teleport as described. I rule the "vanishing" is part of the summary of the spell, which is traditionally the first sentence and describes the spell effect as a whole. I rule you teleport after the attacks because the sentence indicating a teleport says "You can then..." which clearly means it happens after the other mechanics (attacks) are complete. Finally, "vanish" is not used in a mechanical description of teleportation spells, or invisibility spells, except in this spell and in describing instances of extraplanar travel (it is used in blink, wristpocket, and temporal shunt in addition to this spell, and in no others), so I don't believe it is an actual game mechanic (if it were, the spell would mention the [condition]invisible[/spell] condition, and the attacks would be made with advantage, but I believe that is not the RAI of this spell because again, nothing in the spell uses the actual mechanical terms (unseen/invisible) when making the attacks.
I'm not interested in a repeat of your mechanical explanation. I was asking you to narrate the spell effect as if you were a DM. I believe you are going to have a hard time doing so without adding new words to the spell description.
“Cloud swings his long sword in a great arc in the direction of the 4 hobgoblin enforcers and their bugbear leader. Their laughter at his fruitless gesture (he is 20 feet away, after all) turns to choking screams as, at the end of his swing, he vanishes just as an immediate wave of force strikes them all almost simultaneously. As the bugbear war chief begins to fall, his vision darkening, he sees Cloud reappear at his side, the words “you should never have attacked my village” being the last he ever hears.”
i will say though, that my description of a spell effect and the mechanics of the spell effect do not have to 100% align. I’ve said since the first page (actually the first response) of the thread that the mechanics and the implied descriptive intent may not align in this spell. But this is the rules and mechanics forum, not the DMs forum, so the mechanics are really what matters here
“Cloud swings his long sword in a great arc in the direction of the 4 hobgoblin enforcers and their bugbear leader. Their laughter at his fruitless gesture (he is 20 feet away, after all) turns to choking screams as, at the end of his swing, he vanishes just as an immediate wave of force strikes them all almost simultaneously. As the bugbear war chief begins to fall, his vision darkening, he sees Cloud reappear at his side, the words “you should never have attacked my village” being the last he ever hears.”
i will say though, that my description of a spell effect and the mechanics of the spell effect do not have to 100% align. I’ve said since the first page (actually the first response) of the thread that the mechanics and the implied descriptive intent may not align in this spell. But this is the rules and mechanics forum, not the DMs forum, so the mechanics are really what matters here
The reason I asked for you narrative description is because you discount all rule interpretations that do not align with your own, based on the narrative explanations set forth to make sense of the mechanics. You tell others that their interpretations are invalid because they add to the spell description, yet the only part of your own 3 line narration that matches the original spell description is the fact that the caster vanishes and that the targets are struck simultaneously. The rest is added. By your own logic, your interpretation is wrong.
There is no point in "interpreting" rules if you are not allowed to make logical deductions. Because if you aren't allowed to do this, it is not interpretation. If your stance is that the description of a spell needs to include all the words/phrases needed for a spell to function as intended, without the use of logical deductions to fill in the blanks (such as how the spell effect travels from A to B), then there are maaaaaany spells that are flawed from a design perspective. Rather than assuming that most spells in the game are flawed, it is more likely that they are not, but that the game design allows for logical deductions when reading the rules. Thereby not said that you can discount rules as you see fit because your subjective logical deductions point in a different direction than RAW.
If we are actually on the same page in the paragraph above, then I'd suggest not discounting rules explanations based on subjective narrative decisions that do not interfere with RAW.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know how the effect gets from A to B. We can only use logical deduction to come up with the most plausible answer. If you believe that it is more plausible that the spell wants you to fire a ranged attack and roll for a melee attack and vanish for no reason, than teleporting to your targets to strike them in a manner the spell specifically asks for (melee) while vanishing for a reason, then well... we disagree and can try our best to prove our own interpretation, but unless we find substantial support for our interpretation it is not something we can really argue about in regards to rules and mechanics.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for. Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack andadding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for. Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack andadding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
The attack is a melee attack because the spell says it is. I did not change that, and claim "specific v general" as my basis as the spell presents an attack (melee) and a range (30) that create an exception to the general melee attack rules (Thorn Whip does the same thing). So yes, I think my "exception" as indicated and allowed in the rules framework is better than the addition of five extra teleports, none of which are mentioned or backed up by other rules.
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
I'm describing a teleport in terms of "Flash/Quicksilver" like movement, not the Dash mechanic. It is descriptive flavor on my part to describe a teleport scenario that would allow for your precious "normal" melee attacks while not adding the 5 extra teleports that aren't in the rules.
If you are going to argue this way about narrative descriptions that in no way affect the mechanical rulings of the spell (something that i said in both narration versions and that you have yet to respond to), then I'm done arguing with you. Either you don't buy the concept of narrative description being different from mechanical ruling (which, sorry, I do, so we would have to agree to disagree) or you do, and aren't arguing in good faith. Best of luck to you and your games.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for. Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack andadding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
The attack is a melee attack because the spell says it is. I did not change that, and claim "specific v general" as my basis as the spell presents an attack (melee) and a range (30) that create an exception to the general melee attack rules (Thorn Whip does the same thing). So yes, I think my "exception" as indicated and allowed in the rules framework is better than the addition of five extra teleports, none of which are mentioned or backed up by other rules.
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
I'm describing a teleport in terms of "Flash/Quicksilver" like movement, not the Dash mechanic. It is descriptive flavor on my part to describe a teleport scenario that would allow for your precious "normal" melee attacks while not adding the 5 extra teleports that aren't in the rules.
If you are going to argue this way about narrative descriptions that in no way affect the mechanical rulings of the spell (something that i said in both narration versions and that you have yet to respond to), then I'm done arguing with you. Either you don't buy the concept of narrative description being different from mechanical ruling (which, sorry, I do, so we would have to agree to disagree) or you do, and aren't arguing in good faith. Best of luck to you and your games.
So you make a ranged attack that counts as a melee without the reach property being insinuated. OK. If you feel that it is totally valid to change RAW to that extent and still claim it is RAW (referring to Thorn Whip as precedent despite a Whip clearly having the Reach property [who cares about logical inference right?]), and even claim this is a specific rule based on nothing in the actual spell description, then I guess there's no point in us carrying on this discussion.
Just to finish this up though I'll address your final arguments. You are arguing that you added less to RAW because I added "five extra teleports" (conveniently forgetting that you added 5 ranged strikes yourself). Just to be clear I didn't explicitly add five teleports I simply said it makes more sense if teleportation was added. The quantity of teleports/slashes doesn't matter, the quality of the arguments do. Also, while you can discount all logic in your interpretation of the rules, arguing RAW by pointing out that another spell works a certain way (A whip has the Reach property) and that you want this one to work likewise isn't much of an argument.
The only reason I brought up narrative description was to showcase how you discounted others' arguments based on "how they added to the spell description", while you yourself did the exact same in order to make your own interpretation make sense. Now I know you firmly believe that making a ranged melee attack without Reach is viable according to RAW in this case. Your arguments make more sense now, but I am still not at all convinced that you're following RAW with that interpretation.
To each their own. D&D is awesome and I'm sure you're having a blast no matter which way you rule at your table :)
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for. Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack andadding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
The attack is a melee attack because the spell says it is. I did not change that, and claim "specific v general" as my basis as the spell presents an attack (melee) and a range (30) that create an exception to the general melee attack rules (Thorn Whip does the same thing). So yes, I think my "exception" as indicated and allowed in the rules framework is better than the addition of five extra teleports, none of which are mentioned or backed up by other rules.
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
I'm describing a teleport in terms of "Flash/Quicksilver" like movement, not the Dash mechanic. It is descriptive flavor on my part to describe a teleport scenario that would allow for your precious "normal" melee attacks while not adding the 5 extra teleports that aren't in the rules.
If you are going to argue this way about narrative descriptions that in no way affect the mechanical rulings of the spell (something that i said in both narration versions and that you have yet to respond to), then I'm done arguing with you. Either you don't buy the concept of narrative description being different from mechanical ruling (which, sorry, I do, so we would have to agree to disagree) or you do, and aren't arguing in good faith. Best of luck to you and your games.
So you make a ranged attack that counts as a melee without the reach property being insinuated. OK. If you feel that it is totally valid to change RAW to that extent and still claim it is RAW (referring to Thorn Whip as precedent despite a Whip clearly having the Reach property [who cares about logical inference right?]), and even claim this is a specific rule based on nothing in the actual spell description, then I guess there's no point in us carrying on this discussion.
Sorry, are you seriously trying to discount the extremely salient example of thorn whip because it happens to have in its name the name of a completely unrelated weapon that has a property that is entirely irrelevant to any spell?
Coming down pretty hard on the "you aren't arguing in good faith" side of this little conundrum.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for. Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack andadding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
The attack is a melee attack because the spell says it is. I did not change that, and claim "specific v general" as my basis as the spell presents an attack (melee) and a range (30) that create an exception to the general melee attack rules (Thorn Whip does the same thing). So yes, I think my "exception" as indicated and allowed in the rules framework is better than the addition of five extra teleports, none of which are mentioned or backed up by other rules.
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
I'm describing a teleport in terms of "Flash/Quicksilver" like movement, not the Dash mechanic. It is descriptive flavor on my part to describe a teleport scenario that would allow for your precious "normal" melee attacks while not adding the 5 extra teleports that aren't in the rules.
If you are going to argue this way about narrative descriptions that in no way affect the mechanical rulings of the spell (something that i said in both narration versions and that you have yet to respond to), then I'm done arguing with you. Either you don't buy the concept of narrative description being different from mechanical ruling (which, sorry, I do, so we would have to agree to disagree) or you do, and aren't arguing in good faith. Best of luck to you and your games.
So you make a ranged attack that counts as a melee without the reach property being insinuated. OK. If you feel that it is totally valid to change RAW to that extent and still claim it is RAW (referring to Thorn Whip as precedent despite a Whip clearly having the Reach property [who cares about logical inference right?]), and even claim this is a specific rule based on nothing in the actual spell description, then I guess there's no point in us carrying on this discussion.
Whips don't have a range of 30 feet even with reach. Thorn Whip does (and aside from the name, the spell description mentions nothing about an actual whip from a mechanical standpoint
The specific rule in SWS is absolutely based on the text. The spell calls for melee spell attacks at a range of 30 feet. So yes, it is valid to infer that given those two actual items in the text, that it is describing a specific exception to the normal melee spell range of 5 ft, especially given that the spell mechanically gives you no means to get into normal range until the attacks are made. I would say it is also more valid than adding additional teleports that are not mentioned in the spell, nor have any basis in a general rule.
Just to finish this up though I'll address your final arguments. You are arguing that you added less to RAW because I added "five extra teleports" (conveniently forgetting that you added 5 ranged strikes yourself). Just to be clear I didn't explicitly add five teleports I simply said it makes more sense if teleportation was added. The quantity of teleports/slashes doesn't matter, the quality of the arguments do. Also, while you can discount all logic in your interpretation of the rules, arguing RAW by pointing out that another spell works a certain way (A whip has the Reach property) and that you want this one to work likewise isn't much of an argument.
don't put words in my mouth...I never called the attacks ranged attacks. i called them melee attacks with extended range allowed by the spell description.
The only reason I brought up narrative description was to showcase how you discounted others' arguments based on "how they added to the spell description", while you yourself did the exact same in order to make your own interpretation make sense. Now I know you firmly believe that making a ranged melee attack without Reach is viable according to RAW in this case. Your arguments make more sense now, but I am still not at all convinced that you're following RAW with that interpretation.
I absolutely do. Because the spell (and others) say it is allowed in these specific instances. I also want to point that you still don't seem to understand the difference between adding to a narrative, and adding to mechanics. Adding teleports adds to mechanics, especially when you are doing so to gain a mechanical benefit (remember, the OP question was trying to see if they can gain the benefit of an aura for all attacks). Everything I added in both versions is narrative only, and gains you no benefit or change to the actual mechanics of the spell.
To each their own. D&D is awesome and I'm sure you're having a blast no matter which way you rule at your table :)
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for. Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack andadding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
The attack is a melee attack because the spell says it is. I did not change that, and claim "specific v general" as my basis as the spell presents an attack (melee) and a range (30) that create an exception to the general melee attack rules (Thorn Whip does the same thing). So yes, I think my "exception" as indicated and allowed in the rules framework is better than the addition of five extra teleports, none of which are mentioned or backed up by other rules.
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
I'm describing a teleport in terms of "Flash/Quicksilver" like movement, not the Dash mechanic. It is descriptive flavor on my part to describe a teleport scenario that would allow for your precious "normal" melee attacks while not adding the 5 extra teleports that aren't in the rules.
If you are going to argue this way about narrative descriptions that in no way affect the mechanical rulings of the spell (something that i said in both narration versions and that you have yet to respond to), then I'm done arguing with you. Either you don't buy the concept of narrative description being different from mechanical ruling (which, sorry, I do, so we would have to agree to disagree) or you do, and aren't arguing in good faith. Best of luck to you and your games.
So you make a ranged attack that counts as a melee without the reach property being insinuated. OK. If you feel that it is totally valid to change RAW to that extent and still claim it is RAW (referring to Thorn Whip as precedent despite a Whip clearly having the Reach property [who cares about logical inference right?]), and even claim this is a specific rule based on nothing in the actual spell description, then I guess there's no point in us carrying on this discussion.
Sorry, are you seriously trying to discount the extremely salient example of thorn whip because it happens to have in its name the name of a completely unrelated weapon that has a property that is entirely irrelevant to any spell?
Coming down pretty hard on the "you aren't arguing in good faith" side of this little conundrum.
I find the connection between the spell and the whip (weapon) not only in its name but also in the spell description of the spell, where it states you create a whip.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for. Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack andadding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
The attack is a melee attack because the spell says it is. I did not change that, and claim "specific v general" as my basis as the spell presents an attack (melee) and a range (30) that create an exception to the general melee attack rules (Thorn Whip does the same thing). So yes, I think my "exception" as indicated and allowed in the rules framework is better than the addition of five extra teleports, none of which are mentioned or backed up by other rules.
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
I'm describing a teleport in terms of "Flash/Quicksilver" like movement, not the Dash mechanic. It is descriptive flavor on my part to describe a teleport scenario that would allow for your precious "normal" melee attacks while not adding the 5 extra teleports that aren't in the rules.
If you are going to argue this way about narrative descriptions that in no way affect the mechanical rulings of the spell (something that i said in both narration versions and that you have yet to respond to), then I'm done arguing with you. Either you don't buy the concept of narrative description being different from mechanical ruling (which, sorry, I do, so we would have to agree to disagree) or you do, and aren't arguing in good faith. Best of luck to you and your games.
So you make a ranged attack that counts as a melee without the reach property being insinuated. OK. If you feel that it is totally valid to change RAW to that extent and still claim it is RAW (referring to Thorn Whip as precedent despite a Whip clearly having the Reach property [who cares about logical inference right?]), and even claim this is a specific rule based on nothing in the actual spell description, then I guess there's no point in us carrying on this discussion.
Sorry, are you seriously trying to discount the extremely salient example of thorn whip because it happens to have in its name the name of a completely unrelated weapon that has a property that is entirely irrelevant to any spell?
Coming down pretty hard on the "you aren't arguing in good faith" side of this little conundrum.
I find the connection between the spell and the whip (weapon) not only in its name but also in the spell description of the spell, where it states you create a whip.
except that nothing in the thorn whip cantrip mimics any property of the standard weapon called "whip" whatsoever. the range does not align with reach, the damage uses a different dice and scales per cantrip rules, you don't use strength or dex to make the attack and gain no bonus to damage from those mods, and no rule for normal whips allow for the pulling effect. So except for the fact it uses the word "whip" there is no similarity at all; why then are you claiming thorn whips 30 foot range melee spell attack is a different situation than SWS's 30 foot range melee spell attacks?
I noticed some mention of melee attacks having to be 5 feet and the spell being a specific exception.
There is no such rule. The rules do say that most creatures have a 5 foot "reach", but reach is a property of weapons, spells have range. The rules also say attacks will say their range. The general rule is that spell attacks have a range equal to the spell's range.
Steel wind strike has a range of 30 feet. That is the range of its melee attacks. Period. It doesn't say anything to the contrary. "Vanish" doesn't change that. It doesn't mean move, and even if it did, it still doesn't mean the attacks can't be made from less than the spells full range. That is the rules as written. Nothing is written that supports having to take damage from being within 5 feet of a fire elemental.
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.
That's a bad analogy though because a Shadow Blade really ISN'T a dagger. It is its own type of weapon with stats specified in the spell (that has some similarities with a dagger, but is called a "sword"). Thorn Whip might share the name "whip" but it has nothing in common with the weapon "whip".
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
It's a melee spell attack at a target within 30 feet. There's no movement. Have you read the spell description? It's pretty clear. I'm sincerely not sure what point you think you're making.
here you go; my interpretation of order and effect:
So mechanically, you select targets, then make a melee spell attack (at increased range, allowed per specific v. general), then teleport as described. I rule the "vanishing" is part of the summary of the spell, which is traditionally the first sentence and describes the spell effect as a whole. I rule you teleport after the attacks because the sentence indicating a teleport says "You can then..." which clearly means it happens after the other mechanics (attacks) are complete. Finally, "vanish" is not used in a mechanical description of teleportation spells, or invisibility spells, except in this spell and in describing instances of extraplanar travel (it is used in blink, wristpocket, and temporal shunt in addition to this spell, and in no others), so I don't believe it is an actual game mechanic (if it were, the spell would mention the [condition]invisible[/spell] condition, and the attacks would be made with advantage, but I believe that is not the RAI of this spell because again, nothing in the spell uses the actual mechanical terms (unseen/invisible) when making the attacks.
I'm not interested in a repeat of your mechanical explanation. I was asking you to narrate the spell effect as if you were a DM. I believe you are going to have a hard time doing so without adding new words to the spell description.
“Cloud swings his long sword in a great arc in the direction of the 4 hobgoblin enforcers and their bugbear leader. Their laughter at his fruitless gesture (he is 20 feet away, after all) turns to choking screams as, at the end of his swing, he vanishes just as an immediate wave of force strikes them all almost simultaneously. As the bugbear war chief begins to fall, his vision darkening, he sees Cloud reappear at his side, the words “you should never have attacked my village” being the last he ever hears.”
i will say though, that my description of a spell effect and the mechanics of the spell effect do not have to 100% align. I’ve said since the first page (actually the first response) of the thread that the mechanics and the implied descriptive intent may not align in this spell. But this is the rules and mechanics forum, not the DMs forum, so the mechanics are really what matters here
The reason I asked for you narrative description is because you discount all rule interpretations that do not align with your own, based on the narrative explanations set forth to make sense of the mechanics. You tell others that their interpretations are invalid because they add to the spell description, yet the only part of your own 3 line narration that matches the original spell description is the fact that the caster vanishes and that the targets are struck simultaneously. The rest is added. By your own logic, your interpretation is wrong.
There is no point in "interpreting" rules if you are not allowed to make logical deductions. Because if you aren't allowed to do this, it is not interpretation. If your stance is that the description of a spell needs to include all the words/phrases needed for a spell to function as intended, without the use of logical deductions to fill in the blanks (such as how the spell effect travels from A to B), then there are maaaaaany spells that are flawed from a design perspective. Rather than assuming that most spells in the game are flawed, it is more likely that they are not, but that the game design allows for logical deductions when reading the rules. Thereby not said that you can discount rules as you see fit because your subjective logical deductions point in a different direction than RAW.
If we are actually on the same page in the paragraph above, then I'd suggest not discounting rules explanations based on subjective narrative decisions that do not interfere with RAW.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know how the effect gets from A to B. We can only use logical deduction to come up with the most plausible answer. If you believe that it is more plausible that the spell wants you to fire a ranged attack and roll for a melee attack and vanish for no reason, than teleporting to your targets to strike them in a manner the spell specifically asks for (melee) while vanishing for a reason, then well... we disagree and can try our best to prove our own interpretation, but unless we find substantial support for our interpretation it is not something we can really argue about in regards to rules and mechanics.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Here's a second, and different narration that uses my same RAW:
"The 5 devils surround Cloud, heckling him from a distance and cutting off all avenue of escape. Cloud laughs, then, as he swings his sword, and accellerates, pushing his body faster than the devils can see and react, faster even than their magics can protect them. at this speed, Cloud quickly dashes from opponent to opponent, each frozen in this instant of time like a grotesque statue, slashing with his sword at each. When he slows next to the last of the devils, he turns to see them all falling to the ground, felled by the magical force his movement and sword inflicted on each of them as he passed by."
See here, I have narratively described the teleport, not as a teleport, but as a singular, faster than light movement of the caster. I've accounted for how the mechanical teleport would cause the caster to avoid any protective auras and attacks of opportunity, and the narration, while quite different from the "traditional" description in the mechanics, still can align with the actual rules presented by them per my RAW, which is target > attack > teleport.
The fact is, narration is always freer than mechanics in a RAW game. i can describe something however I want, but the actual mechanics still align with RAW. But to say I'm adding to the mechanics when i'm only adding descriptive narration is disingenuous as those two are not the same.
Your narrative adds an attack that can only be described as a Ranged attack, not a Melee as the spell asks for.
Your narrative also makes it seem like the creatures take the damage before you vanish, which is the opposite sequence described in the spell description.
What makes your diversion from RAW (removing the melee attack and adding a ranged attack) more correct than adding a logical mechanical explanation as to how the spell is actually melee?
You believe that dashing towards your opponent is adding less mechanics to the spell than adding teleportation in this specific case?
The attack is a melee attack because the spell says it is. I did not change that, and claim "specific v general" as my basis as the spell presents an attack (melee) and a range (30) that create an exception to the general melee attack rules (Thorn Whip does the same thing). So yes, I think my "exception" as indicated and allowed in the rules framework is better than the addition of five extra teleports, none of which are mentioned or backed up by other rules.
I'm describing a teleport in terms of "Flash/Quicksilver" like movement, not the Dash mechanic. It is descriptive flavor on my part to describe a teleport scenario that would allow for your precious "normal" melee attacks while not adding the 5 extra teleports that aren't in the rules.
If you are going to argue this way about narrative descriptions that in no way affect the mechanical rulings of the spell (something that i said in both narration versions and that you have yet to respond to), then I'm done arguing with you. Either you don't buy the concept of narrative description being different from mechanical ruling (which, sorry, I do, so we would have to agree to disagree) or you do, and aren't arguing in good faith. Best of luck to you and your games.
So you make a ranged attack that counts as a melee without the reach property being insinuated. OK. If you feel that it is totally valid to change RAW to that extent and still claim it is RAW (referring to Thorn Whip as precedent despite a Whip clearly having the Reach property [who cares about logical inference right?]), and even claim this is a specific rule based on nothing in the actual spell description, then I guess there's no point in us carrying on this discussion.
Just to finish this up though I'll address your final arguments.
You are arguing that you added less to RAW because I added "five extra teleports" (conveniently forgetting that you added 5 ranged strikes yourself). Just to be clear I didn't explicitly add five teleports I simply said it makes more sense if teleportation was added. The quantity of teleports/slashes doesn't matter, the quality of the arguments do. Also, while you can discount all logic in your interpretation of the rules, arguing RAW by pointing out that another spell works a certain way (A whip has the Reach property) and that you want this one to work likewise isn't much of an argument.
The only reason I brought up narrative description was to showcase how you discounted others' arguments based on "how they added to the spell description", while you yourself did the exact same in order to make your own interpretation make sense. Now I know you firmly believe that making a ranged melee attack without Reach is viable according to RAW in this case. Your arguments make more sense now, but I am still not at all convinced that you're following RAW with that interpretation.
To each their own. D&D is awesome and I'm sure you're having a blast no matter which way you rule at your table :)
Sorry, are you seriously trying to discount the extremely salient example of thorn whip because it happens to have in its name the name of a completely unrelated weapon that has a property that is entirely irrelevant to any spell?
Coming down pretty hard on the "you aren't arguing in good faith" side of this little conundrum.
Whips don't have a range of 30 feet even with reach. Thorn Whip does (and aside from the name, the spell description mentions nothing about an actual whip from a mechanical standpoint
The specific rule in SWS is absolutely based on the text. The spell calls for melee spell attacks at a range of 30 feet. So yes, it is valid to infer that given those two actual items in the text, that it is describing a specific exception to the normal melee spell range of 5 ft, especially given that the spell mechanically gives you no means to get into normal range until the attacks are made. I would say it is also more valid than adding additional teleports that are not mentioned in the spell, nor have any basis in a general rule.
don't put words in my mouth...I never called the attacks ranged attacks. i called them melee attacks with extended range allowed by the spell description.
I absolutely do. Because the spell (and others) say it is allowed in these specific instances. I also want to point that you still don't seem to understand the difference between adding to a narrative, and adding to mechanics. Adding teleports adds to mechanics, especially when you are doing so to gain a mechanical benefit (remember, the OP question was trying to see if they can gain the benefit of an aura for all attacks). Everything I added in both versions is narrative only, and gains you no benefit or change to the actual mechanics of the spell.
Cheers.
I find the connection between the spell and the whip (weapon) not only in its name but also in the spell description of the spell, where it states you create a whip.
except that nothing in the thorn whip cantrip mimics any property of the standard weapon called "whip" whatsoever. the range does not align with reach, the damage uses a different dice and scales per cantrip rules, you don't use strength or dex to make the attack and gain no bonus to damage from those mods, and no rule for normal whips allow for the pulling effect. So except for the fact it uses the word "whip" there is no similarity at all; why then are you claiming thorn whips 30 foot range melee spell attack is a different situation than SWS's 30 foot range melee spell attacks?
I noticed some mention of melee attacks having to be 5 feet and the spell being a specific exception.
There is no such rule. The rules do say that most creatures have a 5 foot "reach", but reach is a property of weapons, spells have range. The rules also say attacks will say their range. The general rule is that spell attacks have a range equal to the spell's range.
Steel wind strike has a range of 30 feet. That is the range of its melee attacks. Period. It doesn't say anything to the contrary. "Vanish" doesn't change that. It doesn't mean move, and even if it did, it still doesn't mean the attacks can't be made from less than the spells full range. That is the rules as written. Nothing is written that supports having to take damage from being within 5 feet of a fire elemental.
That's a bad analogy though because a Shadow Blade really ISN'T a dagger. It is its own type of weapon with stats specified in the spell (that has some similarities with a dagger, but is called a "sword"). Thorn Whip might share the name "whip" but it has nothing in common with the weapon "whip".