An example of a spell effect that would do what Arnt and BigBoss are wanting:
"Select up to 5 creatures you can see within range. you teleport to an unoccupied space within 5 feet of each creature (you choose the order) and make a melee weapon attack against it before teleporting to the next location. On a hit, you deal the weapons damage + (x force damage, etc). Once all attacks are made, you can choose to teleport back to your starting position before the spell ends."
See how this version clearly defines teleporting between attacks, the order in which the teleporting happens, and that the attacks are made with the selected weapon? SWS as written does none of those things the way this spell does, but it is equally clear: you attack five times with a spell attack, then teleport.
You left out a very key word in your description: "you attack five times with a melee spell attack".
I said "melee weapon attack" in my version...that very plainly calls out using the weapon in hand, and matches language used in other spells where the weapon component is actually used to make an attack inside the spell effect.
Again, why does the spell require a melee weapon in both the material component and the description if the weapon doesn't factor into the spell in any way shape or form? It even has a cost, so you cannot cast this spell without a melee weapon. If you never hit anything with the melee weapon, why would you need it? It doesn't say that the weapon disappears and shoots around the battlefield, it says that the caster disappears. Why would you just blip out, cast up to five force beams (that are somehow cast at melee distance when you yourself are 30 feet away) and then blip back right to where you were?
I never said it doesn't factor at all. It is clearly a material component and clearly has to be flourished (somatic component). However, nothing in the SWS spell description that follows states that the attack is made with the weapon. Spells only do what they say they do, and nothing more.
I think that the melee spell attack makes it pretty clear that the caster is beside each of the targets when the attack is made. Now, if it said ranged spell attack, then you would be 100% right. But since it says its a melee spell attack, you're 100% wrong. JC agrees:
You've quoted the same damn tweet at me twice now as if I didn't read it? I did, and i also noted it's not RAW, as it never made it into the SAC. The tweet was addressing if the spell description gave you advantage on attacks from being unseen, not in how effects like Spirit Shroud worked with the spell. If that was the RAI of the spell, then they did a piss-poor job translating that into text, because the RAW is not anywhere close to that intent (to get that intent, see the alternate I wrote, which is much, much clearer in articulating that intent in the same rough amount of text
If your DM does decide that your spirit shroud applies as if you had occupied a position steel wind strike never said you occupied, keep in mind that this does mean you will be subjected to any enemy auras, AOEs, or environmental hazards.
Also, how would that work if the enemy doesn't have an unoccupied space near them? According to the spell description it doesn't matter, but according to "I attack from within 5 ft of them" logic it does.
All except Thorn Whip and Steel Wind Strike involve summoning something for a duration greater than one turn and making melee spell attacks within 5 ft. of the summoned weapon/creature. With Thorn Whip, "you create a long, vine-like whip covered in thorns", which presumably has a reach of 30 ft. (think of it as an extra long Whip or Scorpion's "GET OVER HERE").
That leaves Steel Wind Strike. The only way that you could possibly make melee attacks is if you summoned something by each target OR if you were physically beside each target. Now, since you start the spell by vanishing, and the end result of the spell would allow you to appear beside one of these targets, the ONLY logical conclusion is that you are physically beside each target when you make the melee spell attack.
(on the point in blue) Maybe that's so, but the spell doesn't tell us that. Spells only tell us what they do. If it did tell us that explicitly, I'd have no problem with your ruling.
An example of a spell effect that would do what Arnt and BigBoss are wanting:
"Select up to 5 creatures you can see within range. you teleport to an unoccupied space within 5 feet of each creature (you choose the order) and make a melee weapon attack against it before teleporting to the next location. On a hit, you deal the weapons damage + (x force damage, etc). Once all attacks are made, you can choose to teleport back to your starting position before the spell ends."
See how this version clearly defines teleporting between attacks, the order in which the teleporting happens, and that the attacks are made with the selected weapon? SWS as written does none of those things the way this spell does, but it is equally clear: you attack five times with a spell attack, then teleport.
You left out a very key word in your description: "you attack five times with a melee spell attack".
I said "melee weapon attack" in my version...that very plainly calls out using the weapon in hand, and matches language used in other spells where the weapon component is actually used to make an attack inside the spell effect.
Again, why does the spell require a melee weapon in both the material component and the description if the weapon doesn't factor into the spell in any way shape or form? It even has a cost, so you cannot cast this spell without a melee weapon. If you never hit anything with the melee weapon, why would you need it? It doesn't say that the weapon disappears and shoots around the battlefield, it says that the caster disappears. Why would you just blip out, cast up to five force beams (that are somehow cast at melee distance when you yourself are 30 feet away) and then blip back right to where you were?
I never said it doesn't factor at all. It is clearly a material component and clearly has to be flourished (somatic component). However, nothing in the SWS spell description that follows states that the attack is made with the weapon. Spells only do what they say they do, and nothing more.
I think that the melee spell attack makes it pretty clear that the caster is beside each of the targets when the attack is made. Now, if it said ranged spell attack, then you would be 100% right. But since it says its a melee spell attack, you're 100% wrong. JC agrees:
You've quoted the same damn tweet at me twice now as if I didn't read it? I did, and i also noted it's not RAW, as it never made it into the SAC. The tweet was addressing if the spell description gave you advantage on attacks from being unseen, not in how effects like Spirit Shroud worked with the spell. If that was the RAI of the spell, then they did a piss-poor job translating that into text, because the RAW is not anywhere close to that intent (to get that intent, see the alternate I wrote, which is much, much clearer in articulating that intent in the same rough amount of text
There is a reason the tweet keeps being brought up. The tweet was written by Jeremy Crawford the Lead Rules Designer for Wizards of the Coast AKA Dungeons and Dragons. When he makes a clarification on twitter (and he often does) his word is law, because he's the one that wrote the rules in the first place. There is really no reason to debate this any longer.
Also ArntltheBest laid it out pretty well covering how melee spell attacks work. They do what they do. Melee means just that, melee, hand to hand, or weapon to hand, or weapon to face. If you want it to do something else thats fine. Flavor text it or talk to your DM or house rule it.
All except Thorn Whip and Steel Wind Strike involve summoning something for a duration greater than one turn and making melee spell attacks within 5 ft. of the summoned weapon/creature. With Thorn Whip, "you create a long, vine-like whip covered in thorns", which presumably has a reach of 30 ft. (think of it as an extra long Whip or Scorpion's "GET OVER HERE").
That leaves Steel Wind Strike. The only way that you could possibly make melee attacks is if you summoned something by each target OR if you were physically beside each target. Now, since you start the spell by vanishing, and the end result of the spell would allow you to appear beside one of these targets, the ONLY logical conclusion is that you are physically beside each target when you make the melee spell attack.
(on the point in blue) Maybe that's so, but the spell doesn't tell us that. Spells only tell us what they do. If it did tell us that explicitly, I'd have no problem with your ruling.
I guess I'm not sure how you make a melee spell attack when neither you nor anything else you control are in melee range. If you're okay doing the mental gymnastics to make that work out, go for it.
But keep in mind that the very first thing you do after flourishing your weapon is "vanish to strike like the wind". So, I guess you think you start moving really fast to hold still and then teleport when you're done holding still really fast.
What makes you think the spell doesn't create a bunch of spiritual weapon-like magical attacking weapons allowing the spell effect to be instantaneous? There's literally just as much textual justification for that interpretation as there is for "you physically are next to each target." If you think your conclusion is the only logical one, that's just a lack of imagination.
All except Thorn Whip and Steel Wind Strike involve summoning something for a duration greater than one turn and making melee spell attacks within 5 ft. of the summoned weapon/creature. With Thorn Whip, "you create a long, vine-like whip covered in thorns", which presumably has a reach of 30 ft. (think of it as an extra long Whip or Scorpion's "GET OVER HERE").
That leaves Steel Wind Strike. The only way that you could possibly make melee attacks is if you summoned something by each target OR if you were physically beside each target. Now, since you start the spell by vanishing, and the end result of the spell would allow you to appear beside one of these targets, the ONLY logical conclusion is that you are physically beside each target when you make the melee spell attack.
(on the point in blue) Maybe that's so, but the spell doesn't tell us that. Spells only tell us what they do. If it did tell us that explicitly, I'd have no problem with your ruling.
I guess I'm not sure how you make a melee spell attack when neither you nor anything else you control are in melee range. If you're okay doing the mental gymnastics to make that work out, go for it.
But keep in mind that the very first thing you do after flourishing your weapon is "vanish to strike like the wind". So, I guess you think you start moving really fast to hold still and then teleport when you're done holding still really fast.
To clarify for everyone, spells like Spiritual weapon and Blade of Disaster are melee attacks because you are still controlling the blade even though it is not in your hand. This is all based on the concept of the Dancing weapon: It could be released from your hand to swing and fight on its own and then could return to your hand after some time. They're is also a shield does a similar thing but protects you instead. The melee is between the creature being attacked and the weapon in question even though you, the castor are not 5 feet away from it, you're still controlling the weapon as if it was in your hand. Some DMs even let players grasp the Spiritual weapon and wield it like a normal weapon. This is seen a couple of times on Critical Role with Jester's Lollipop mace and during the Dalen's Closet episode where Pike summons a Bow for Vex. Personally i wouldn't normally allow that but they are lvl 20 so isee why matt would let them.
Frankly I’m really questioning some of the mechanics behind steel wind strike now with all of these different perspectives. also Crawford’s old guidance that seems counter to how the spell is written, and older rulings about similarly written spells. I’ve been using this spell for quite a while with my war wizard. I’m going to have a conversation with my DM and table about this, though we probably won’t change anything for the current campaign.
it does seem to be affected by quite a few feats at least though.
mobile means you can pretty much teleport to anyone you even attempted to hit and walk away free since it’s all melee attacks.
spell sniper doubles its effective attack range. It also increases the teleport distance.
elven accuracy can drastically increase its DPR
Metamagic adept can choose distant spell to further increase the spells range by doubling the distance up to twice per long rest.
Far as I can tell the way this spell is written RAW there's a very valid argument that spirit shroud wouldn't work beyond a 10ft radius. However from JC's tweet it's pretty clear the RAI interpretation of the spell in the form it was envisioned by the creators is that you are teleporting between points and making a melee attack with some conjured weapon, thus allowing several features including spirit shroud to apply to it.
Personally if I were DM'ing it I'd first ask the player how hey envision their spell working. Do they imagine them conjuring a number of blades in the air to hit their opponents? do they think of a bunch of shadow clones of themselves appearing to attack and them appearing in the spot of one of them? Or do they imagine their character teleporting between points at incredible speed and making the attacks themself? Assuming it was the latter I'd allow them to use it with spirit shroud at any range, but the two former I would not.
Don't forget too this comes with the interpretation they are instantaneously entering that area. This could be just as much of a negative as a positive in the case of any AOE effects that proc upon entering an area, which would balance out the potential power gain of combo'ing the spell with other spells and feats. Again though this is entirely dependent on DM ruling, and may cause additional problems with the spell such as "where precisely did you teleport to when you made this attack" etc.
Honestly in this case I do just think it's one of those times where RAW vs RAI aren't completely in sync and it's entirely up to DM's interpretation as to what to do when that scenario comes up, they have final arbitration of the rules afterall. But ultimately it may be a strong combo, but I doubt it's particularly game breaking to allow. Just make sure you talk to the DM about it & see what they say, how you both envision the spell, and what the consequences of this choice may be on how rulings are made.
For what my 2 cents are worth, this is one of the cases where I don't really care what JC thinks and I'm willing to overlook the technicality of the RAW if 1) the combo is not that powerful and 2) the RAW shuts down some of the cool factor of the spell. Spirit Shroud + SWS fits both of those criteria so I'd allow it to work as a houserule.
What makes you think the spell doesn't create a bunch of spiritual weapon-like magical attacking weapons allowing the spell effect to be instantaneous?
This is a valid point and I very much support changing descriptions to better fit RAW in cases like this where the two don't mesh well. However, the way the spell is described will lead 95% of players to visualize a Nightcrawler-style teleport-a-palooza and telling them that no, their imagination is wrong and this is what you should be imagining is not always an elegant solution.
Sometimes you do have to tell players "that's not how the spell works," because their interpretation would break the scene/encounter/campaign. Sometimes you let small things slide to preserve the rule of cool. Spirit Shroud + SWS falls into the latter category for me. However, as a player of course I'd respect the DM's ruling if they felt otherwise.
I would argue that the fact that you vanish, the enemies are struck, and then you can appear beside one (all RAW) make the only reasonable interpretation is that you are teleporting between targets.
You wouldn't need to vanish to summon spectral weapons or make illusory duplicate. The teleporting is not really against the RAW, it's just not explicitly spelled out.
RAW means “Rules as Written”, not “Rules as written plus extra stuff because I think it would be cool”. RAW, you teleport exactly once, after the attacks occur, because the language clearly says you attack, THEN you teleport.
Vanishing is not teleporting. Nowhere in the game does teleporting use that term. To say anything otherwise is to go beyond RAW. If you disagree then find one other example of that word used in a relevant way to teleportation and show it here
if you believe your interpretation is in line with JCs ruling (which I throw out because it did not make it into the SAC, and because it opens up a host of other issues with both the spell itself and with other game effects), then you are at best following RAI or RAF. That is fine if you are the DM of if the DM allows, but it is not RAW
There is a reason the tweet keeps being brought up. The tweet was written by Jeremy Crawford the Lead Rules Designer for Wizards of the Coast AKA Dungeons and Dragons. When he makes a clarification on twitter (and he often does)his word is law, because he's the one that wrote the rules in the first place. There is really no reason to debate this any longer.
Also ArntltheBest laid it out pretty well covering how melee spell attacks work. They do what they do. Melee means just that, melee, hand to hand, or weapon to hand, or weapon to face. If you want it to do something else thats fine. Flavor text it or talk to your DM or house rule it.
Only what gets put into the SAC--which also explicitly states that JC's tweets are not rules--is an official ruling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I would argue that the fact that you vanish, the enemies are struck, and then you can appear beside one (all RAW) make the only reasonable interpretation is that you are teleporting between targets.
You wouldn't need to vanish to summon spectral weapons or make illusory duplicate. The teleporting is not really against the RAW, it's just not explicitly spelled out.
RAW means “Rules as Written”, not “Rules as written plus extra stuff because I think it would be cool”. RAW, you teleport exactly once, after the attacks occur, because the language clearly says you attack, THEN you teleport.
Vanishing is not teleporting. Nowhere in the game does teleporting use that term. To say anything otherwise is to go beyond RAW. If you disagree then find one other example of that word used in a relevant way to teleportation and show it here
if you believe your interpretation is in line with JCs ruling (which I throw out because it did not make it into the SAC, and because it opens up a host of other issues with both the spell itself and with other game effects), then you are at best following RAI or RAF. That is fine if you are the DM of if the DM allows, but it is not RAW
But how can you just hand-wave the melee spell attack component of the spell? That is ignoring RAW. The facts of the matter is that the spell is not explicit on any points except for vanishing, melee spell attacks, and the ability to appear beside one of the targets. So when things are not explicit, you have to fill in the rest via logical interpretation. To say that you are making these attacks while being 30 feet away is, in my opinion, adding more "extra stuff because I think it would be cool" than teleporting.
I feel like the most important mechanical part of the spell is the melee attack. And I already listed the only spells with a range greater than self that have you make a melee attack. As I stated in my previous post, you are either summoning something to attack at melee range (ala Spiritual Weapon, gaining a 30 foot reach (ala Thorn Whip, or are actually beside the target when making the attack. Those are the only ways that you can make a melee attack in D&D. So the belief that you are still 30 feet away is writing more into the rules than saying you teleport. It also discounts the fact that a) you vanish and b) you can appear beside a target as those are not in line with summoning or gaining reach.
I have yet to see anyone explain how (RAW) you make a melee attack at range without writing more into the rules of the spell. I am only saying that you cannot make this spell make mechanical sense without reading something else into it, and of all of the explanations, teleporting fits the RAW best.
Specific Beats General. The rules for this spell specifically say you make a melee spell attack against each creature, and gives a range of 30 feet. That overrides the "standard" melee attack range of your reach. The same goes for Thorn Whip, which grants (descriptively) a specific mode of attack that allows a melee spell attack at 30 feet.
That is a RAW way to justify a 30 foot attack range for a melee spell attack without adding extraneous effects not mentioned in the spell (namely, multiple teleports).
I sympathize with your side of the argument, I really do. It is obvious that the descriptive "intent" for the spell is that you are teleporting around (or probably more accurately, moving faster than light, which also can explain the change of the damage to force), but the mechanics don't align with that, and that is probably to avoid such things as entering 5 different creatures auras during the spell, or bypassing a Wall of Force and attacking, as well as avoiding having to pick creatures based on there being an available space to occupy next to each one. Treating yourself as not moving during the attacks simplifies both the options for targeting and any complications that would arise from any of the above scenarios, while (more or less) granting the same visual effect.
A thing to think about with Specific Beats General. There are a lot of game effects that "break" the general rules of play. When you are trying to interpret a specific rule (say, like one for a spell effect), don't try to add stuff to get it to "fit" with a general rule. If it seems like a conflict, the best way to approach resolving it is to ask "is this more specific than (the general rule)?" if it is, then the specific v. general rule might apply.
Here, if the issue is reconciling a stated range for a melee spell attack (30 ft) against the "standard" range (5 feet), it is pretty easy to apply specific v. general to say that the standard melee spell attack range is being specifically modified for this spell to 30 feet.
Wild thread, and I really do sympathize with the narrative disconnect between spell description and game effects. I think the general idea behind the spell lies somewhere between "you are teleporting your physical body and making multiple attacks first-hand, and then ending in a specific space" and "you are vanishing to create a spell effect that results in multiple attacks being made that do not involve you changing locations, and then ends with you actually teleporting to a specific space". I don't believe they intended this spell to have any dynamic interaction with AoE effects.
My take on the spell is that it should function more similarly to "you create a spell effect, but do not actually change location until the end". I see it as the caster vanishing from sight (without changing location), creating incorporeal visages of their self which simultaneously attack (melee spell attack) the target(s), and then teleporting to the ending location. AoE effects (like Spirit Shroud) that originate from the caster's location are only applicable to targets that are within range of the caster's original location (because that's where they actually are until after all the attacks have been made), not from the visages making the spell attack. Similarly, AoE effects that would impact the caster directly (such as walking into an area affected by hostile Spirit Guardians) do not come into play until the caster actually teleports to their final location.
This seems to be the only logical conclusion as the spell does not say that you physically teleport to directly make each individual attack, nor does it tell you to designate the space you will be occupying and making each attack from. If that were the case, you could not possibly target a creature without an unoccupied adjacent space, which the spell most certainly does allow.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
[Haven't read the previous pages, so I apologize for any redundancy]
I agree that the language of the spell clearly indicates that teleportation only occurs after the spell attacks have been delivered. There is no mechanical *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* effect in play, even if that is the most common way it is imagined.
Typing "Steel Wind Strike" into Google Images, this is the first relevant option for me:
The implication being of creating an area of effect delivered by a weapon, but not of the weapon. Essentially, giving the melee weapon a form of abstract "reach". The teleportation element obviously doesn't jive with this interpretation.
I think a more fun alternative would be interpreting it as a kind of Wraith Strike. Essentially becoming temporarily ethereal and literally moving, but due to the nature of the boundary between the Material and Ethereal planes, only the spells effects are able to have any actual effect. Maybe treat it as a "Pocket Ethereal Plane" to avoid the issue of native inhabitants. Your targets aren't technically adjacent to you, due to being across a planar boundary. Teleportation is then interpreted as returning to the material plane.
[Haven't read the previous pages, so I apologize for any redundancy]
I agree that the language of the spell clearly indicates that teleportation only occurs after the spell attacks have been delivered. There is no mechanical *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* effect in play, even if that is the most common way it is imagined.
Typing "Steel Wind Strike" into Google Images, this is the first relevant option for me:
The implication being of creating an area of effect delivered by a weapon, but not of the weapon. Essentially, giving the melee weapon a form of abstract "reach". The teleportation element obviously doesn't jive with this interpretation.
I think a more fun alternative would be interpreting it as a kind of Wraith Strike. Essentially becoming temporarily ethereal and literally moving, but due to the nature of the boundary between the Material and Ethereal planes, only the spells effects are able to have any actual effect. Maybe treat it as a "Pocket Ethereal Plane" to avoid the issue of native inhabitants. Your targets aren't technically adjacent to you, due to being across a planar boundary. Teleportation is then interpreted as returning to the material plane.
The more I think about this, the more I zero in on a character from Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Jin. He has an ability to translate his body to energy, and move at the speed of light, delivering nearly simultaneous attacks, and slowing down/reforming next to one of his targets. In cutscenes, it plays out almost exactly like the spell described "intent" of SWS. He flourishes his weapon, vanishes, then attacks start appearing on his targets, and then they all get hit with attacks while he reappears next to one of them.
In gameplay, it works differently. He half phases out (so attacks against him miss during this action), all targets get hit with an attack, and he phases back in. That matches more the mechanical description in the spell.
So you could think of it as being a series of light speed strikes (remember, to move at light speed you effectively have to have 0 mass, so at a certain point you are just energy). if you are energy, you don't need to occupy a space next to each target, it explains why the damage becomes force and not the used weapons damage, and it (reasonably) explains why you wouldn't be affected by auras or opportunity attacks (no body to be affected, too fast to react), and it wouldn't allow you to bypass a wall of force during the attacks. This is a descriptive version of the spell that matches the spell description, but doesn't require additional teleporting or extraneous effects not in the spell description.
Yeah, pretty much. It's just a spell attack that lets you teleport after dealing damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As a DM i would say; yes, you can. In the spells description it states that you are making a MELEE spell attack. Not a ranged spell attack, which means you are actually moving to each target and striking them. The word “vanish” implies that you disappear from sight, like turn invisible. Its happening very quickly but you are still moving. Otherwise it would say ranged spell attack.
Things to keep in mind is that SWS are not melee weapon attack, but melee spell attack, and therefore Moving Between Attack doesn't apply here. You attack all targets within range of 30 feet from the location you are when casting the spell. The spell range trump weapon reach here #specificvsgeneral
Whats in question is the caster actually moving to hit all creatures or not. To me it states that you do.
Can you quote where does it state that in the spell exactly?
Can you show me where it states that the player doesn't move? I think thats the real question. Ive already pointed these points out and i could keep going but i see nothing to indicate that the caster doesnt move.
I think the fact the spell's description does not explicitly state, "you move to attack," combined with "you can teleport..." implies you simply vanish at your current location, may or may not teleport, while making spell attacks in between.
As I read through this thread, I was considering the implications of a spell, or other effect, that is centered around you moving in this way. Would spirit guardians move to, thereby creating a host of potential creatures entering the area for the first time? Could a Sunbeam be bouncing around like a mobile laser?
Rule of cool, I think this is a great synergy and if allowed by the DM it would be a lot of fun and an interesting concept for character; but, I don't think we can say it is RAW, or even RAI even if it isn't over powered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I said "melee weapon attack" in my version...that very plainly calls out using the weapon in hand, and matches language used in other spells where the weapon component is actually used to make an attack inside the spell effect.
I never said it doesn't factor at all. It is clearly a material component and clearly has to be flourished (somatic component). However, nothing in the SWS spell description that follows states that the attack is made with the weapon. Spells only do what they say they do, and nothing more.
You've quoted the same damn tweet at me twice now as if I didn't read it? I did, and i also noted it's not RAW, as it never made it into the SAC. The tweet was addressing if the spell description gave you advantage on attacks from being unseen, not in how effects like Spirit Shroud worked with the spell. If that was the RAI of the spell, then they did a piss-poor job translating that into text, because the RAW is not anywhere close to that intent (to get that intent, see the alternate I wrote, which is much, much clearer in articulating that intent in the same rough amount of text
If your DM does decide that your spirit shroud applies as if you had occupied a position steel wind strike never said you occupied, keep in mind that this does mean you will be subjected to any enemy auras, AOEs, or environmental hazards.
Also, how would that work if the enemy doesn't have an unoccupied space near them? According to the spell description it doesn't matter, but according to "I attack from within 5 ft of them" logic it does.
(on the point in blue) Maybe that's so, but the spell doesn't tell us that. Spells only tell us what they do. If it did tell us that explicitly, I'd have no problem with your ruling.
Dang well i guess that settles it then.
There is a reason the tweet keeps being brought up. The tweet was written by Jeremy Crawford the Lead Rules Designer for Wizards of the Coast AKA Dungeons and Dragons. When he makes a clarification on twitter (and he often does) his word is law, because he's the one that wrote the rules in the first place. There is really no reason to debate this any longer.
Also ArntltheBest laid it out pretty well covering how melee spell attacks work. They do what they do. Melee means just that, melee, hand to hand, or weapon to hand, or weapon to face. If you want it to do something else thats fine. Flavor text it or talk to your DM or house rule it.
What makes you think the spell doesn't create a bunch of spiritual weapon-like magical attacking weapons allowing the spell effect to be instantaneous? There's literally just as much textual justification for that interpretation as there is for "you physically are next to each target." If you think your conclusion is the only logical one, that's just a lack of imagination.
To clarify for everyone, spells like Spiritual weapon and Blade of Disaster are melee attacks because you are still controlling the blade even though it is not in your hand. This is all based on the concept of the Dancing weapon: It could be released from your hand to swing and fight on its own and then could return to your hand after some time. They're is also a shield does a similar thing but protects you instead. The melee is between the creature being attacked and the weapon in question even though you, the castor are not 5 feet away from it, you're still controlling the weapon as if it was in your hand. Some DMs even let players grasp the Spiritual weapon and wield it like a normal weapon. This is seen a couple of times on Critical Role with Jester's Lollipop mace and during the Dalen's Closet episode where Pike summons a Bow for Vex. Personally i wouldn't normally allow that but they are lvl 20 so isee why matt would let them.
For any of you looking for a spell that conjures a “weapon” that you actually use to attack with, look at shadow blade or flame blade.
blade of disaster is different than spiritual weapon, as blade of disaster explicitly says you attack with the blade.
Frankly I’m really questioning some of the mechanics behind steel wind strike now with all of these different perspectives. also Crawford’s old guidance that seems counter to how the spell is written, and older rulings about similarly written spells. I’ve been using this spell for quite a while with my war wizard. I’m going to have a conversation with my DM and table about this, though we probably won’t change anything for the current campaign.
it does seem to be affected by quite a few feats at least though.
mobile means you can pretty much teleport to anyone you even attempted to hit and walk away free since it’s all melee attacks.
spell sniper doubles its effective attack range. It also increases the teleport distance.
elven accuracy can drastically increase its DPR
Metamagic adept can choose distant spell to further increase the spells range by doubling the distance up to twice per long rest.
Far as I can tell the way this spell is written RAW there's a very valid argument that spirit shroud wouldn't work beyond a 10ft radius. However from JC's tweet it's pretty clear the RAI interpretation of the spell in the form it was envisioned by the creators is that you are teleporting between points and making a melee attack with some conjured weapon, thus allowing several features including spirit shroud to apply to it.
Personally if I were DM'ing it I'd first ask the player how hey envision their spell working. Do they imagine them conjuring a number of blades in the air to hit their opponents? do they think of a bunch of shadow clones of themselves appearing to attack and them appearing in the spot of one of them? Or do they imagine their character teleporting between points at incredible speed and making the attacks themself? Assuming it was the latter I'd allow them to use it with spirit shroud at any range, but the two former I would not.
Don't forget too this comes with the interpretation they are instantaneously entering that area. This could be just as much of a negative as a positive in the case of any AOE effects that proc upon entering an area, which would balance out the potential power gain of combo'ing the spell with other spells and feats. Again though this is entirely dependent on DM ruling, and may cause additional problems with the spell such as "where precisely did you teleport to when you made this attack" etc.
Honestly in this case I do just think it's one of those times where RAW vs RAI aren't completely in sync and it's entirely up to DM's interpretation as to what to do when that scenario comes up, they have final arbitration of the rules afterall. But ultimately it may be a strong combo, but I doubt it's particularly game breaking to allow. Just make sure you talk to the DM about it & see what they say, how you both envision the spell, and what the consequences of this choice may be on how rulings are made.
For what my 2 cents are worth, this is one of the cases where I don't really care what JC thinks and I'm willing to overlook the technicality of the RAW if 1) the combo is not that powerful and 2) the RAW shuts down some of the cool factor of the spell. Spirit Shroud + SWS fits both of those criteria so I'd allow it to work as a houserule.
This is a valid point and I very much support changing descriptions to better fit RAW in cases like this where the two don't mesh well. However, the way the spell is described will lead 95% of players to visualize a Nightcrawler-style teleport-a-palooza and telling them that no, their imagination is wrong and this is what you should be imagining is not always an elegant solution.
Sometimes you do have to tell players "that's not how the spell works," because their interpretation would break the scene/encounter/campaign. Sometimes you let small things slide to preserve the rule of cool. Spirit Shroud + SWS falls into the latter category for me. However, as a player of course I'd respect the DM's ruling if they felt otherwise.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
RAW means “Rules as Written”, not “Rules as written plus extra stuff because I think it would be cool”. RAW, you teleport exactly once, after the attacks occur, because the language clearly says you attack, THEN you teleport.
Vanishing is not teleporting. Nowhere in the game does teleporting use that term. To say anything otherwise is to go beyond RAW. If you disagree then find one other example of that word used in a relevant way to teleportation and show it here
if you believe your interpretation is in line with JCs ruling (which I throw out because it did not make it into the SAC, and because it opens up a host of other issues with both the spell itself and with other game effects), then you are at best following RAI or RAF. That is fine if you are the DM of if the DM allows, but it is not RAW
That is spectacularly false. Nothing JC says on Twitter is official, to the point that he had to make an explicit statement about it.
Only what gets put into the SAC--which also explicitly states that JC's tweets are not rules--is an official ruling.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Specific Beats General. The rules for this spell specifically say you make a melee spell attack against each creature, and gives a range of 30 feet. That overrides the "standard" melee attack range of your reach. The same goes for Thorn Whip, which grants (descriptively) a specific mode of attack that allows a melee spell attack at 30 feet.
That is a RAW way to justify a 30 foot attack range for a melee spell attack without adding extraneous effects not mentioned in the spell (namely, multiple teleports).
I sympathize with your side of the argument, I really do. It is obvious that the descriptive "intent" for the spell is that you are teleporting around (or probably more accurately, moving faster than light, which also can explain the change of the damage to force), but the mechanics don't align with that, and that is probably to avoid such things as entering 5 different creatures auras during the spell, or bypassing a Wall of Force and attacking, as well as avoiding having to pick creatures based on there being an available space to occupy next to each one. Treating yourself as not moving during the attacks simplifies both the options for targeting and any complications that would arise from any of the above scenarios, while (more or less) granting the same visual effect.
A thing to think about with Specific Beats General. There are a lot of game effects that "break" the general rules of play. When you are trying to interpret a specific rule (say, like one for a spell effect), don't try to add stuff to get it to "fit" with a general rule. If it seems like a conflict, the best way to approach resolving it is to ask "is this more specific than (the general rule)?" if it is, then the specific v. general rule might apply.
Here, if the issue is reconciling a stated range for a melee spell attack (30 ft) against the "standard" range (5 feet), it is pretty easy to apply specific v. general to say that the standard melee spell attack range is being specifically modified for this spell to 30 feet.
Wild thread, and I really do sympathize with the narrative disconnect between spell description and game effects. I think the general idea behind the spell lies somewhere between "you are teleporting your physical body and making multiple attacks first-hand, and then ending in a specific space" and "you are vanishing to create a spell effect that results in multiple attacks being made that do not involve you changing locations, and then ends with you actually teleporting to a specific space". I don't believe they intended this spell to have any dynamic interaction with AoE effects.
My take on the spell is that it should function more similarly to "you create a spell effect, but do not actually change location until the end". I see it as the caster vanishing from sight (without changing location), creating incorporeal visages of their self which simultaneously attack (melee spell attack) the target(s), and then teleporting to the ending location. AoE effects (like Spirit Shroud) that originate from the caster's location are only applicable to targets that are within range of the caster's original location (because that's where they actually are until after all the attacks have been made), not from the visages making the spell attack. Similarly, AoE effects that would impact the caster directly (such as walking into an area affected by hostile Spirit Guardians) do not come into play until the caster actually teleports to their final location.
This seems to be the only logical conclusion as the spell does not say that you physically teleport to directly make each individual attack, nor does it tell you to designate the space you will be occupying and making each attack from. If that were the case, you could not possibly target a creature without an unoccupied adjacent space, which the spell most certainly does allow.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
[Haven't read the previous pages, so I apologize for any redundancy]
I agree that the language of the spell clearly indicates that teleportation only occurs after the spell attacks have been delivered. There is no mechanical *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* effect in play, even if that is the most common way it is imagined.
Typing "Steel Wind Strike" into Google Images, this is the first relevant option for me:
The implication being of creating an area of effect delivered by a weapon, but not of the weapon. Essentially, giving the melee weapon a form of abstract "reach". The teleportation element obviously doesn't jive with this interpretation.
I think a more fun alternative would be interpreting it as a kind of Wraith Strike. Essentially becoming temporarily ethereal and literally moving, but due to the nature of the boundary between the Material and Ethereal planes, only the spells effects are able to have any actual effect. Maybe treat it as a "Pocket Ethereal Plane" to avoid the issue of native inhabitants. Your targets aren't technically adjacent to you, due to being across a planar boundary. Teleportation is then interpreted as returning to the material plane.
The more I think about this, the more I zero in on a character from Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Jin. He has an ability to translate his body to energy, and move at the speed of light, delivering nearly simultaneous attacks, and slowing down/reforming next to one of his targets. In cutscenes, it plays out almost exactly like the spell described "intent" of SWS. He flourishes his weapon, vanishes, then attacks start appearing on his targets, and then they all get hit with attacks while he reappears next to one of them.
In gameplay, it works differently. He half phases out (so attacks against him miss during this action), all targets get hit with an attack, and he phases back in. That matches more the mechanical description in the spell.
So you could think of it as being a series of light speed strikes (remember, to move at light speed you effectively have to have 0 mass, so at a certain point you are just energy). if you are energy, you don't need to occupy a space next to each target, it explains why the damage becomes force and not the used weapons damage, and it (reasonably) explains why you wouldn't be affected by auras or opportunity attacks (no body to be affected, too fast to react), and it wouldn't allow you to bypass a wall of force during the attacks. This is a descriptive version of the spell that matches the spell description, but doesn't require additional teleporting or extraneous effects not in the spell description.
Yeah, pretty much. It's just a spell attack that lets you teleport after dealing damage.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think the fact the spell's description does not explicitly state, "you move to attack," combined with "you can teleport..." implies you simply vanish at your current location, may or may not teleport, while making spell attacks in between.
As I read through this thread, I was considering the implications of a spell, or other effect, that is centered around you moving in this way. Would spirit guardians move to, thereby creating a host of potential creatures entering the area for the first time? Could a Sunbeam be bouncing around like a mobile laser?
Rule of cool, I think this is a great synergy and if allowed by the DM it would be a lot of fun and an interesting concept for character; but, I don't think we can say it is RAW, or even RAI even if it isn't over powered.