He literally says "...You do vanish from your starting location, as you start teleporting around the battlefield, but you blink into view as you make each attack and then teleport to your final destination." which to me is a pretty clear indication that you are teleporting around the battlefield to make your attacks, not just vanishing and making long range attacks.
Welcome to the forums! It certainly expresses his opinion, but the only tweets of his with rulings that are "official" have been codified into the Sage Advice Compendium, which you can read on this site. The tweet referenced was not one that was included. Now, if you are a DM, you are more than welcome to treat his tweet as official, but it is a good example of where his intent (at least in his tweet) do not line up with the plain language that is included in the actual rules (which only indicates a single teleport after the attacks are made).
(Not wanting to reopen the thread, just explaining why said post didn't end the discussion)
Jeremy Crawford confirms that you make the attack on each enemy by teleporting to each one and are seen by each one at the time of the attacks. I would say it follows you if its centered on you.
Jeremy Crawford confirms that you make the attack on each enemy by teleporting to each one and are seen by each one at the time of the attacks. I would say it follows you if its centered on you.
For people who care what JC has to say, it's helpful to provide a link to the tweet in question.
Jeremy Crawford confirms that you make the attack on each enemy by teleporting to each one and are seen by each one at the time of the attacks. I would say it follows you if its centered on you.
For people who care what JC has to say, it's helpful to provide a link to the tweet in question.
True.
I believe the referred to link is likely the same that was brought up on page 2 in this thread.
But why on earth would you vanish to swing your weapon really fast? And how would swinging your weapon really fast let you teleport to a target? Also, wouldnd't "throwing" the wind be a ranged attack that would benefit from cover?
The only way I could see this working without the caster moving is if they threw their weapon, vanish, the weapon darts between the targets (ala Yondu's arrow from GotG), and then they appear where the weapon stops. BUT these would then need to be ranged spell attacks as they would most certainly benefit from cover. I think that people are being willfully ignorant to believe that the caster would not be "striking like the wind" and moving between targets.
I do wanna point out here that you're assuming that only ranged attacks benefit from cover when this isn't true at all. All attacks are affected by cover. For example if you're hitting a 6ft tall creature in melee who is standing behind a 3ft high wall, they have half cover because you can't hit their legs. Same thing when you're using a reach weapon and trying to strike a creature behind another creature.
That said I do like the Yondu's arrow interpretation, it would be melee attacks just like a flying sword, and I think if that was the case it would solve a lot of the issues surrounding aura effects because the character themselves don't move till the end of the spell. Who knows if that's the intent though.
But a thrown weapon, even if magically thrown, would still be a ranged attack (see Magic Stone). The fact that it is a melee attack I think would necessitate teleportation.
Ropers and the Lonely both exist, you know. But I doubt we're discussing anything new that hasn't already been discussed earlier in the thread.
But a thrown weapon, even if magically thrown, would still be a ranged attack (see Magic Stone). The fact that it is a melee attack I think would necessitate teleportation.
Ropers and the Lonely both exist, you know. But I doubt we're discussing anything new that hasn't already been discussed earlier in the thread.
Except, those are not thrown, those are natural weapons with reach (tentacles and really long arms, respectively). Unless you are implying that the flourished weapon grows to be 30 feet long with Steel Wind Strike?
If that's how you want to describe the mechanics, which involving making a melee attack against a creature up to 30 feet away, I think that's perfectly fine.
But a thrown weapon, even if magically thrown, would still be a ranged attack (see Magic Stone). The fact that it is a melee attack I think would necessitate teleportation.
Ropers and the Lonely both exist, you know. But I doubt we're discussing anything new that hasn't already been discussed earlier in the thread.
Except, those are not thrown, those are natural weapons with reach (tentacles and really long arms, respectively). Unless you are implying that the flourished weapon grows to be 30 feet long with Steel Wind Strike?
Something I know we discussed in this thread is that the flourished weapon isn't used to deliver the SWS strikes. This is easy to demonstrate: a halfling wielding a shield with a nonmagical greatsword strapped to their back can legally cast the spell, and it works, whereas the halfling can't attack with the greatsword (due to the shield) and if they could they'd have disadvantage (which they won't have on the spell's melee attacks) and deal nonmagical slashing damage rather than magical force damage. The weapon is a component of the spell, and is flourished during the casting of it, but that's where the weapon's relevance ends.
The only question I don't remember this thread already answering - because we were focused on the original question of whether or not the caster changes locations for the melee attacks, and we did already come to an answer - is I don't remember if we ever hashed out what it means that spell forces the caster to "vanish" and has no obvious wording for un-vanishing them. We could probably have a whole second thread trying to determine if the caster is by definition unseen during the attacks and, if so, when (if ever) they cease to be unseen.
But a thrown weapon, even if magically thrown, would still be a ranged attack (see Magic Stone). The fact that it is a melee attack I think would necessitate teleportation.
Ropers and the Lonely both exist, you know. But I doubt we're discussing anything new that hasn't already been discussed earlier in the thread.
Except, those are not thrown, those are natural weapons with reach (tentacles and really long arms, respectively). Unless you are implying that the flourished weapon grows to be 30 feet long with Steel Wind Strike?
Something I know we discussed in this thread is that the flourished weapon isn't used to deliver the SWS strikes. This is easy to demonstrate: a halfling wielding a shield with a nonmagical greatsword strapped to their back can legally cast the spell, and it works, whereas the halfling can't attack with the greatsword (due to the shield) and if they could they'd have disadvantage (which they won't have on the spell's melee attacks) and deal nonmagical slashing damage rather than magical force damage. The weapon is a component of the spell, and is flourished during the casting of it, but that's where the weapon's relevance ends.
The only question I don't remember this thread already answering - because we were focused on the original question of whether or not the caster changes locations for the melee attacks, and we did already come to an answer - is I don't remember if we ever hashed out what it means that spell forces the caster to "vanish" and has no obvious wording for un-vanishing them. We could probably have a whole second thread trying to determine if the caster is by definition unseen during the attacks and, if so, when (if ever) they cease to be unseen.
Pretty sure we covered the vanishing part of the spell description. If I recall correctly the group that went for the strictly literal interpretation argued that the caster was invisible (or on another plane of existence?) before they attacked, while the non-literal group went with teleportation (or other movement) to explain how you "vanish to strike like the wind".
But why on earth would you vanish to swing your weapon really fast? And how would swinging your weapon really fast let you teleport to a target? Also, wouldnd't "throwing" the wind be a ranged attack that would benefit from cover?
The only way I could see this working without the caster moving is if they threw their weapon, vanish, the weapon darts between the targets (ala Yondu's arrow from GotG), and then they appear where the weapon stops. BUT these would then need to be ranged spell attacks as they would most certainly benefit from cover. I think that people are being willfully ignorant to believe that the caster would not be "striking like the wind" and moving between targets.
I do wanna point out here that you're assuming that only ranged attacks benefit from cover when this isn't true at all. All attacks are affected by cover. For example if you're hitting a 6ft tall creature in melee who is standing behind a 3ft high wall, they have half cover because you can't hit their legs. Same thing when you're using a reach weapon and trying to strike a creature behind another creature.
That said I do like the Yondu's arrow interpretation, it would be melee attacks just like a flying sword, and I think if that was the case it would solve a lot of the issues surrounding aura effects because the character themselves don't move till the end of the spell. Who knows if that's the intent though.
But a thrown weapon, even if magically thrown, would still be a ranged attack (see Magic Stone). The fact that it is a melee attack I think would necessitate teleportation.
I mean, we all know what the intent was because of the JC tweet. I know some people don't like to go with anything he says, but since this is THE ONLY insight we have to the intent, and it works 100% with how the spell is written, I don't see how you can pretend that we still have no idea. I honestly don't think it has made it into the SAC because except for this corner case, there isn't any other mechanical difference.
No that's the point though, Yondu's arrow or a dancing / flying sword aren't thrown weapons, they're flying melee weapons that make melee attacks from the space they're in because they're animated in their own right. So if you imagine the spell like this (whether the weapon teleports between targets or flies like those examples do is largely mechanically irrelevant), we can say that the weapon is animated, teleports between targets, strikes each once, then finally you teleport to it's final location, that ticks all the boxes of:
- Melee attacks vs every target - Involves some kind of rapid teleportation between targets - The caster does not move until after all the attacks have been made - Your aura effects only include those within range from your initial position (ie in the original case of spirit shroud) - You don't enter any other creatures auras or melee range until the final teleport - Don't need to worry about cover from your position
So for me this seems like the most logical, least annoying to run way of thinking about it while following RAW & the spell's intent. (Or you can just say you flourish the weapon, disappear, and up to 6 magical force wotsits do the melee attacks, same net result)
I think using the word vanish was just a mistake. It’s not invisibility because they would have used the word that’s already defined if they wanted to. But yea what is vanishing? Where’s you go? If you vanish why can you stilll see the targets? It also gives you the option to teleport to a creature you targeted if you like, but what if you don’t? Teleporting seems like a good way to appear when you “vanish” but if you don’t teleport, it doesn’t say you reappear.
I love this spell so much, but I selfishly want it clarified and potentially even re-written. I use this spell all the time on my war wizard.
Ok but he only answered on the case about getting advantage for "vanishing" he hasn't clarified on any interaction between spells or aura effects. So this doesn't seem like a clear cut clarification
You can't be in he same space as someone your attacking
Where in the rules does it say that?
If that was true, swarm monsters would be unable to attack at all.
The PHB's rules on moving around other creatures make it clear that you cannot move through the space of a hostile creature unless it's two size categories smaller or larger than you.
Swarms have the "Swarm" trait that provides an explicit exception to this rule.
The PHB's rules on moving around other creatures make it clear that you cannot move through the space of a hostile creature unless it's two size categories smaller or larger than you.
Swarms have the "Swarm" trait that provides an explicit exception to this rule.
That's my point, it's a blanket statement to say that because the rules don't don't say that at all, it instead say you can't move in it's space unless size permit but nor can you willingly end there. If you end there unwillingly, or can attack during movement, nothings prevent you from doing so.
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. Remember that another creature's space is difficult terrain for you. Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space. If you leave a hostile creature's reach during your move, you provoke an opportunity attack, as explained later in the section.
But with swarm monsters it gives that explicit exception. So in order for that to work with SWS it would have to give that explicit exception. General rule is you can't be in the same space unless your two sizes smaller then the target
But with swarm monsters it gives that explicit exception. So in order for that to work with SWS it would have to give that explicit exception. General rule is you can't be in the same space unless your two sizes smaller then the target
That's not an accurate representation of the rule. The rule is that you can't use your movement to go into the space of another creature unless it is at least 2 sizes larger or smaller than you. If a spell simply says that you are in the space of another creature, then the rule has no importance, and you follow the rules of the spell. Of course, you still can't end your turn there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Welcome to the forums! It certainly expresses his opinion, but the only tweets of his with rulings that are "official" have been codified into the Sage Advice Compendium, which you can read on this site. The tweet referenced was not one that was included. Now, if you are a DM, you are more than welcome to treat his tweet as official, but it is a good example of where his intent (at least in his tweet) do not line up with the plain language that is included in the actual rules (which only indicates a single teleport after the attacks are made).
(Not wanting to reopen the thread, just explaining why said post didn't end the discussion)
Jeremy Crawford confirms that you make the attack on each enemy by teleporting to each one and are seen by each one at the time of the attacks. I would say it follows you if its centered on you.
For people who care what JC has to say, it's helpful to provide a link to the tweet in question.
True.
I believe the referred to link is likely the same that was brought up on page 2 in this thread.
I do wanna point out here that you're assuming that only ranged attacks benefit from cover when this isn't true at all. All attacks are affected by cover. For example if you're hitting a 6ft tall creature in melee who is standing behind a 3ft high wall, they have half cover because you can't hit their legs. Same thing when you're using a reach weapon and trying to strike a creature behind another creature.
That said I do like the Yondu's arrow interpretation, it would be melee attacks just like a flying sword, and I think if that was the case it would solve a lot of the issues surrounding aura effects because the character themselves don't move till the end of the spell. Who knows if that's the intent though.
Ropers and the Lonely both exist, you know. But I doubt we're discussing anything new that hasn't already been discussed earlier in the thread.
If that's how you want to describe the mechanics, which involving making a melee attack against a creature up to 30 feet away, I think that's perfectly fine.
Something I know we discussed in this thread is that the flourished weapon isn't used to deliver the SWS strikes. This is easy to demonstrate: a halfling wielding a shield with a nonmagical greatsword strapped to their back can legally cast the spell, and it works, whereas the halfling can't attack with the greatsword (due to the shield) and if they could they'd have disadvantage (which they won't have on the spell's melee attacks) and deal nonmagical slashing damage rather than magical force damage. The weapon is a component of the spell, and is flourished during the casting of it, but that's where the weapon's relevance ends.
The only question I don't remember this thread already answering - because we were focused on the original question of whether or not the caster changes locations for the melee attacks, and we did already come to an answer - is I don't remember if we ever hashed out what it means that spell forces the caster to "vanish" and has no obvious wording for un-vanishing them. We could probably have a whole second thread trying to determine if the caster is by definition unseen during the attacks and, if so, when (if ever) they cease to be unseen.
Pretty sure we covered the vanishing part of the spell description. If I recall correctly the group that went for the strictly literal interpretation argued that the caster was invisible (or on another plane of existence?) before they attacked, while the non-literal group went with teleportation (or other movement) to explain how you "vanish to strike like the wind".
No that's the point though, Yondu's arrow or a dancing / flying sword aren't thrown weapons, they're flying melee weapons that make melee attacks from the space they're in because they're animated in their own right. So if you imagine the spell like this (whether the weapon teleports between targets or flies like those examples do is largely mechanically irrelevant), we can say that the weapon is animated, teleports between targets, strikes each once, then finally you teleport to it's final location, that ticks all the boxes of:
- Melee attacks vs every target
- Involves some kind of rapid teleportation between targets
- The caster does not move until after all the attacks have been made
- Your aura effects only include those within range from your initial position (ie in the original case of spirit shroud)
- You don't enter any other creatures auras or melee range until the final teleport
- Don't need to worry about cover from your position
So for me this seems like the most logical, least annoying to run way of thinking about it while following RAW & the spell's intent.
(Or you can just say you flourish the weapon, disappear, and up to 6 magical force wotsits do the melee attacks, same net result)
I think using the word vanish was just a mistake. It’s not invisibility because they would have used the word that’s already defined if they wanted to. But yea what is vanishing? Where’s you go? If you vanish why can you stilll see the targets? It also gives you the option to teleport to a creature you targeted if you like, but what if you don’t? Teleporting seems like a good way to appear when you “vanish” but if you don’t teleport, it doesn’t say you reappear.
I love this spell so much, but I selfishly want it clarified and potentially even re-written. I use this spell all the time on my war wizard.
Bobbybaker is only one being and not several.
I try pretty hard to not be multiple people, sometimes I fail.
Ok but he only answered on the case about getting advantage for "vanishing" he hasn't clarified on any interaction between spells or aura effects. So this doesn't seem like a clear cut clarification
You can't be in he same space as someone your attacking
Where in the rules does it say that?
If that was true, swarm monsters would be unable to attack at all.
The PHB's rules on moving around other creatures make it clear that you cannot move through the space of a hostile creature unless it's two size categories smaller or larger than you.
Swarms have the "Swarm" trait that provides an explicit exception to this rule.
That's my point, it's a blanket statement to say that because the rules don't don't say that at all, it instead say you can't move in it's space unless size permit but nor can you willingly end there. If you end there unwillingly, or can attack during movement, nothings prevent you from doing so.
But with swarm monsters it gives that explicit exception. So in order for that to work with SWS it would have to give that explicit exception. General rule is you can't be in the same space unless your two sizes smaller then the target
That's not an accurate representation of the rule. The rule is that you can't use your movement to go into the space of another creature unless it is at least 2 sizes larger or smaller than you. If a spell simply says that you are in the space of another creature, then the rule has no importance, and you follow the rules of the spell. Of course, you still can't end your turn there.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)