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.
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.
There's literally not, because you vanish at the start of the spell, and teleporting is a component of the spell. Why would you vanish to summon spectral weapons? As the spell is not explicit, I feel like teleporting between targets adds the least amount of extra stuff to the spell.
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.
While I would personally rule the way you're arguing, I would not be so attached to it being what the rules as written actually say. Especially because it isn't.
The problem you're having here is seeing these terms as standard vocabulary instead of important key terms that merely denote when certain rules come into play as a binary. At least AS WRITTEN. You're very concerned with the appearance of the spell, and not the actual terms in the text, and yet keep arguing that the appearance of the spell is, at least as written, anything more than the ribbon storytelling around the actual spell attack.
I'm going to write a spell right now:
Pgood's Smack That Just Happens And Then You Move Somewhere 1 action Components: V Range: 30 ft
You stand perfectly still, save for yelling the words "APPLE.. SAUCE!". Choose up to five creatures you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage. You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed.
Now, what hits the creature? And why do you teleport to within 5 ft of a creature? Why "apple sauce"? Does the attack happen on "apple", or "sauce" as the pause would indicate? And, the larger point that I think folks are trying to make to you, does it matter at all for the actual rules text of the spell and its effects? Rules as written, it doesn't. You can argue that the caster is winding up a giant punch like Captain Falcon. You can argue it's a set of invisible cartoon ducks falling on someone, and a reverse misty step is added for no reason. Hey, the spell doesn't say it DOESN'T do that, right? None of that changes what the spell actually says happens. You make up to five melee spell attacks, and then can teleport within range of the target. That is ALL the spell says. Where you are while that happens and why is, unfortunately, left to the imagination.
So it is with Steel Wind Strike. Flourishing the weapon, for all intents and purposes, is about as useful for finding out what the spell actually does for the purposes of the rules as pointing out the verbal component of my spell is "APPLE... SAUCE!". That has no bearing on the subsequent words describing the actual action of the spell. Your argument is akin to arguing that the hex spell actually requires you to THROW that eye of newt at the target. It's a component, right? Must be important! Must have to be physically involved! And you COULD make that happen at your table, no problem. You just would get some reasoned resistance if you were to argue that that's Rules As Written.
What you are trying to argue is not, in fact, Rules As Written. What you are trying to argue is that common sense and daily parlance and knowledge of anime martial arts imagery is inherently implied by Rules As Written. It is not. That's because people's common sense and daily parlance and knowledge of pop culture ephemera are going to be different: it's why DM's exist. But what the spell says it does is not.
Now, as I said, I'd totally rule your way as a house rule myself. I just wouldn't get upset calling it one, or argue that it isn't. People get so twisted on that distinction, and they really shouldn't, at least not at the folks making the distinction. The rules are meant to be obtuse representations of reality for the purpose of a game, not reality itself, and the best actions, spells, effects, or what have you, have very clear and specific language about what is being done, and what actually happens at each step in the process, all so the same thing can happen from table to table, and people can have similar experiences based on the same situations. Steel Wind Strike is simply using far less precise language than similar spells, including some of the ones you've named (thorn whip, spiritual weapon). Which is a problem with the spell, not a problem with everyone else pointing out that the spell text isn't actually saying what you argue it says. Indeed, the existence of those other spells with clearer language doesn't support your point by comparison. It in fact undermines it because steel wind strike is LESS clear about what happens than they are. Now, the spell might imply what you're arguing, and folks around here might agree with that implication, and one of the creators of D&D might agree with that implication too, but that you're having an argument at all shows how unclear things actually are.
Again, to be clear, that's the spell's fault, not the folks pointing out that seemingly clear implications and reasonably logical conclusions often have little to do with the rules of D&D, hehe. At least until a competent DM steps in.
Lots of argument over such a little thing. The original post was asking about the range of the spell effects, and I have to wonder how long it has been since this was even mentioned. The caster swings a weapon around, vanishes, 5 people up to 30 feet away in any direction get zapped at pretty much the same time, and then the caster appears 5 feet away from one of them. The caster could end up 35 feet away from their original spot, on the other side of one of the targets.
That can't be all there is to it. I've missed something. I usually do. So what's the big deal?
While I would personally rule the way you're arguing, I would not be so attached to it being what the rules as written actually say. Especially because it isn't.
The problem you're having here is seeing these terms as standard vocabulary instead of important key terms that merely denote when certain rules come into play as a binary. At least AS WRITTEN. You're very concerned with the appearance of the spell, and not the actual terms in the text, and yet keep arguing that the appearance of the spell is, at least as written, anything more than the ribbon storytelling around the actual spell attack.
I'm going to write a spell right now:
Pgood's Smack That Just Happens And Then You Move Somewhere 1 action Components: V Range: 30 ft
You stand perfectly still, save for yelling the words "APPLE.. SAUCE!". Choose up to five creatures you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage. You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed.
Now, what hits the creature? And why do you teleport to within 5 ft of a creature? Why "apple sauce"? Does the attack happen on "apple", or "sauce" as the pause would indicate? And, the larger point that I think folks are trying to make to you, does it matter at all for the actual rules text of the spell and its effects? Rules as written, it doesn't. You can argue that the caster is winding up a giant punch like Captain Falcon. You can argue it's a set of invisible cartoon ducks falling on someone, and a reverse misty step is added for no reason. Hey, the spell doesn't say it DOESN'T do that, right? None of that changes what the spell actually says happens. You make up to five melee spell attacks, and then can teleport within range of the target. That is ALL the spell says. Where you are while that happens and why is, unfortunately, left to the imagination.
So it is with Steel Wind Strike. Flourishing the weapon, for all intents and purposes, is about as useful for finding out what the spell actually does for the purposes of the rules as pointing out the verbal component of my spell is "APPLE... SAUCE!". That has no bearing on the subsequent words describing the actual action of the spell. Your argument is akin to arguing that the hex spell actually requires you to THROW that eye of newt at the target. It's a component, right? Must be important! Must have to be physically involved! And you COULD make that happen at your table, no problem. You just would get some reasoned resistance if you were to argue that that's Rules As Written.
What you are trying to argue is not, in fact, Rules As Written. What you are trying to argue is that common sense and daily parlance and knowledge of anime martial arts imagery is inherently implied by Rules As Written. It is not. That's because people's common sense and daily parlance and knowledge of pop culture ephemera are going to be different: it's why DM's exist. But what the spell says it does is not.
Now, as I said, I'd totally rule your way as a house rule myself. I just wouldn't get upset calling it one, or argue that it isn't. People get so twisted on that distinction, and they really shouldn't, at least not at the folks making the distinction. The rules are meant to be obtuse representations of reality for the purpose of a game, not reality itself, and the best actions, spells, effects, or what have you, have very clear and specific language about what is being done, and what actually happens at each step in the process, all so the same thing can happen from table to table, and people can have similar experiences based on the same situations. Steel Wind Strike is simply using far less precise language than similar spells, including some of the ones you've named (thorn whip, spiritual weapon). Which is a problem with the spell, not a problem with everyone else pointing out that the spell text isn't actually saying what you argue it says. Indeed, the existence of those other spells with clearer language doesn't support your point by comparison. It in fact undermines it because steel wind strike is LESS clear about what happens than they are. Now, the spell might imply what you're arguing, and folks around here might agree with that implication, and one of the creators of D&D might agree with that implication too, but that you're having an argument at all shows how unclear things actually are.
Again, to be clear, that's the spell's fault, not the folks pointing out that seemingly clear implications and reasonably logical conclusions often have little to do with the rules of D&D, hehe. At least until a competent DM steps in.
So, you're taking a comparison to actual, in game spells, and saying it's just like comparing it to your totally made up spell? That's a really, really weak argument. You can also cast Hex without an eye of newt if you have a spell casting focus. Something that you CANNOT do with Steel Wind Strike.
Can you point to any other spell that requires a melee weapon as a component that does NOT involve making an attack with that weapon?
And lastly, since the language is vague, why would you default to that position? Why would you not assume the clarification that Crawford made would be the correct reading of the vague language?
Lots of argument over such a little thing. The original post was asking about the range of the spell effects, and I have to wonder how long it has been since this was even mentioned. The caster swings a weapon around, vanishes, 5 people up to 30 feet away in any direction get zapped at pretty much the same time, and then the caster appears 5 feet away from one of them. The caster could end up 35 feet away from their original spot, on the other side of one of the targets.
That can't be all there is to it. I've missed something. I usually do. So what's the big deal?
The original question hinges entirely on if the caster of Steel Wind Strike moves to make the attacks, as Spirit Shroud moves with the caster. If the caster doesn't move, they don't get the additional damage from Spirit Shroud, if they do move, they get the extra damage.
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
"RAW means “Rules as Written”, not “Rules as written plus extra stuff because I think it would be cool”. While this statement is true, you still have to apply common sense and sometimes even logic (gasp!) when you interpret anything (yes even RAW). So when the spell says "Melee Attack", common sense/logic dictates that the attack is made within melee range. In this case it's not just about common sense though, as the words "Melee Attack" is a specific term defined in the game rules, and thus have a clear meaning with little room for interpretation in the game.
The rest of the words discussed in this thread are not defined game terms, so common sense/logic from the point of view of idiomatic English language applies. These words do leave some room for interpretation as they can all have multiple meanings, but since the spell includes all of them, the final interpretation of the spell must also include all of them.
Lets go through a few of them:
(Steel Wind Strike): Being the title of the spell it is of course even more vague and symbolic than the rest of the words used but might still help shed some light on how the spell should be interpreted. Lets break up the words! Steel: Could be something hard? Perhaps a sword or the like? Wind: Something invisible or fast or maybe something to do with the wind itself? "Like the wind" is an often used English idiom so that could be what it is referring to, who knows. Strike: The most common usage of strike is synonymous with "hit". Seeing as this spell is about attacking someone this assumption might be correct. Could you also strike someone with a ranged weapon. Sure! But we already know that this spell attacks with a melee attack which is a clear and defined game term.
So initial interpretation of the title leads us to believe that the spell includes something steel-like, something wind-like, and something that hits something. Moving on:
You flourish the weapon used in the casting: So we have a melee weapon in our hand as we cast the instantaneous spell. Do we use it in other ways? We don't know. Vanish: Something that disappears. Do we know where it disappears to? No? Disappointing, but nothing we can do about that for now. "Vanish to strike": Ah! That is where we disappeared to! We vanished to strike with our melee attack! So far so good. We still don't know how we got from A to B though. "Vanish to strike like the wind: Well now we know that the usage of wind in the title is idiomatic and not necessarily explicit! So we now know we move swiftly to hit someone with our melee attack. "Make a melee spell attack against each target": Since a "melee spell attack" is a term defined in the game rules, we know exactly what this means: "...a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach" . So an attack within your reach (remember: there's a difference between "reach" and "range"). For those wondering about the difference between a normal "melee attack" and a "melee spell attack": "Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus".
So, we now know that we have a melee weapon in our hand and then somehow disappear to strike our targets quickly with a melee attack. But still don't know if we attack with the weapon in our hand or use something else (e.g. the back of our hand) to attack instead of the weapon. Neither do we know what exactly "disappear" means in this context.
Looking closer, we know that this is a spell from the School of Conjuration. Lets take a closer look at that school:
Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster's side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.
Looking at this school of magic it seems likely that something is being summoned, created, or teleported. What could this be? "The weapon was obviously created!": Yeah no. 1. We already know that the weapon in our hand was a required component of the spellcasting which means we had it in hand before we cast the spell. 2. Or maybe we created a new weapon to attack with instead of our material component? Maybe, but I doubt that is the case as the spell would likely have told us that we suddenly have two weapons in our hands (and what if we were already duel wielding?!).
"The weapon was obviously teleported!": I don't think so. 1. Maybe the weapon is being teleported to our enemies and attack them all similar to a Spiritual Weapon? Could be, but seeing as Spiritual Weapon is an evocation spell, it is most likely not the case.
"The character was obviously teleported!: Much more likely. 1. Could it be that the character was teleported to all the targets to strike at them? Well seeing as the character Vanishes from where he stood, that is in line with the common idea of what happens when somebody teleports. Instantaneous teleportation certainly also sounds like it could make the character seem swift as the wind. It all adds up. But how does he Strike his targets? We know it's a melee attack and we are carrying a melee weapon in our hand. It would make sense that we'd use it. But it doesn't say so explicitly. But does it say it implicitly? What was the spell's name again? Steel Wind Strike. We know that Wind refers to our speed and Strike refers to how we hit our targets. Could Steel perhaps refer to the melee weapon in our hand? Maybe, but maybe not. Not all melee weapons are made of a steel-like material after all.
Nothing is certain, but a little common sense/logic deduction is necessary to interpret anything. Ideally, everything is always crystal clear, but you know...
The original question hinges entirely on if the caster of Steel Wind Strike moves to make the attacks, as Spirit Shroud moves with the caster. If the caster doesn't move, they don't get the additional damage from Spirit Shroud, if they do move, they get the extra damage. - ArntItheBest
Ok. I see the problem now. Thank you.
You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. Choose up to five creatures you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage.
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed.
It's the beginning of the round, and on your turn, you look around, pick up to 5 of anything that can move on it's own, that you can see within 30 feet, and make a melee spell attack against each target. You flourish your weapon, and then you vanish, meaning you are invisible. The word "melee" seems to indicate that your target is close enough to hit with something you are holding in your hand. That's actually quite a ways if you're a Bugbear with a polearm. Something invisible is moving around trying to hit your targets, that would be the weapon you are holding onto, near as I can figure, and you are holding that, so you're invisibly moving around the room like the wind and hitting your targets with something that feels as hard as steel, (no matter what it is made of) and if you hit, each one takes 6d10 force damage.
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. You walked 30 feet, right up to your target, took a swing at it, hit or miss, then you vanished, stuff happened, and you can teleport right up to something that is as far as 30 feet away from you, and appear a total of 30 feet from the spot where you vanished. Total distance traveled would be 30 feet in front of you, anywhere near any of the things you took a swing at. Given that nobody could see a thing while this was going on, I'd describe it as a shape that vaguely looks like you rushing around swinging your weapon at your targets, and then popping up somewhere, possibly right where you were standing with weapon in mid flourish, or anywhere 30 feet in front of you that's 5 feet in front of any of your targets.
I almost forgot to mention Spirit Shroud. I don't see that anything I have said would change. The only difference is that you get an extra 1d8 worth of damage and the assorted effects that go with it if you hit.
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
"RAW means “Rules as Written”, not “Rules as written plus extra stuff because I think it would be cool”. While this statement is true, you still have to apply common sense and sometimes even logic (gasp!) when you interpret anything (yes even RAW). So when the spell says "Melee Attack", common sense/logic dictates that the attack is made within melee range. In this case it's not just about common sense though, as the words "Melee Attack" is a specific term defined in the game rules, and thus have a clear meaning with little room for interpretation in the game.
The rest of the words discussed in this thread are not defined game terms, so common sense/logic from the point of view of idiomatic English language applies. These words do leave some room for interpretation as they can all have multiple meanings, but since the spell includes all of them, the final interpretation of the spell must also include all of them.
Lets go through a few of them:
(Steel Wind Strike): Being the title of the spell it is of course even more vague and symbolic than the rest of the words used but might still help shed some light on how the spell should be interpreted. Lets break up the words! Steel: Could be something hard? Perhaps a sword or the like? Wind: Something invisible or fast or maybe something to do with the wind itself? "Like the wind" is an often used English idiom so that could be what it is referring to, who knows. Strike: The most common usage of strike is synonymous with "hit". Seeing as this spell is about attacking someone this assumption might be correct. Could you also strike someone with a ranged weapon. Sure! But we already know that this spell attacks with a melee attack which is a clear and defined game term.
So initial interpretation of the title leads us to believe that the spell includes something steel-like, something wind-like, and something that hits something. Moving on:
You flourish the weapon used in the casting: So we have a melee weapon in our hand as we cast the instantaneous spell. Do we use it in other ways? We don't know. Vanish: Something that disappears. Do we know where it disappears to? No? Disappointing, but nothing we can do about that for now. "Vanish to strike": Ah! That is where we disappeared to! We vanished to strike with our melee attack! So far so good. We still don't know how we got from A to B though. "Vanish to strike like the wind: Well now we know that the usage of wind in the title is idiomatic and not necessarily explicit! So we now know we move swiftly to hit someone with our melee attack. "Make a melee spell attack against each target": Since a "melee spell attack" is a term defined in the game rules, we know exactly what this means: "...a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach" . So an attack within your reach (remember: there's a difference between "reach" and "range"). For those wondering about the difference between a normal "melee attack" and a "melee spell attack": "Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus".
So, we now know that we have a melee weapon in our hand and then somehow disappear to strike our targets quickly with a melee attack. But still don't know if we attack with the weapon in our hand or use something else (e.g. the back of our hand) to attack instead of the weapon. Neither do we know what exactly "disappear" means in this context.
Looking closer, we know that this is a spell from the School of Conjuration. Lets take a closer look at that school:
Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster's side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.
Looking at this school of magic it seems likely that something is being summoned, created, or teleported. What could this be? "The weapon was obviously created!": Yeah no. 1. We already know that the weapon in our hand was a required component of the spellcasting which means we had it in hand before we cast the spell. 2. Or maybe we created a new weapon to attack with instead of our material component? Maybe, but I doubt that is the case as the spell would likely have told us that we suddenly have two weapons in our hands (and what if we were already duel wielding?!).
"The weapon was obviously teleported!": I don't think so. 1. Maybe the weapon is being teleported to our enemies and attack them all similar to a Spiritual Weapon? Could be, but seeing as Spiritual Weapon is an evocation spell, it is most likely not the case.
"The character was obviously teleported!: Much more likely. 1. Could it be that the character was teleported to all the targets to strike at them? Well seeing as the character Vanishes from where he stood, that is in line with the common idea of what happens when somebody teleports. Instantaneous teleportation certainly also sounds like it could make the character seem swift as the wind. It all adds up. But how does he Strike his targets? We know it's a melee attack and we are carrying a melee weapon in our hand. It would make sense that we'd use it. But it doesn't say so explicitly. But does it say it implicitly? What was the spell's name again? Steel Wind Strike. We know that Wind refers to our speed and Strike refers to how we hit our targets. Could Steel perhaps refer to the melee weapon in our hand? Maybe, but maybe not. Not all melee weapons are made of a steel-like material after all.
Nothing is certain, but a little common sense/logic deduction is necessary to interpret anything. Ideally, everything is always crystal clear, but you know...
Im not sure why you stopped at post #60 to reply when the conversation continued with several followup posts, but a few rebuttals:
1) Titles are meaningless, they impart nothing more than a name, but even then, is the meaning of the title that steel strikes like the wind, or that the wind strikes like steel? based on word order, the second is more likely as it follows grammar more closely.
2) Other spells indicate melee spell attacks from greater than normal melee range (Thorn Whip is the obvious example). It is much much easier to infer that the melee spell attack is a specific exception to normal melee spell attacks (specific beats general being an actual rule in the game) than it is to add multiple teleports to a spell that only lists one.
3) As i said several times in the quoted post and in posts you possibly didn't read, no teleportation spell uses the word "vanish" as part of the teleport. the other flaw in the argument is that if vanish was used in the description of teleport, the word "reappear" (or something similar) should also appear to resolve the teleport. As it is, the spell uses the word "teleport" in full, and only after the attacks are made "then you teleport..." if you want to get into the semantics of word meanings, teleport implies the entire process by itself.
I think you are reading what you want to read here. if you want to read the spell that way, that is fine, but its not RAW.
Im not sure why you stopped at post #60 to reply when the conversation continued with several followup posts, but a few rebuttals:
1) Titles are meaningless, they impart nothing more than a name, but even then, is the meaning of the title that steel strikes like the wind, or that the wind strikes like steel? based on word order, the second is more likely as it follows grammar more closely.
2) Other spells indicate melee spell attacks from greater than normal melee range (Thorn Whip is the obvious example). It is much much easier to infer that the melee spell attack is a specific exception to normal melee spell attacks (specific beats general being an actual rule in the game) than it is to add multiple teleports to a spell that only lists one.
3) As i said several times in the quoted post and in posts you possibly didn't read, no teleportation spell uses the word "vanish" as part of the teleport. the other flaw in the argument is that if vanish was used in the description of teleport, the word "reappear" (or something similar) should also appear to resolve the teleport. As it is, the spell uses the word "teleport" in full, and only after the attacks are made "then you teleport..." if you want to get into the semantics of word meanings, teleport implies the entire process by itself.
I think you are reading what you want to read here. if you want to read the spell that way, that is fine, but its not RAW.
1) As I wrote in my comment, the title can infer the intent of the spell, despite being much more vague and symbolic than the actual spell description. As I also wrote in my comment, the very first sentence of the spell description mentions "swift as the wind" (the idiom) making the "wind striking as steel" interpretation much less likely to be the intended interpretation.
2. Once again, as I wrote in my comment, there is a difference between Reach and Range. The whip is a weapon with Reach, and can therefore be used in melee combat without imposing disadvantage on its user. It is a logical assumption that Thorn Whip, being a magical whip, would also count as a weapon with Reach. Disregarding this simple logic to justify an abstract and non-explicit "exception" to the rules is much more farfetched in my opinion.
3. None of the other teleportation spells use the word vanish, correct. But so what? The word "Teleportation" is not a mechanical keyword defined in the rules. As such the meaning of the word rests on how it is commonly understood in the English language. To illustrate, the spell Misty Step mentions the word "teleport", but the spell Teleport only mentions the word off-hand in the bottom of the description and instead uses the word "transport" to describe the action itself in the first paragraph of the spell description. What all these spells have in common is that you instantaneously disappear from one location and reappear in another. This includes Steel Wind Strike that mentions how you disappear from one location only to strike your targets (with a melee attack) in another, implying you reappear for even the briefest moment. This is of course not explicitly stated, and perhaps the character runs or flies instead. We don't know. We only know that the spell allows you to use your action to cover a range of up to 150 feet (5x30 feet). And that the spell is tagged as a teleportation spell of course. However we choose to explain it, appropriate consequences should of course apply.
I too believe you are stuck in your own head regarding how RAW should be interpreted. After all, how can you interpret RAW without applying any common sense or logical assumptions? You can't, and telling others they shouldn't while you yourself apply your own make-believe is hypocritical.
So, you're taking a comparison to actual, in game spells, and saying it's just like comparing it to your totally made up spell? That's a really, really weak argument. You can also cast Hex without an eye of newt if you have a spell casting focus. Something that you CANNOT do with Steel Wind Strike.
Can you point to any other spell that requires a melee weapon as a component that does NOT involve making an attack with that weapon?
And lastly, since the language is vague, why would you default to that position? Why would you not assume the clarification that Crawford made would be the correct reading of the vague language?
Except my "totally made up spell" is exactly same as Steel Wind Strike save for the description of the spell components, if you hadn't noticed. And the only reason you can't cast Steel Wind Strike with a spell focus has nothing to do with the fact that a weapon is used in the casting, but because they made sure there was a monetary value for the component. Sans that 1 sp, you COULD cast it with a spell focus.
The other spells that require melee weapons with costs as components (Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade specifically) also have this text in their descriptions "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and...". Your argument seems to be that the "you brandish the weapon" is the key part of what makes Steel Wind Strike like those spells. I would argue that "and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects" is what SEPARATES Steel Wind Strike from those spells. For Greenflame and Booming, it is INCREDIBLY explicit that you are making a melee attack with that weapon, causing the damage of the weapon on each person being attacked. For SOME reason, Steel Wind Strike removed all that. Whether you're wielding a mundane dagger or a Holy Avenger or are a Rune Knight successfully wielding Gurt's Greataxe from Storm King, it's all 6d10 force. Why?
Because it's doing something very different than those other two spells, and willfully so.
Now, we can argue why. In fact, I think you and I AGREE why: for balance reasons. But because it was written vaguely, if we can't ignore the commonality between those spells as you argue, we can't ignore what makes them different either. And RAW, these spells are doing very, very different things.
As well, the final teleport describes you moving to an unoccupied space near the target. As written, you could still attack a creature that was totally surrounded by other creatures (and thus have no occupied spaces around them) even if you couldn't teleport to them at the end. The spell, as written, is ONLY concerned with your final position. It makes no mention of occupied or unoccupied spaces during those teleports. Which proffers the question: why not? Again, if we just want to say "the writers oopsied", well, that's all fine and good. But if we want to say "because the writers didn't want to give martial characters 5 chances to smite in a single turn for balance reasons", well, we're just as reasonable to do so, and then we have to start asking ourselves what else they actually meant to do. And maybe they didn't actually want any effects that might increase the damage of the spell to affect it, not just smites, nor to spread the effects of PBAoEs centered on the PC like Spirit Guardians or the Oath of Conquest aura. Maybe they also wanted PCs to be able to ignore persistent AoE's near creatures until the end of the spell (i.e. you can use this to evade damage from a Wall of Fire near a target). A simpler and quicker version of the spell (i.e. the one they actually wrote) would simply imply by absence that none of those things interact with the spell and it does what it says it does, and only what it says it does, and then you move on to the next person in initiative instead of figuring out whether, say, Blackrazor would take souls if anyone died from the spell or whatever. This makes complete sense, because part of 5e's design focus was to remove the crunch from combat for the sake of accessibility and round efficiency.
Now, as I said before, I actually agree with your interpretation of the spell. It's crunchier, and lord knows my own Oath of Conquest paladin is looking for scrolls of steel wind strike so he can reduce every creature on the map's speed to 0 and then return his saving throw aura to the back row of PCs, all in a single turn. All anyone is saying is the ability to do so is not RAW, and I would not complain if my DM ruled otherwise (or, at least, no more than any other time I am told "no", hehe). You're the one trying to argue that we should understand a particular implication as so clear that it "might as well be RAW". It's not, by your very own examples. The rest of us are just wondering why it's so necessary we should see it otherwise.
So, you're taking a comparison to actual, in game spells, and saying it's just like comparing it to your totally made up spell? That's a really, really weak argument. You can also cast Hex without an eye of newt if you have a spell casting focus. Something that you CANNOT do with Steel Wind Strike.
Can you point to any other spell that requires a melee weapon as a component that does NOT involve making an attack with that weapon?
And lastly, since the language is vague, why would you default to that position? Why would you not assume the clarification that Crawford made would be the correct reading of the vague language?
Except my "totally made up spell" is exactly same as Steel Wind Strike save for the description of the spell components, if you hadn't noticed. And the only reason you can't cast Steel Wind Strike with a spell focus has nothing to do with the fact that a weapon is used in the casting, but because they made sure there was a monetary value for the component. Sans that 1 sp, you COULD cast it with a spell focus.
The other spells that require melee weapons with costs as components (Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade specifically) also have this text in their descriptions "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and...". Your argument seems to be that the "you brandish the weapon" is the key part of what makes Steel Wind Strike like those spells. I would argue that "and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects" is what SEPARATES Steel Wind Strike from those spells. For Greenflame and Booming, it is INCREDIBLY explicit that you are making a melee attack with that weapon, causing the damage of the weapon on each person being attacked. For SOME reason, Steel Wind Strike removed all that. Whether you're wielding a mundane dagger or a Holy Avenger or are a Rune Knight successfully wielding Gurt's Greataxe from Storm King, it's all 6d10 force. Why?
Because it's doing something very different than those other two spells, and willfully so.
Now, we can argue why. In fact, I think you and I AGREE why: for balance reasons. But because it was written vaguely, if we can't ignore the commonality between those spells as you argue, we can't ignore what makes them different either. And RAW, these spells are doing very, very different things.
As well, the final teleport describes you moving to an unoccupied space near the target. As written, you could still attack a creature that was totally surrounded by other creatures (and thus have no occupied spaces around them) even if you couldn't teleport to them at the end. The spell, as written, is ONLY concerned with your final position. It makes no mention of occupied or unoccupied spaces during those teleports. Which proffers the question: why not? Again, if we just want to say "the writers oopsied", well, that's all fine and good. But if we want to say "because the writers didn't want to give martial characters 5 chances to smite in a single turn for balance reasons", well, we're just as reasonable to do so, and then we have to start asking ourselves what else they actually meant to do. And maybe they didn't actually want any effects that might increase the damage of the spell to affect it, not just smites, nor to spread the effects of PBAoEs centered on the PC like Spirit Guardians or the Oath of Conquest aura. Maybe they also wanted PCs to be able to ignore persistent AoE's near creatures until the end of the spell (i.e. you can use this to evade damage from a Wall of Fire near a target). A simpler and quicker version of the spell (i.e. the one they actually wrote) would simply imply by absence that none of those things interact with the spell and it does what it says it does, and only what it says it does, and then you move on to the next person in initiative instead of figuring out whether, say, Blackrazor would take souls if anyone died from the spell or whatever. This makes complete sense, because part of 5e's design focus was to remove the crunch from combat for the sake of accessibility and round efficiency.
Now, as I said before, I actually agree with your interpretation of the spell. It's crunchier, and lord knows my own Oath of Conquest paladin is looking for scrolls of steel wind strike so he can reduce every creature on the map's speed to 0 and then return his saving throw aura to the back row of PCs, all in a single turn. All anyone is saying is the ability to do so is not RAW, and I would not complain if my DM ruled otherwise (or, at least, no more than any other time I am told "no", hehe). You're the one trying to argue that we should understand a particular implication as so clear that it "might as well be RAW". It's not, by your very own examples. The rest of us are just wondering why it's so necessary we should see it otherwise.
It's the middle of the night over here so forgive me for asking a question that might have an obvious answer: what makes you think you can't smite while using this spell?
Except my "totally made up spell" is exactly same as Steel Wind Strike save for the description of the spell components, if you hadn't noticed. And the only reason you can't cast Steel Wind Strike with a spell focus has nothing to do with the fact that a weapon is used in the casting, but because they made sure there was a monetary value for the component. Sans that 1 sp, you COULD cast it with a spell focus.
So, your argument here is: except for the rules that require a weapon, it's not required. Do you think they willy-nilly decided, "Hey, let's throw a material cost on the weapon used in casting this even though the weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the casting oft his spell"?? The description even mentions a weapon flourish! You literally CANNOT cast this spell unless you are holding a weapon, which means that the writers OBVIOUSLY wanted the weapon to be considered part of the spell.
That's like saying that the rope is Snare doesn't actually play any part of the spell.
The other spells that require melee weapons with costs as components (Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade specifically) also have this text in their descriptions "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and...". Your argument seems to be that the "you brandish the weapon" is the key part of what makes Steel Wind Strike like those spells. I would argue that "and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects" is what SEPARATES Steel Wind Strike from those spells. For Greenflame and Booming, it is INCREDIBLY explicit that you are making a melee attack with that weapon, causing the damage of the weapon on each person being attacked. For SOME reason, Steel Wind Strike removed all that. Whether you're wielding a mundane dagger or a Holy Avenger or are a Rune Knight successfully wielding Gurt's Greataxe from Storm King, it's all 6d10 force. Why?
Because it's doing something very different than those other two spells, and willfully so.
You are not doing regular old weapon damage because you are "strik[ing] like the wind" as described in the spell. You are moving up to 218.4 ft. in an instant! You're striking so fast that your melee attacks deal force damage instead of slashing/piercing/bludgeoning.
Lastly, as CC said above, smiting is already out of the picture because these are melee spell attacks, not melee weapon attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
There's literally not, because you vanish at the start of the spell, and teleporting is a component of the spell. Why would you vanish to summon spectral weapons? As the spell is not explicit, I feel like teleporting between targets adds the least amount of extra stuff to the spell.
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.
While I would personally rule the way you're arguing, I would not be so attached to it being what the rules as written actually say. Especially because it isn't.
The problem you're having here is seeing these terms as standard vocabulary instead of important key terms that merely denote when certain rules come into play as a binary. At least AS WRITTEN. You're very concerned with the appearance of the spell, and not the actual terms in the text, and yet keep arguing that the appearance of the spell is, at least as written, anything more than the ribbon storytelling around the actual spell attack.
I'm going to write a spell right now:
Pgood's Smack That Just Happens And Then You Move Somewhere
1 action
Components: V
Range: 30 ft
You stand perfectly still, save for yelling the words "APPLE.. SAUCE!". Choose up to five creatures you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage. You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed.
Now, what hits the creature? And why do you teleport to within 5 ft of a creature? Why "apple sauce"? Does the attack happen on "apple", or "sauce" as the pause would indicate? And, the larger point that I think folks are trying to make to you, does it matter at all for the actual rules text of the spell and its effects? Rules as written, it doesn't. You can argue that the caster is winding up a giant punch like Captain Falcon. You can argue it's a set of invisible cartoon ducks falling on someone, and a reverse misty step is added for no reason. Hey, the spell doesn't say it DOESN'T do that, right? None of that changes what the spell actually says happens. You make up to five melee spell attacks, and then can teleport within range of the target. That is ALL the spell says. Where you are while that happens and why is, unfortunately, left to the imagination.
So it is with Steel Wind Strike. Flourishing the weapon, for all intents and purposes, is about as useful for finding out what the spell actually does for the purposes of the rules as pointing out the verbal component of my spell is "APPLE... SAUCE!". That has no bearing on the subsequent words describing the actual action of the spell. Your argument is akin to arguing that the hex spell actually requires you to THROW that eye of newt at the target. It's a component, right? Must be important! Must have to be physically involved! And you COULD make that happen at your table, no problem. You just would get some reasoned resistance if you were to argue that that's Rules As Written.
What you are trying to argue is not, in fact, Rules As Written. What you are trying to argue is that common sense and daily parlance and knowledge of anime martial arts imagery is inherently implied by Rules As Written. It is not. That's because people's common sense and daily parlance and knowledge of pop culture ephemera are going to be different: it's why DM's exist. But what the spell says it does is not.
Now, as I said, I'd totally rule your way as a house rule myself. I just wouldn't get upset calling it one, or argue that it isn't. People get so twisted on that distinction, and they really shouldn't, at least not at the folks making the distinction. The rules are meant to be obtuse representations of reality for the purpose of a game, not reality itself, and the best actions, spells, effects, or what have you, have very clear and specific language about what is being done, and what actually happens at each step in the process, all so the same thing can happen from table to table, and people can have similar experiences based on the same situations. Steel Wind Strike is simply using far less precise language than similar spells, including some of the ones you've named (thorn whip, spiritual weapon). Which is a problem with the spell, not a problem with everyone else pointing out that the spell text isn't actually saying what you argue it says. Indeed, the existence of those other spells with clearer language doesn't support your point by comparison. It in fact undermines it because steel wind strike is LESS clear about what happens than they are. Now, the spell might imply what you're arguing, and folks around here might agree with that implication, and one of the creators of D&D might agree with that implication too, but that you're having an argument at all shows how unclear things actually are.
Again, to be clear, that's the spell's fault, not the folks pointing out that seemingly clear implications and reasonably logical conclusions often have little to do with the rules of D&D, hehe. At least until a competent DM steps in.
Lots of argument over such a little thing. The original post was asking about the range of the spell effects, and I have to wonder how long it has been since this was even mentioned. The caster swings a weapon around, vanishes, 5 people up to 30 feet away in any direction get zapped at pretty much the same time, and then the caster appears 5 feet away from one of them. The caster could end up 35 feet away from their original spot, on the other side of one of the targets.
That can't be all there is to it. I've missed something. I usually do. So what's the big deal?
<Insert clever signature here>
So, you're taking a comparison to actual, in game spells, and saying it's just like comparing it to your totally made up spell? That's a really, really weak argument. You can also cast Hex without an eye of newt if you have a spell casting focus. Something that you CANNOT do with Steel Wind Strike.
Can you point to any other spell that requires a melee weapon as a component that does NOT involve making an attack with that weapon?
And lastly, since the language is vague, why would you default to that position? Why would you not assume the clarification that Crawford made would be the correct reading of the vague language?
Quote from Geann >>
The original question hinges entirely on if the caster of Steel Wind Strike moves to make the attacks, as Spirit Shroud moves with the caster. If the caster doesn't move, they don't get the additional damage from Spirit Shroud, if they do move, they get the extra damage.
"RAW means “Rules as Written”, not “Rules as written plus extra stuff because I think it would be cool”. While this statement is true, you still have to apply common sense and sometimes even logic (gasp!) when you interpret anything (yes even RAW). So when the spell says "Melee Attack", common sense/logic dictates that the attack is made within melee range. In this case it's not just about common sense though, as the words "Melee Attack" is a specific term defined in the game rules, and thus have a clear meaning with little room for interpretation in the game.
The rest of the words discussed in this thread are not defined game terms, so common sense/logic from the point of view of idiomatic English language applies. These words do leave some room for interpretation as they can all have multiple meanings, but since the spell includes all of them, the final interpretation of the spell must also include all of them.
Lets go through a few of them:
(Steel Wind Strike): Being the title of the spell it is of course even more vague and symbolic than the rest of the words used but might still help shed some light on how the spell should be interpreted. Lets break up the words!
Steel: Could be something hard? Perhaps a sword or the like?
Wind: Something invisible or fast or maybe something to do with the wind itself? "Like the wind" is an often used English idiom so that could be what it is referring to, who knows.
Strike: The most common usage of strike is synonymous with "hit". Seeing as this spell is about attacking someone this assumption might be correct. Could you also strike someone with a ranged weapon. Sure! But we already know that this spell attacks with a melee attack which is a clear and defined game term.
So initial interpretation of the title leads us to believe that the spell includes something steel-like, something wind-like, and something that hits something.
Moving on:
You flourish the weapon used in the casting: So we have a melee weapon in our hand as we cast the instantaneous spell. Do we use it in other ways? We don't know.
Vanish: Something that disappears. Do we know where it disappears to? No? Disappointing, but nothing we can do about that for now.
"Vanish to strike": Ah! That is where we disappeared to! We vanished to strike with our melee attack! So far so good. We still don't know how we got from A to B though.
"Vanish to strike like the wind: Well now we know that the usage of wind in the title is idiomatic and not necessarily explicit! So we now know we move swiftly to hit someone with our melee attack.
"Make a melee spell attack against each target": Since a "melee spell attack" is a term defined in the game rules, we know exactly what this means: "...a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach" . So an attack within your reach (remember: there's a difference between "reach" and "range").
For those wondering about the difference between a normal "melee attack" and a "melee spell attack": "Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus".
So, we now know that we have a melee weapon in our hand and then somehow disappear to strike our targets quickly with a melee attack. But still don't know if we attack with the weapon in our hand or use something else (e.g. the back of our hand) to attack instead of the weapon. Neither do we know what exactly "disappear" means in this context.
Looking closer, we know that this is a spell from the School of Conjuration. Lets take a closer look at that school:
Looking at this school of magic it seems likely that something is being summoned, created, or teleported. What could this be?
"The weapon was obviously created!": Yeah no.
1. We already know that the weapon in our hand was a required component of the spellcasting which means we had it in hand before we cast the spell.
2. Or maybe we created a new weapon to attack with instead of our material component? Maybe, but I doubt that is the case as the spell would likely have told us that we suddenly have two weapons in our hands (and what if we were already duel wielding?!).
"The weapon was obviously teleported!": I don't think so.
1. Maybe the weapon is being teleported to our enemies and attack them all similar to a Spiritual Weapon? Could be, but seeing as Spiritual Weapon is an evocation spell, it is most likely not the case.
"The character was obviously teleported!: Much more likely.
1. Could it be that the character was teleported to all the targets to strike at them? Well seeing as the character Vanishes from where he stood, that is in line with the common idea of what happens when somebody teleports. Instantaneous teleportation certainly also sounds like it could make the character seem swift as the wind. It all adds up. But how does he Strike his targets? We know it's a melee attack and we are carrying a melee weapon in our hand. It would make sense that we'd use it. But it doesn't say so explicitly. But does it say it implicitly? What was the spell's name again? Steel Wind Strike. We know that Wind refers to our speed and Strike refers to how we hit our targets. Could Steel perhaps refer to the melee weapon in our hand? Maybe, but maybe not. Not all melee weapons are made of a steel-like material after all.
Nothing is certain, but a little common sense/logic deduction is necessary to interpret anything. Ideally, everything is always crystal clear, but you know...
Ok. I see the problem now. Thank you.
It's the beginning of the round, and on your turn, you look around, pick up to 5 of anything that can move on it's own, that you can see within 30 feet, and make a melee spell attack against each target. You flourish your weapon, and then you vanish, meaning you are invisible. The word "melee" seems to indicate that your target is close enough to hit with something you are holding in your hand. That's actually quite a ways if you're a Bugbear with a polearm. Something invisible is moving around trying to hit your targets, that would be the weapon you are holding onto, near as I can figure, and you are holding that, so you're invisibly moving around the room like the wind and hitting your targets with something that feels as hard as steel, (no matter what it is made of) and if you hit, each one takes 6d10 force damage.
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. You walked 30 feet, right up to your target, took a swing at it, hit or miss, then you vanished, stuff happened, and you can teleport right up to something that is as far as 30 feet away from you, and appear a total of 30 feet from the spot where you vanished. Total distance traveled would be 30 feet in front of you, anywhere near any of the things you took a swing at. Given that nobody could see a thing while this was going on, I'd describe it as a shape that vaguely looks like you rushing around swinging your weapon at your targets, and then popping up somewhere, possibly right where you were standing with weapon in mid flourish, or anywhere 30 feet in front of you that's 5 feet in front of any of your targets.
I almost forgot to mention Spirit Shroud. I don't see that anything I have said would change. The only difference is that you get an extra 1d8 worth of damage and the assorted effects that go with it if you hit.
<Insert clever signature here>
Im not sure why you stopped at post #60 to reply when the conversation continued with several followup posts, but a few rebuttals:
1) Titles are meaningless, they impart nothing more than a name, but even then, is the meaning of the title that steel strikes like the wind, or that the wind strikes like steel? based on word order, the second is more likely as it follows grammar more closely.
2) Other spells indicate melee spell attacks from greater than normal melee range (Thorn Whip is the obvious example). It is much much easier to infer that the melee spell attack is a specific exception to normal melee spell attacks (specific beats general being an actual rule in the game) than it is to add multiple teleports to a spell that only lists one.
3) As i said several times in the quoted post and in posts you possibly didn't read, no teleportation spell uses the word "vanish" as part of the teleport. the other flaw in the argument is that if vanish was used in the description of teleport, the word "reappear" (or something similar) should also appear to resolve the teleport. As it is, the spell uses the word "teleport" in full, and only after the attacks are made "then you teleport..." if you want to get into the semantics of word meanings, teleport implies the entire process by itself.
I think you are reading what you want to read here. if you want to read the spell that way, that is fine, but its not RAW.
1) As I wrote in my comment, the title can infer the intent of the spell, despite being much more vague and symbolic than the actual spell description. As I also wrote in my comment, the very first sentence of the spell description mentions "swift as the wind" (the idiom) making the "wind striking as steel" interpretation much less likely to be the intended interpretation.
2. Once again, as I wrote in my comment, there is a difference between Reach and Range. The whip is a weapon with Reach, and can therefore be used in melee combat without imposing disadvantage on its user. It is a logical assumption that Thorn Whip, being a magical whip, would also count as a weapon with Reach. Disregarding this simple logic to justify an abstract and non-explicit "exception" to the rules is much more farfetched in my opinion.
3. None of the other teleportation spells use the word vanish, correct. But so what? The word "Teleportation" is not a mechanical keyword defined in the rules. As such the meaning of the word rests on how it is commonly understood in the English language. To illustrate, the spell Misty Step mentions the word "teleport", but the spell Teleport only mentions the word off-hand in the bottom of the description and instead uses the word "transport" to describe the action itself in the first paragraph of the spell description. What all these spells have in common is that you instantaneously disappear from one location and reappear in another. This includes Steel Wind Strike that mentions how you disappear from one location only to strike your targets (with a melee attack) in another, implying you reappear for even the briefest moment. This is of course not explicitly stated, and perhaps the character runs or flies instead. We don't know. We only know that the spell allows you to use your action to cover a range of up to 150 feet (5x30 feet). And that the spell is tagged as a teleportation spell of course. However we choose to explain it, appropriate consequences should of course apply.
I too believe you are stuck in your own head regarding how RAW should be interpreted. After all, how can you interpret RAW without applying any common sense or logical assumptions? You can't, and telling others they shouldn't while you yourself apply your own make-believe is hypocritical.
Except my "totally made up spell" is exactly same as Steel Wind Strike save for the description of the spell components, if you hadn't noticed. And the only reason you can't cast Steel Wind Strike with a spell focus has nothing to do with the fact that a weapon is used in the casting, but because they made sure there was a monetary value for the component. Sans that 1 sp, you COULD cast it with a spell focus.
The other spells that require melee weapons with costs as components (Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade specifically) also have this text in their descriptions "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and...". Your argument seems to be that the "you brandish the weapon" is the key part of what makes Steel Wind Strike like those spells. I would argue that "and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects" is what SEPARATES Steel Wind Strike from those spells. For Greenflame and Booming, it is INCREDIBLY explicit that you are making a melee attack with that weapon, causing the damage of the weapon on each person being attacked. For SOME reason, Steel Wind Strike removed all that. Whether you're wielding a mundane dagger or a Holy Avenger or are a Rune Knight successfully wielding Gurt's Greataxe from Storm King, it's all 6d10 force. Why?
Because it's doing something very different than those other two spells, and willfully so.
Now, we can argue why. In fact, I think you and I AGREE why: for balance reasons. But because it was written vaguely, if we can't ignore the commonality between those spells as you argue, we can't ignore what makes them different either. And RAW, these spells are doing very, very different things.
As well, the final teleport describes you moving to an unoccupied space near the target. As written, you could still attack a creature that was totally surrounded by other creatures (and thus have no occupied spaces around them) even if you couldn't teleport to them at the end. The spell, as written, is ONLY concerned with your final position. It makes no mention of occupied or unoccupied spaces during those teleports. Which proffers the question: why not? Again, if we just want to say "the writers oopsied", well, that's all fine and good. But if we want to say "because the writers didn't want to give martial characters 5 chances to smite in a single turn for balance reasons", well, we're just as reasonable to do so, and then we have to start asking ourselves what else they actually meant to do. And maybe they didn't actually want any effects that might increase the damage of the spell to affect it, not just smites, nor to spread the effects of PBAoEs centered on the PC like Spirit Guardians or the Oath of Conquest aura. Maybe they also wanted PCs to be able to ignore persistent AoE's near creatures until the end of the spell (i.e. you can use this to evade damage from a Wall of Fire near a target). A simpler and quicker version of the spell (i.e. the one they actually wrote) would simply imply by absence that none of those things interact with the spell and it does what it says it does, and only what it says it does, and then you move on to the next person in initiative instead of figuring out whether, say, Blackrazor would take souls if anyone died from the spell or whatever. This makes complete sense, because part of 5e's design focus was to remove the crunch from combat for the sake of accessibility and round efficiency.
Now, as I said before, I actually agree with your interpretation of the spell. It's crunchier, and lord knows my own Oath of Conquest paladin is looking for scrolls of steel wind strike so he can reduce every creature on the map's speed to 0 and then return his saving throw aura to the back row of PCs, all in a single turn. All anyone is saying is the ability to do so is not RAW, and I would not complain if my DM ruled otherwise (or, at least, no more than any other time I am told "no", hehe). You're the one trying to argue that we should understand a particular implication as so clear that it "might as well be RAW". It's not, by your very own examples. The rest of us are just wondering why it's so necessary we should see it otherwise.
It's the middle of the night over here so forgive me for asking a question that might have an obvious answer: what makes you think you can't smite while using this spell?
Because the spell makes melee SPELL attacks, while Smite requires a melee WEAPON attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So, your argument here is: except for the rules that require a weapon, it's not required. Do you think they willy-nilly decided, "Hey, let's throw a material cost on the weapon used in casting this even though the weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the casting oft his spell"?? The description even mentions a weapon flourish! You literally CANNOT cast this spell unless you are holding a weapon, which means that the writers OBVIOUSLY wanted the weapon to be considered part of the spell.
That's like saying that the rope is Snare doesn't actually play any part of the spell.
You are not doing regular old weapon damage because you are "strik[ing] like the wind" as described in the spell. You are moving up to 218.4 ft. in an instant! You're striking so fast that your melee attacks deal force damage instead of slashing/piercing/bludgeoning.
Lastly, as CC said above, smiting is already out of the picture because these are melee spell attacks, not melee weapon attacks.