So, your argument here is: except for the rules that require a weapon, it's not required.
Well yes, but actually no. Technically, they left in all the references to using the weapon to make the attacks (all [data not found] of them).
And just to be clear, your argument is that any spell component the is required by the spell is "obviously" meant to be used to hit the target with? Could you post a link to that rule, I've never heard of it.
I've been following this thread closely, because of wanting to make a blade themed spell caster. My summary of the arguments are:
The spell's says, "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."
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Another observation: the spell says you "vanish to strike". Does the "to" here not imply that "vanish" is something necessary in order to strike? And as such, when making a logical deduction trying find out how you strike, vanishing needs to be a requirement for the following effect? As in, in order to teleport you first need to vanish before you can reappear, contra how vanishing is not a necessary act in order to run over to strike or send flying blades towards your opponent, or even create various duplicates of yourself that then strike your opponents.
If the sentence was "you swim to strike" we would assume that you had to swim out of necessity in order to strike. Otherwise why mention swimming at all? "You swim and then move to strike" would probably be how it would be worded if the action wasn't necessary in order to strike. If the sentence was "swim to strike" would you still believe ranged slashes or copies of yourself was a viable explanation?
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Another observation: the spell says you "vanish to strike". Does the "to" here not imply that "vanish" is something necessary in order to strike? And as such, when making a logical deduction trying find out how you strike, vanishing needs to be a requirement for the following effect? As in, in order to teleport you first need to vanish before you can reappear, contra how vanishing is not a necessary act in order to run over to strike or send flying blades towards your opponent, or even create various duplicates of yourself that then strike your opponents.
If the sentence was "you swim to strike" we would assume that you had to swim out of necessity in order to strike. Otherwise why mention swimming at all? "You swim and then move to strike" would probably be how it would be worded if the action wasn't necessary in order to strike. If the sentence was "swim to strike" would you still believe ranged slashes or copies of yourself was a viable explanation?
Because if you are teleporting every time you attack, you have to appear somewhere to make the attack from (even if you stay "vanished"), and that somewhere can't be the space of the creature itself, or another occupied space (due to other rules), so if there was no valid unoccupied space around a target, you could not teleport next to them to attack them.
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Well some people are arguing that because this spell makes melee spell attacks, then it must be made within the range of a weapon. In order to make an attack within the range of a weapon, you must be in a space that distance away. If all spaces are filled, it is impossible to be in a space in range. Being "vanished" does not change these rules unless it says it does, and it doesn't.
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Well some people are arguing that because this spell makes melee spell attacks, then it must be made within the range of a weapon. In order to make an attack within the range of a weapon, you must be in a space that distance away. If all spaces are filled, it is impossible to be in a space in range. Being "vanished" does not change these rules unless it says it does, and it doesn't.
You can be in the same space as the creature you're attacking.
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Well some people are arguing that because this spell makes melee spell attacks, then it must be made within the range of a weapon. In order to make an attack within the range of a weapon, you must be in a space that distance away. If all spaces are filled, it is impossible to be in a space in range. Being "vanished" does not change these rules unless it says it does, and it doesn't.
You can be in the same space as the creature you're attacking.
Not if the creature you’re attacking is an enemy (and within two size categories of you, but let’s not be distracted by outliers).
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Well some people are arguing that because this spell makes melee spell attacks, then it must be made within the range of a weapon. In order to make an attack within the range of a weapon, you must be in a space that distance away. If all spaces are filled, it is impossible to be in a space in range. Being "vanished" does not change these rules unless it says it does, and it doesn't.
You can be in the same space as the creature you're attacking.
Not if the creature you’re attacking is an enemy.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Well some people are arguing that because this spell makes melee spell attacks, then it must be made within the range of a weapon. In order to make an attack within the range of a weapon, you must be in a space that distance away. If all spaces are filled, it is impossible to be in a space in range. Being "vanished" does not change these rules unless it says it does, and it doesn't.
You can be in the same space as the creature you're attacking.
According to the PHB, you can't even stand in the same space as another creature (you can pass through under certain conditions, but not stop and do anything there).
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.
There are certain spells and traits that specifically overrule this. That is also why spells that teleport you always say "unoccupied space" like steel wind strike's teleport effect does.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
It's a melee spell attack at a target within 30 feet. There's no movement. Have you read the spell description? It's pretty clear. I'm sincerely not sure what point you think you're making.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
here you go; my interpretation of order and effect:
You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. (Introductory Summary of Spell, formatted the same as every other spell). Choose up to five creatures you can see within range (You select the targets) . Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage. (You make your attacks.)
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. (You teleport as described)
So mechanically, you select targets, then make a melee spell attack (at increased range, allowed per specific v. general), then teleport as described. I rule the "vanishing" is part of the summary of the spell, which is traditionally the first sentence and describes the spell effect as a whole. I rule you teleport after the attacks because the sentence indicating a teleport says "You can then..." which clearly means it happens after the other mechanics (attacks) are complete. Finally, "vanish" is not used in a mechanical description of teleportation spells, or invisibility spells, except in this spell and in describing instances of extraplanar travel (it is used in blink, wristpocket, and temporal shunt in addition to this spell, and in no others), so I don't believe it is an actual game mechanic (if it were, the spell would mention the [condition]invisible[/spell] condition, and the attacks would be made with advantage, but I believe that is not the RAI of this spell because again, nothing in the spell uses the actual mechanical terms (unseen/invisible) when making the attacks.
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
Moving Around Other Creatures You can move through a nonhostile creature's space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you.
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
here you go; my interpretation of order and effect:
You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. (Introductory Summary of Spell, formatted the same as every other spell). Choose up to five creatures you can see within range (You select the targets) . Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage. (You make your attacks.)
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed. (You teleport as described)
So mechanically, you select targets, then make a melee spell attack (at increased range, allowed per specific v. general), then teleport as described. I rule the "vanishing" is part of the summary of the spell, which is traditionally the first sentence and describes the spell effect as a whole. I rule you teleport after the attacks because the sentence indicating a teleport says "You can then..." which clearly means it happens after the other mechanics (attacks) are complete. Finally, "vanish" is not used in a mechanical description of teleportation spells, or invisibility spells, except in this spell and in describing instances of extraplanar travel (it is used in blink, wristpocket, and temporal shunt in addition to this spell, and in no others), so I don't believe it is an actual game mechanic (if it were, the spell would mention the [condition]invisible[/spell] condition, and the attacks would be made with advantage, but I believe that is not the RAI of this spell because again, nothing in the spell uses the actual mechanical terms (unseen/invisible) when making the attacks.
I'm not interested in a repeat of your mechanical explanation. I was asking you to narrate the spell effect as if you were a DM. I believe you are going to have a hard time doing so without adding new words to the spell description.
“Cloud swings his long sword in a great arc in the direction of the 4 hobgoblin enforcers and their bugbear leader. Their laughter at his fruitless gesture (he is 20 feet away, after all) turns to choking screams as, at the end of his swing, he vanishes just as an immediate wave of force strikes them all almost simultaneously. As the bugbear war chief begins to fall, his vision darkening, he sees Cloud reappear at his side, the words “you should never have attacked my village” being the last he ever hears.”
i will say though, that my description of a spell effect and the mechanics of the spell effect do not have to 100% align. I’ve said since the first page (actually the first response) of the thread that the mechanics and the implied descriptive intent may not align in this spell. But this is the rules and mechanics forum, not the DMs forum, so the mechanics are really what matters here
“Cloud swings his long sword in a great arc in the direction of the 4 hobgoblin enforcers and their bugbear leader. Their laughter at his fruitless gesture (he is 20 feet away, after all) turns to choking screams as, at the end of his swing, he vanishes just as an immediate wave of force strikes them all almost simultaneously. As the bugbear war chief begins to fall, his vision darkening, he sees Cloud reappear at his side, the words “you should never have attacked my village” being the last he ever hears.”
i will say though, that my description of a spell effect and the mechanics of the spell effect do not have to 100% align. I’ve said since the first page (actually the first response) of the thread that the mechanics and the implied descriptive intent may not align in this spell. But this is the rules and mechanics forum, not the DMs forum, so the mechanics are really what matters here
The reason I asked for you narrative description is because you discount all rule interpretations that do not align with your own, based on the narrative explanations set forth to make sense of the mechanics. You tell others that their interpretations are invalid because they add to the spell description, yet the only part of your own 3 line narration that matches the original spell description is the fact that the caster vanishes and that the targets are struck simultaneously. The rest is added. By your own logic, your interpretation is wrong.
There is no point in "interpreting" rules if you are not allowed to make logical deductions. Because if you aren't allowed to do this, it is not interpretation. If your stance is that the description of a spell needs to include all the words/phrases needed for a spell to function as intended, without the use of logical deductions to fill in the blanks (such as how the spell effect travels from A to B), then there are maaaaaany spells that are flawed from a design perspective. Rather than assuming that most spells in the game are flawed, it is more likely that they are not, but that the game design allows for logical deductions when reading the rules. Thereby not said that you can discount rules as you see fit because your subjective logical deductions point in a different direction than RAW.
If we are actually on the same page in the paragraph above, then I'd suggest not discounting rules explanations based on subjective narrative decisions that do not interfere with RAW.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know how the effect gets from A to B. We can only use logical deduction to come up with the most plausible answer. If you believe that it is more plausible that the spell wants you to fire a ranged attack and roll for a melee attack and vanish for no reason, than teleporting to your targets to strike them in a manner the spell specifically asks for (melee) while vanishing for a reason, then well... we disagree and can try our best to prove our own interpretation, but unless we find substantial support for our interpretation it is not something we can really argue about in regards to rules and mechanics.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well yes, but actually no. Technically, they left in all the references to using the weapon to make the attacks (all [data not found] of them).
And just to be clear, your argument is that any spell component the is required by the spell is "obviously" meant to be used to hit the target with? Could you post a link to that rule, I've never heard of it.
I've been following this thread closely, because of wanting to make a blade themed spell caster. My summary of the arguments are:
The spell's says, "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."
The spell does not say, "You move/teleport/appear to make attacks against the creatures with your weapon." But, people think it is implied/intended/obvious.
Let's ask the spell, "Say man, do you move the character between attacks?"
"No, not in between attacks."
"It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
That's the gist of it, yeah. Note that as is you don't have to worry about environmental damage or open spaces near your targets. There could be 8 body guards each with a different damaging aura around your target and you can still hit him safely.
If you had to teleport to hit, not only could you not hit the guy in the middle, but you would take a ton of damage targeting the body guards (popping in and out of their damage auras multiple times).
Why wouldn't you be able to hit the guy in the middle?
Another observation: the spell says you "vanish to strike". Does the "to" here not imply that "vanish" is something necessary in order to strike? And as such, when making a logical deduction trying find out how you strike, vanishing needs to be a requirement for the following effect? As in, in order to teleport you first need to vanish before you can reappear, contra how vanishing is not a necessary act in order to run over to strike or send flying blades towards your opponent, or even create various duplicates of yourself that then strike your opponents.
If the sentence was "you swim to strike" we would assume that you had to swim out of necessity in order to strike. Otherwise why mention swimming at all? "You swim and then move to strike" would probably be how it would be worded if the action wasn't necessary in order to strike. If the sentence was "swim to strike" would you still believe ranged slashes or copies of yourself was a viable explanation?
Because if you are teleporting every time you attack, you have to appear somewhere to make the attack from (even if you stay "vanished"), and that somewhere can't be the space of the creature itself, or another occupied space (due to other rules), so if there was no valid unoccupied space around a target, you could not teleport next to them to attack them.
Well some people are arguing that because this spell makes melee spell attacks, then it must be made within the range of a weapon. In order to make an attack within the range of a weapon, you must be in a space that distance away. If all spaces are filled, it is impossible to be in a space in range. Being "vanished" does not change these rules unless it says it does, and it doesn't.
You can be in the same space as the creature you're attacking.
Not if the creature you’re attacking is an enemy (and within two size categories of you, but let’s not be distracted by outliers).
Are you referring to the rules under Moving Around Other Creatures?
This rule states that you can't move through the space of a hostile creature, not that you can't move into it.
According to the PHB, you can't even stand in the same space as another creature (you can pass through under certain conditions, but not stop and do anything there).
There are certain spells and traits that specifically overrule this. That is also why spells that teleport you always say "unoccupied space" like steel wind strike's teleport effect does.
I can't think of a polite response to this.
"The laws of physics only prevent you from moving through solid walls, not into them."
That made me laugh tbh ;)
I hope we can agree that the word "through" has multiple meanings, the dominant one being entering and subsequently exiting a space? After all, in the context we're discussing, we are not moving into/through a wall (which has a completely different meaning) but moving into/through an open space.
Either way, you only "move" using this spell if the rules consider teleportation as a kind of movement. Otherwise, you are not using your movement as defined by the game mechanics as far as I am aware, thus completely allowing the caster to teleport into the space of the target and leave it again.
Rules only allow you to do what they say. if you are saying that this is allowed because it isn't explicitly denied, then that is an incorrect application of the rules. Assuming you want the teleportation to occur between attacks, then you follow the rules for teleportation, which even in this spell description require an unoccupied space to appear. Anything else is adding text that simply isn't there (in fact, I'd argue teleporting between attacks is already adding text that isn't there, and this whole argument is moot anyway; the spell simply doesn't allow for multiple teleports as written).
This spell mechanic as written (vanishing, attacking, then teleporting in that order) has the visual effect of teleporting and attacking as you go, but mechanically it is not exactly that. That is for a number of reasons, one being that popping in and out of reality means you take the effects of auras multiple times, and two being that the spell could defeat certain wall spells like Wall of Force if multiple teleports occur.
In your world, what happens after the caster vanishes and the strikes occur? Remember not to add anything that isn't written between those two words. That leaves you with the word "to". what kind of attack and/or movement is that? Specifics please
It's a melee spell attack at a target within 30 feet. There's no movement. Have you read the spell description? It's pretty clear. I'm sincerely not sure what point you think you're making.
here you go; my interpretation of order and effect:
So mechanically, you select targets, then make a melee spell attack (at increased range, allowed per specific v. general), then teleport as described. I rule the "vanishing" is part of the summary of the spell, which is traditionally the first sentence and describes the spell effect as a whole. I rule you teleport after the attacks because the sentence indicating a teleport says "You can then..." which clearly means it happens after the other mechanics (attacks) are complete. Finally, "vanish" is not used in a mechanical description of teleportation spells, or invisibility spells, except in this spell and in describing instances of extraplanar travel (it is used in blink, wristpocket, and temporal shunt in addition to this spell, and in no others), so I don't believe it is an actual game mechanic (if it were, the spell would mention the [condition]invisible[/spell] condition, and the attacks would be made with advantage, but I believe that is not the RAI of this spell because again, nothing in the spell uses the actual mechanical terms (unseen/invisible) when making the attacks.
I'm not interested in a repeat of your mechanical explanation. I was asking you to narrate the spell effect as if you were a DM. I believe you are going to have a hard time doing so without adding new words to the spell description.
“Cloud swings his long sword in a great arc in the direction of the 4 hobgoblin enforcers and their bugbear leader. Their laughter at his fruitless gesture (he is 20 feet away, after all) turns to choking screams as, at the end of his swing, he vanishes just as an immediate wave of force strikes them all almost simultaneously. As the bugbear war chief begins to fall, his vision darkening, he sees Cloud reappear at his side, the words “you should never have attacked my village” being the last he ever hears.”
i will say though, that my description of a spell effect and the mechanics of the spell effect do not have to 100% align. I’ve said since the first page (actually the first response) of the thread that the mechanics and the implied descriptive intent may not align in this spell. But this is the rules and mechanics forum, not the DMs forum, so the mechanics are really what matters here
The reason I asked for you narrative description is because you discount all rule interpretations that do not align with your own, based on the narrative explanations set forth to make sense of the mechanics. You tell others that their interpretations are invalid because they add to the spell description, yet the only part of your own 3 line narration that matches the original spell description is the fact that the caster vanishes and that the targets are struck simultaneously. The rest is added. By your own logic, your interpretation is wrong.
There is no point in "interpreting" rules if you are not allowed to make logical deductions. Because if you aren't allowed to do this, it is not interpretation. If your stance is that the description of a spell needs to include all the words/phrases needed for a spell to function as intended, without the use of logical deductions to fill in the blanks (such as how the spell effect travels from A to B), then there are maaaaaany spells that are flawed from a design perspective. Rather than assuming that most spells in the game are flawed, it is more likely that they are not, but that the game design allows for logical deductions when reading the rules. Thereby not said that you can discount rules as you see fit because your subjective logical deductions point in a different direction than RAW.
If we are actually on the same page in the paragraph above, then I'd suggest not discounting rules explanations based on subjective narrative decisions that do not interfere with RAW.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know how the effect gets from A to B. We can only use logical deduction to come up with the most plausible answer. If you believe that it is more plausible that the spell wants you to fire a ranged attack and roll for a melee attack and vanish for no reason, than teleporting to your targets to strike them in a manner the spell specifically asks for (melee) while vanishing for a reason, then well... we disagree and can try our best to prove our own interpretation, but unless we find substantial support for our interpretation it is not something we can really argue about in regards to rules and mechanics.
Yeah, here’s the difference. I “added” narrative language to fit the spell into the story. I ”enforced” my exact interpretation of the RAW. Please tell me if you think I added anything to the actual mechanics listed in the spell in my above narration, because I don’t think I did.
there is a difference between description and mechanics. You can add description all day long…I could turn that one spell into 5 minutes of narration if I want, I could even treat it narratively exactly how you want it, with the caster teleporting each time. BUT, you cannot add to mechanics if you are playing a RAW based game. If you play RAF, then go ahead, make the game what you want, have the spell teleport you around like night crawler. That is fine. But for those who have questions about RAW, the RAW here is pretty plain and does not really allow for that, because it says you only teleport once