As long as we're talking about Steelwind Strike...
1. Since you 'vanish to strike like the wind', are you unseen and thus gain advantage on each attack roll?
2. What if you are hiding when you cast the spell (only an S component, so the spell itself doesn't break hiding). Are the attacks simultaneous (and thus you get advantage on all of them, since you were 'invisible' when you made the attacks? Especially confusing since Mearls and Crawford gave opposite answers on a similar question with Eldritch Blast)
3. If attacks are in order, do you have to determine where you are after each strike, to determine if the next strike target can see you or not? (Actually, this makes me think that one of the first two must be 'yes', because you aren't anywhere while making the attacks.)
4. If you cast from hiding/invisible, and choose a spot that's fully obscured from all (living) enemies to appear after the spell, should they really know where you are? (Example 1: You have an illusion that is not disbelieved that you can appear behind/inside. Example 2: You appear next to a creature which died, and are behind total cover from all other enemies).
I know #4 is a RAW 'yes, they know where you are' because you made an attack roll, but well, people argue common sense against RAW on 'find you' disfavoring the hiding character. Here's a case where common sense says 'no, they should have no idea where you are', even though it involved an attack roll, because you aren't where most of the attacks actually hit.
Edit: Actually, I am unsure on the #4 RAW. Because if 'vanish' means (assuming miniatures/grid) "pick your piece up from the game board", then you aren't anywhere during the attacks to be 'located'. You teleport into your final position last, after all attacks are resolved. if instead you stay in the position where the spell was cast while the attacks are made, the position that is revealed is the position you cast from, not the position you will teleport to after the strikes. (And since, by construction, you're unseen after the teleport, you'd need to determine if you can be heard... seems doubtful in most combat situations.)
1. You vanish but are not granted the rank of Master do not gain the Invisible Condition. There is no opportunity attacks because there is no movement from the spell until the teleportation after the attacks are resolved. The spell never says you move between attacks; the movement is an incorrect assumption because the spell requires melee spell attacks, however, just like a whip has a 15 foot melee range, this spell has a 30 foot melee range. Technically, there is no mechanical effect of vanishing and if someone is eligible to react to you making an attack from your position when you cast the spell, they still are but there is a strong argument for disadvantage at least up to fully preventing the reaction.
2. Somatic and material, but that doesn't invalidate your question. Yes, if you are invisible from Hiding or from another source, you benefit from the effects for the spell, typically ending after making an attack roll. I presume that all attack rolls from the spell happen simultaneously and would benefit or not benefit from Invisibility but there may be some technicality that I am forgetting that requires the attacks to be resolved in a sequence and only the first attack has advantage. I don't think so though.
3. Yes and no. You don't move before or between each strike and there may not be a "between each strike". Your position when you make each attack is the position at the time that you cast the spell.
4. No, they wouldn't necessarily know where you were. 4.1 would give you an opportunity to make another Hide check but you would not remain hidden automatically. If you are a Rogue (maybe an Arcane Trickster), you could use a Bonus Action to Hide after the spell casting to regain the hidden condition. 4.2 The total cover is a separate stipulation and would be difficult to achieve unless you killed one of the targets. Remember that you would need to see each target as well as your destination from your original position and, in this case, you would also need the destination to be obscured from the surviving targets and your space to be withing 5 feet of a target. Any wall or objects of significant substance will push you out of that 5 foot range.
As long as we're talking about Steelwind Strike...
1. Since you 'vanish to strike like the wind', are you unseen and thus gain advantage on each attack roll?
2. What if you are hiding when you cast the spell (only an S component, so the spell itself doesn't break hiding). Are the attacks simultaneous (and thus you get advantage on all of them, since you were 'invisible' when you made the attacks? Especially confusing since Mearls and Crawford gave opposite answers on a similar question with Eldritch Blast)
3. If attacks are in order, do you have to determine where you are after each strike, to determine if the next strike target can see you or not? (Actually, this makes me think that one of the first two must be 'yes', because you aren't anywhere while making the attacks.)
4. If you cast from hiding/invisible, and choose a spot that's fully obscured from all (living) enemies to appear after the spell, should they really know where you are? (Example 1: You have an illusion that is not disbelieved that you can appear behind/inside. Example 2: You appear next to a creature which died, and are behind total cover from all other enemies).
I know #4 is a RAW 'yes, they know where you are' because you made an attack roll, but well, people argue common sense against RAW on 'find you' disfavoring the hiding character. Here's a case where common sense says 'no, they should have no idea where you are', even though it involved an attack roll, because you aren't where most of the attacks actually hit.
Edit: Actually, I am unsure on the #4 RAW. Because if 'vanish' means (assuming miniatures/grid) "pick your piece up from the game board", then you aren't anywhere during the attacks to be 'located'. You teleport into your final position last, after all attacks are resolved. if instead you stay in the position where the spell was cast while the attacks are made, the position that is revealed is the position you cast from, not the position you will teleport to after the strikes. (And since, by construction, you're unseen after the teleport, you'd need to determine if you can be heard... seems doubtful in most combat situations.)
1. You vanish but are not granted the rank of Master do not gain the Invisible Condition. There is no opportunity attacks because there is no movement from the spell until the teleportation after the attacks are resolved. The spell never says you move between attacks; the movement is an incorrect assumption because the spell requires melee spell attacks, however, just like a whip has a 15 foot melee range, this spell has a 30 foot melee range. Technically, there is no mechanical effect of vanishing and if someone is eligible to react to you making an attack from your position when you cast the spell, they still are but there is a strong argument for disadvantage at least up to fully preventing the reaction.
2. Somatic and material, but that doesn't invalidate your question. Yes, if you are invisible from Hiding or from another source, you benefit from the effects for the spell, typically ending after making an attack roll. I presume that all attack rolls from the spell happen simultaneously and would benefit or not benefit from Invisibility but there may be some technicality that I am forgetting that requires the attacks to be resolved in a sequence and only the first attack has advantage. I don't think so though.
3. Yes and no. You don't move before or between each strike and there may not be a "between each strike". Your position when you make each attack is the position at the time that you cast the spell.
4. No, they wouldn't necessarily know where you were. 4.1 would give you an opportunity to make another Hide check but you would not remain hidden automatically. If you are a Rogue (maybe an Arcane Trickster), you could use a Bonus Action to Hide after the spell casting to regain the hidden condition. 4.2 The total cover is a separate stipulation and would be difficult to achieve unless you killed one of the targets. Remember that you would need to see each target as well as your destination from your original position and, in this case, you would also need the destination to be obscured from the surviving targets and your space to be withing 5 feet of a target. Any wall or objects of significant substance will push you out of that 5 foot range.
So, you stay where you are ('vanish' doesn't mean anything). You make up to 5 simultaneous attacks (which reveals your initial position if hidden). Then you teleport to a final position.
4.1 Best way to make a bonus action Hide check is to play a Goblin. Second best way is actually a Thief subclass (and cast it off a scroll) - and then you can take a normal hide action, since you can read the scroll as a bonus action! (Or the other way around, it really doesn't matter). (Arcane Trickster is also likely to need to cast it off a scroll).
Still seems silly to me that they know where you are unless you take a hide action - they can't see you, and they probably can't hear you unless the combat is literally just you without a party (and even then, determining a particular 5' square is your location off of sound alone seems ... unlikely). 5e rules on knowing creature locations are dumb beyond belief.
4.2 I mean, yes, it probably requires one creature to die, which is why I specified that.
So, you stay where you are ('vanish' doesn't mean anything). You make up to 5 simultaneous attacks (which reveals your initial position if hidden). Then you teleport to a final position.
Ending hidden doesn't necessarily mean the enemy knows where you are. Hidden just prevents them from finding you via the invisible condition. Discuss the situation with your DM.
4.1 Best way to make a bonus action Hide check is to play a Goblin. Second best way is actually a Thief subclass (and cast it off a scroll) - and then you can take a normal hide action, since you can read the scroll as a bonus action! (Or the other way around, it really doesn't matter). (Arcane Trickster is also likely to need to cast it off a scroll).
A Goblin's Nimble Escape does the same thing as a Rogue's Cunning Action. It's available at level 1 and more limited than Cunning Action but all Rogues have Cunning Action at level 2 (Arcane Trickster and Thief). A Thief won't be able to use the scroll until level 13. Arcane Tricksters can't cast it from a scroll but could use an Enspelled Item for it.
So, you stay where you are ('vanish' doesn't mean anything). You make up to 5 simultaneous attacks (which reveals your initial position if hidden). Then you teleport to a final position.
Ending hidden doesn't necessarily mean the enemy knows where you are. Hidden just prevents them from finding you via the invisible condition. Discuss the situation with your DM.
4.1 Best way to make a bonus action Hide check is to play a Goblin. Second best way is actually a Thief subclass (and cast it off a scroll) - and then you can take a normal hide action, since you can read the scroll as a bonus action! (Or the other way around, it really doesn't matter). (Arcane Trickster is also likely to need to cast it off a scroll).
A Goblin's Nimble Escape does the same thing as a Rogue's Cunning Action. It's available at level 1 and more limited than Cunning Action but all Rogues have Cunning Action at level 2 (Arcane Trickster and Thief). A Thief won't be able to use the scroll until level 13. Arcane Tricksters can't cast it from a scroll but could use an Enspelled Item for it.
That's a good point, it ends invisibility from hiding, but if you're moving silently, that's separate from invisibility... and totally DM discretion.
Arcane Trickster uses the wizard spell list, right? So should be able to read any wizard spell scrolls?
(The point of mentioning goblin is its a species, not a class, so you can play a goblin wizard and not worry about splashing Rogue 2 into a wizard build).
Arcane Trickster uses the wizard spell list, right? So should be able to read any wizard spell scrolls?
Arcane Trickster only goes up to 4th level and Steel Wind Strike is 5th level. While technically Arcane Trickster uses the Wizard Spell List, I would only consider spells up to 4th level as Arcane Trickster spells.
Arcane Trickster uses the wizard spell list, right? So should be able to read any wizard spell scrolls?
Arcane Trickster only goes up to 4th level and Steel Wind Strike is 5th level. While technically Arcane Trickster uses the Wizard Spell List, I would only consider spells up to 4th level as Arcane Trickster spells.
I'd say there's no such limitation, since the only requirement is: "If the spell is on your spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without Material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible". And the spell list for the Arcane Trickster is the entire Wizard spell list, even if you can't prepare spells of some levels.
For you to meet a Spell Scroll’s requirement, the spell on the scroll needs to be on whatever spell list is used by your class. Here are two examples. If you’re a Cleric, the spell must be on the Cleric spell list, and if you’re a Fighter with the Eldritch Knight subclass, the spell must be on the Wizard spell list, because that is the spell list used by your subclass.
As long as we're talking about Steelwind Strike...
1. Since you 'vanish to strike like the wind', are you unseen and thus gain advantage on each attack roll?
I am actually on board with this idea.
General rule for Unseen Attackers and Targets:
When a creature can’t see you, you have Advantage on attack rolls against it.
Steel Wind Strike effect:
. . . and then vanish to strike like the wind.
Spells do what they say.
The first thing that happens with this spell effect after flourishing the weapon is that you "vanish".
The word "to" in this context means "in order to". When you do the first thing "in order to" do the second thing it means that the first thing is done before the second thing -- or at the very least that the second thing is done while the first thing is happening. So, in this case, attacks are made after, or perhaps while, the spellcaster has "vanished".
A common English definition of the word "vanish":
-- to disappear from sight, especially quickly; become invisible.
You do not have to actually have the Invisible condition in this game in order to be unseen. There are many reasons why you might be unseen. By definition, "vanishing" is most certainly one of those reasons. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any way within the game that a creature can see another creature who has vanished -- not even Truesight.
RAW, it seems correct to allow for the attack rolls from this spell to be made with advantage.
2. What if you are hiding when you cast the spell (only an S component, so the spell itself doesn't break hiding). Are the attacks simultaneous (and thus you get advantage on all of them, since you were 'invisible' when you made the attacks? Especially confusing since Mearls and Crawford gave opposite answers on a similar question with Eldritch Blast)
In this case it wouldn't actually matter since you have vanished while making these attacks as per the above question. So, whether or not you remain hidden for all of the attacks would have no impact on the fact that you make all of these attacks with advantage.
However, suppose that you didn't vanish as part of the spell, but the rest of the spell description remained the same and you cast this spell while hidden. Based on the spell description, these attacks should be treated as happening and resolving simultaneously.
Unfortunately, and perhaps counterintuitively, this game has this rule:
Simultaneous Effects
If two or more things happen at the same time on a turn, the person at the game table—player or DM—whose turn it is decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the start of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the effects happens first.
So, does this mean that the resolution of each attack constitutes separate and therefore simultaneous "effects"? Or is this all one (spell) "effect"? For example, when we cast an instantaneous AoE spell such as Fireball, we don't really think of all of the affected creatures as being damaged "in sequential order". We think of all of that damage as being resolved "at the same time". Is that actually correct? Or, how about a spell such as Magic Missile which explicitly states that "The darts all strike simultaneously" -- in cases where it might matter, do the various creatures that are struck by a Magic Missile spell take this damage in some sort of order?
I think that it is reasonable to rule that the effects of a spell within the spell description all count as being part of only one effect which means that the Simultaneous Effects rule should not apply. As a result, if you are hidden when you cast this spell, you would remain hidden until all of the attacks are resolved. Again, it wouldn't matter in this particular case since you are attacking while "vanished" anyway, but in a similar situation you would resolve all of the attacks before becoming no longer hidden.
4. If you cast from hiding/invisible, and choose a spot that's fully obscured from all (living) enemies to appear after the spell, should they really know where you are? (Example 1: You have an illusion that is not disbelieved that you can appear behind/inside. Example 2: You appear next to a creature which died, and are behind total cover from all other enemies).
I know #4 is a RAW 'yes, they know where you are' because you made an attack roll, but well, people argue common sense against RAW on 'find you' disfavoring the hiding character. Here's a case where common sense says 'no, they should have no idea where you are', even though it involved an attack roll, because you aren't where most of the attacks actually hit.
Edit: Actually, I am unsure on the #4 RAW. Because if 'vanish' means (assuming miniatures/grid) "pick your piece up from the game board", then you aren't anywhere during the attacks to be 'located'. You teleport into your final position last, after all attacks are resolved. if instead you stay in the position where the spell was cast while the attacks are made, the position that is revealed is the position you cast from, not the position you will teleport to after the strikes. (And since, by construction, you're unseen after the teleport, you'd need to determine if you can be heard... seems doubtful in most combat situations.)
Mechanically what happens here is that your position is given away when your attack is resolved:
You stop being hidden immediately after . . . you make an attack roll . . .
If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
Now, it's reasonable to rule that after this occurs you then teleport to a new location that is potentially Heavily Obscured such as into an area of Darkness. But this doesn't mean that you are hidden after the teleportation -- it just means that you are currently Unseen. In order to become hidden, you would need to take the Hide action (again).
This is a pretty common result. For example, if you successfully Hide inside of a building and then you peek out to three-quarters cover to fire an arrow at someone with your longbow, as soon as that attack is resolved you are no longer hidden. On that same turn you might then use your movement to disappear deep inside of that building and totally out of view. But you are not actually hidden at that moment. In order to become hidden again you would need to take the Hide action again.
As long as we're talking about Steelwind Strike...
1. Since you 'vanish to strike like the wind', are you unseen and thus gain advantage on each attack roll?
I am actually on board with this idea.
General rule for Unseen Attackers and Targets:
When a creature can’t see you, you have Advantage on attack rolls against it.
Steel Wind Strike effect:
. . . and then vanish to strike like the wind.
Spells do what they say.
The first thing that happens with this spell effect after flourishing the weapon is that you "vanish".
The word "to" in this context means "in order to". When you do the first thing "in order to" do the second thing it means that the first thing is done before the second thing -- or at the very least that the second thing is done while the first thing is happening. So, in this case, attacks are made after, or perhaps while, the spellcaster has "vanished".
A common English definition of the word "vanish":
-- to disappear from sight, especially quickly; become invisible.
You do not have to actually have the Invisible condition in this game in order to be unseen. There are many reasons why you might be unseen. By definition, "vanishing" is most certainly one of those reasons. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any way within the game that a creature can see another creature who has vanished -- not even Truesight.
RAW, it seems correct to allow for the attack rolls from this spell to be made with advantage.
I disagree. Spells say what they do, outside of descriptive text. Vanishing is not a recognized mechanical effect. You are proposing a 5th level spell provides an automatic successful hide check or invisibility, plus up to 5 attacks (for 6D10 damage each), plus a 35 foot teleport afterwards? If that had been their intention, they could have just said all of the attacks or the first attack has advantage.
No, "vanish" is not a mechanically defined term like hide or invisible and it is purely a fluff description of the spell effect. In order to qualify for advantage, you must qualify for it when the spell is cast (i.e., already be hidden or invisible). There are multiple ways to interpret the language of the spell. Treating "vanishing" as a free invisibility and advantage is unbalanced while treating it as a fluff description with no mechanical implications is more in line with 5th level spells. For example, assuming you get 5 targets in their AoEs, Cone of Cold, Flame Strike, and Conjure Volley deliver moderately higher damage per casting despite delivering pure damage with no additional effects. The AoEs are most certainly balanced against fewer than 5 valid targets which just furthers the point that 5 attacks with 6D10 damage with free advantage is disproportionately high.
So to reiterate, there are multiple valid readings of the natural English used in the spell description, the reading that the "vanish" is fluff because it has not a mechanical term used elsewhere is supported by evidence of the intention of the rules via the balance compared to other spells of the same level. You can do what you like at your table, but spells do what they say they do and Steel Wind Strike does not say you become invisible or that you hide. You do not get an effective +3.8 * on each attack by casting a spell that does not say that you have advantage on the attacks.
* Getting advantage on an attack that does not otherwise have advantage or disadvantage is typically equivalent to a +3.8 on that attack roll. If your chance to hit is abnormally high or low, the equivalent modifier will vary.
I just want to point out that Unseen is not a mechanically defined keyword, and yet being unseen (not specifically invisible - that's just one way to be unseen) is the trigger for advantage. There's more ways to become unseen than just invisibility.
Becoming unseen is pretty trivial. A cantrip can do that.
I disagree. Spells say what they do, outside of descriptive text. Vanishing is not a recognized mechanical effect. You are proposing a 5th level spell provides an automatic successful hide check or invisibility, plus up to 5 attacks (for 6D10 damage each), plus a 35 foot teleport afterwards? If that had been their intention, they could have just said all of the attacks or the first attack has advantage.
The meaning of "vanish" in this context is not ambiguous. It does not have to be a defined game term to have meaning in the rules.
The spell description is essentially describing attacks that are being made "during" the teleportation. Except that instead of opening up that exact can of worms, the spell description describes three things that happen sequentially -- the spellcaster vanishes, then the spellcaster makes some attacks, then the spellcaster reappears at a different location via teleportation.
I did not say anything about the spell providing a means for hiding or causing invisibility. The spell does not say that. Instead, the attacks are being made while the attacker is unseen. As pointed out in a subsequent post by another poster, the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule only requires that the attacker be unseen to gain advantage on the attack.
In order to qualify for advantage, you must qualify for it when the spell is cast (i.e., already be hidden or invisible).
This is incorrect. An attack qualifies for advantage at the moment that the attack is made.
Interpreting this spell to provide advantage on all of its attacks is not particularly unbalanced or overpowered. It's still pretty situational for this to be optimized. First, the attacks must occur within the range of 30 feet. There are a great many combats in which there just won't be 5 different enemies located within 30 feet of you. And in the cases where there are, there might actually be quite a bit MORE than 5 different enemies there.
For example, compare against the Level 5 spell Destructive Wave. That spell affects the same area (30-foot emanation) and could potentially catch way more than 5 enemies within. That effect causes 5d6 + 5d6 damage and knocks creatures prone. Also, that effect does half damage on a save (as opposed to zero damage on a missed attack for Steel Wind Strike). So, even if we give all attacks advantage with Steel Wind Strike (which we should), in a situation where you would have been 50/50 to hit on each attack without advantage, the Destructive Wave spell still does more damage per creature than Steel Wind Strike with advantage (26.25 vs 22).
The meaning of "vanish" in this context is not ambiguous. It does not have to be a defined game term to have meaning in the rules.
Whether "vanish" is rules text or descriptive is ambiguous. If you assume that it is rules text, then yes, being unseen would give you advantage on the attack roll. This would translate to about a 40% increase in damage in typical encounters and puts it deceptively out of scale compared to other 5th level spells. The alternative reading, that "vanish" is pure descriptive text and has no mechanical impact is more in line with the damage capabilities of a 5th level spell.
In order to qualify for advantage, you must qualify for it when the spell is cast (i.e., already be hidden or invisible).
This is incorrect. An attack qualifies for advantage at the moment that the attack is made.
If you conclude that the spell does not provide free advantage because it does not say it does, then you must qualify for advantage when the spell is cast because you cannot perform any action during the spell to gain it before the attack.
For example, compare against the Level 5 spell Destructive Wave. That spell affects the same area (30-foot emanation) and could potentially catch way more than 5 enemies within. That effect causes 5d6 + 5d6 damage and knocks creatures prone. Also, that effect does half damage on a save (as opposed to zero damage on a missed attack for Steel Wind Strike). So, even if we give all attacks advantage with Steel Wind Strike (which we should), in a situation where you would have been 50/50 to hit on each attack without advantage, the Destructive Wave spell still does more damage per creature than Steel Wind Strike with advantage (26.25 vs 22).
Steel Wind Strike's average damage is 23 damage per attack without advantage and 32.2 damage with advantage. Are you forgetting the extra damage on a crit which has a nearly doubled chance to occur when you have advantage? With 5 targets, that's 115 damage versus 160.88, plus a free teleport. Also, keep in mind that the maximum damage from Destructive Wave is 60 damage per creature (half thunder and half radiant or necrotic) while the maximum damage from Steel Wind Strike is 120 per creature (force) due to the possibility of a critical hit. And finally, Force is one of the best damage types for avoiding resistances and immunities.
Con is one of the worst spell saves and the prone condition is situationally beneficial or harmful for your allies (If they are adjacent to the target you have advantage on attacks but further away, they have disadvantage). It can be exploited, but it's not automatically a boon. Steel Wind Strike's teleportation will generally be beneficial in all cases. This is not a spell for a caster that shies away from melee so striking 5 targets and ending adjacent to one is a solid closing option.
As an aside, I don't think the 2024 DMG has an equivalent section, but the 2014 version had a section on estimating monster DPR. For area effects, it suggested estimating the damage assuming 2 targets were caught int he AoE and both failed their save. I don't think it helps here as I assume Steel Wind Strike would similarly be calculated as 2 targets were hit (normally) since the same target cannot be hit multiple times.
You are severely undervaluing advantage on an attack.
. . . being unseen would give you advantage on the attack roll. This would translate to about a 40% increase in damage in typical encounters . . .
As mentioned below, as the percentage chance to hit without advantage improves, the benefit of having advantage is lessened, but it's true that having advantage does represent a pretty decent increase in average damage.
Also, I realize that I did miscalculate earlier as I made an incorrect assumption that your chances to hit improve from 1/2 to 2/3. Instead, the chances actually improve to 3/4. I will recalculate below.
Steel Wind Strike's average damage is 23 damage per attack without advantage and 32.2 damage with advantage. Are you forgetting the extra damage on a crit which has a nearly doubled chance to occur when you have advantage? With 5 targets, that's 115 damage versus 160.88, plus a free teleport.
It's true that I did not factor in the effects of a critical hit in my calculations for my previous post, but when calculating the expected value of the damage of an attack that factor is somewhat negligible since critical hits happen so infrequently (although admittedly it does become more of a factor when advantage applies). Still, I'll be sure to include that in future calculations.
Even so, these numbers in bold that you are claiming are not accurate.
Let's run through it in more detail.
First, hopefully we can agree that as soon as we put a 6th or 7th enemy into the nearby area then Destructive Wave quickly becomes the obviously superior option.
So, let's now assume that for some reason there are exactly 5 nearby enemies for comparison purposes.
Assumptions:
For example purposes, I am proposing a scenario where the chances to hit without advantage are 50%. Such as, +5 to-hit vs 16 AC or +8 to-hit vs 19 AC where we need an 11 or better on the d20 to succeed. Many typical combats might offer slightly better chances to hit for the PCs than this, but we have to pick something and this situation allows for the easiest math. Also, mathematically, as your chances to hit without advantage improve, the amount of average damage gained by having advantage is lessened.
At the same time, I am proposing a scenario where the enemy has a 50% chance to succeed on the saving throw vs Destructive Wave, which in many cases is a bit too generous. So, the "error" introduced by making these two assumptions somewhat cancels out.
For this example, the enemies don't resist any particular type of damage.
Lastly, for this example, we will assume that a critical hit is scored only when the die roll exactly equals 20 on a d20.
Calculations:
Destructive Wave: 5d6 + 5d6 damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful save.
Expected Value:
The average damage on 1d6 = 3.5. So, 5d6 = 3.5 * 5 = 17.5. So, 5d6 + 5d6 = 35. (on a failed save)
So, the power level of these two spells is pretty similar, and again, that is assuming that there are 5 or less nearby enemies. If there are more enemies than that, then Steel Wind Strike (even with advantage) becomes a suboptimal choice pretty quickly. There is still no balance concern here. The spell does provide for pretty decent damage output in the right situations, but it's not out of line with the power of a 5th level spell in general.
No, "vanish" does not give you advantage, and if it did the spell would say that. Taking words that don't have a condition in the rules and giving it one is rules lawyering, that even lawyers don't get to do, a court would toss them out for such shenanigans. If the designers wanted you to have advantage, they would say "you gain the invisible condition and maintain it through all your attacks."
Actually, I didn't realize you picked a Paladin only spell. Steel Wind Strike may go against CR 9 opponents but Destructive Wave will be going against CR 17 opponents and a Paladin is less likely to have maxed out Charisma. Let's still assume a save DC of 8 + 6 + 5 = 19 with an average enemy Constitution Save bonus of + 10 (40% chance of a failed save)
Destructive Wave will be, against a CR 9 creature, on average get a failed save approximately 65% of the time.
Again, for an on CR encounter, you will be hitting 65% of the time on a single d20 roll. Now, with the advantage, you will have a 9.75% chance of critically hitting and a 78% chance of a normal hit (87.75% total).
25.74 (78% normal hit) + 6.435 (9.75% critical hit) = 32.175 damage. (160.875 for 5 targets, a 39.29% increase of over without advantage and a 31.33% increase of Destructive Wave).
Your math was off because your assumptions did not take into account typical success rates for even CR opponents. You are comparing an almost purely damage spell (as I said, the prone condition has pros and cons for you and your allies) to one that deals damage and maneuvers the caster. You are comparing a spell that deals moderately higher dice damage but has worse damage typing. And finally, you are comparing a spell that a Paladin only has access to at level 17 to a spell that is available starting at level 9, but I don't think that would change much; it would shift the DPR of the AoE spell towards the middle of the with and without advantage but still highlight that free advantage outpaces damage for the level.
No, "vanish" does not give you advantage, and if it did the spell would say that. Taking words that don't have a condition in the rules and giving it one is rules lawyering, that even lawyers don't get to do, a court would toss them out for such shenanigans. If the designers wanted you to have advantage, they would say "you gain the invisible condition and maintain it through all your attacks."
This entire argument is false.
A spell does not have to say that it gives advantage. Spell descriptions can include specific rules as desired, but they otherwise always abide by the general rules of the game. The general rule for Unseen Attackers and Targets already allows for attacking with Advantage when the target of your attack cannot see you. The spell does not have to reiterate that.
Who said anything about giving anybody a condition? I have no idea what you are talking about with any of that.
Maybe the authors didn't want to use the Invisible condition for this purpose. After all, some creatures can see creatures that have the Invisible condition. That's not the mechanic that they were going for. Instead, the authors say that the spellcaster vanishes, so he does.
If the authors didn't want the spellcaster to vanish, then they should not have written it like that. They could have just as easily written the spell as:
"You flourish the weapon used in the casting. 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."
In that case, the spellcaster would be attacking 5 creatures while in plain sight. Instead, the designers added more to the effect. Prior to making any attacks, the spellcaster vanishes. It is what it is.
Your math was off because your assumptions did not take into account typical success rates for even CR opponents.
I don't understand. Why in the world are you arbitrarily changing the numbers for my example? It's my example. I fully explained which numbers I would be using. I picked a scenario where the attack roll had a 50% chance to succeed and where the saving throw had a 50% chance to succeed because that makes for easier math for people to be able to follow along and it compares the two spells fairly. Obviously if the particular encounter in question happens to be a battle against monsters that have a low AC and a strong saving throw ability, then the best tactic would be to use the spell with the attack roll mechanic. Conversely, if the monsters happen to have high AC but a poor saving throw ability, then the best tactic would be to use the spell with the saving throw mechanic. Those aren't really fair comparisons.
You also cannot claim that a particular 5th Level spell is meant to be stronger than other 5th Level spells purely because it is meant to be used by a Paladin. The whole point of the discussion is about whether or not my interpretation of Steel Wind Strike is comparable in power to other 5th Level spells. Spells that are marked as 5th Level are 5th Level -- it doesn't matter who is using it.
My math in my previous post was flawless. It is accurate to 4 places after the decimal point. Don't claim that my math "was off" when it wasn't -- that's just confusing to future readers of the thread.
Hopefully you realize that if you are already starting from a place of assuming a 65% chance to-hit (for some unknown reason), then when you add Advantage to that roll you actually get less benefit from that Advantage than if you started with a 50% chance to-hit. That's just making your own argument harder on yourself.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like you are setting up one spell to have a 40% chance of success and putting it up against another spell that you are declaring has a 65% chance of success. That's just a totally useless comparison and makes your resulting numbers meaningless.
Given that, it's not really worth continuing this discussion. There is no evidence that adjudicating the spell in question in such a manner that allows Advantage on the attack rolls is overpowered.
At the end of the day, the spell says what it says. In the perfect scenario it can be a pretty powerful option. But that's still pretty situational. There's no need to homebrew nerf the spell. It's fine as written.
Your math was off because your assumptions did not take into account typical success rates for even CR opponents.
I don't understand. Why in the world are you arbitrarily changing the numbers for my example?
It's not arbitrary. An average equal CR encounter will have a 65% chance of success, not 50%. Your example numbers are arbitrary and do not reflect typical values for the CR the spells would first be cast against. The arbitrary percentage you chose skews the math. Now, granted, my understanding of those numbers are based on someone else's research with the 2014 SRD monsters. If it is important to you, I can try to create my own aggregate for the level 9 and level 17 scenarios. It might be interesting to weigh these damage numbers against average hit points as well.
You also cannot claim that a particular 5th Level spell is meant to be stronger than other 5th Level spells purely because it is meant to be used by a Paladin. The whole point of the discussion is about whether or not my interpretation of Steel Wind Strike is comparable in power to other 5th Level spells. Spells that are marked as 5th Level are 5th Level -- it doesn't matter who is using it.
Actually, it does matter. A 5th level Wizard spell will start to be used against 9th level encounters and must bring appropriate value but also not not trivialize them. 5th level Paladin only spell will be used against 17th level encounters and must bring appropriate value. Destructive Wave isn't just expending a spell slot, it's using the Paladin's in-combat action and it must be worth it.
My math in my previous post was flawless. It is accurate to 4 places after the decimal point. Don't claim that my math "was off" when it wasn't -- that's just confusing to future readers of the thread.
Your math was off at first because you failed to take into account critical hits. Then your results were off because your assumptions about success chance were not appropriate for on level encounters. If you start with incorrect numbers and apply the formulas correctly, that still results in flawed math.
Hopefully you realize that if you are already starting from a place of assuming a 65% chance to-hit (for some unknown reason), then when you add Advantage to that roll you actually get less benefit from that Advantage than if you started with a 50% chance to-hit. That's just making your own argument harder on yourself.
And despite that, I demonstrated that the attack without advantage is in line with your choice of 5th level spells and assuming free advantage provided a notable damage boost.
You also cannot claim that a particular 5th Level spell is meant to be stronger than other 5th Level spells purely because it is meant to be used by a Paladin. The whole point of the discussion is about whether or not my interpretation of Steel Wind Strike is comparable in power to other 5th Level spells. Spells that are marked as 5th Level are 5th Level -- it doesn't matter who is using it.
Actually, it does matter. A 5th level Wizard spell will start to be used against 9th level encounters and must bring appropriate value but also not not trivialize them. 5th level Paladin only spell will be used against 17th level encounters and must bring appropriate value. Destructive Wave isn't just expending a spell slot, it's using the Paladin's in-combat action and it must be worth it.
It is impossible to overstate how completely vehemently I disagree with this. A half-caster is NOT intended to have as much utility with his spellcasting abilities as a full spellcaster at the same character level. This is an absolutely core design of the game.
[Redacted]
[Redacted] Instead, consider 5 Driders within range, for example. See how both spells do. Then make a different encounter and repeat if desired since, as already mentioned, the best spell to use will likely depend on the strengths and weaknesses of the actual monsters encountered (because the spells are similarly powerful).
. . . your results were off because your assumptions about success chance were not appropriate for on level encounters. If you start with incorrect numbers and apply the formulas correctly, that still results in flawed math.
[Redacted] The exact encounters chosen will vary widely and there will always be a variety of tactics and spells which will be the optimal choice for a particular situation. There was nothing wrong with my math and it showed quite clearly that this spell without Advantage underperforms and with Advantage is more appropriate for the level.
You also cannot claim that a particular 5th Level spell is meant to be stronger than other 5th Level spells purely because it is meant to be used by a Paladin. The whole point of the discussion is about whether or not my interpretation of Steel Wind Strike is comparable in power to other 5th Level spells. Spells that are marked as 5th Level are 5th Level -- it doesn't matter who is using it.
Actually, it does matter. A 5th level Wizard spell will start to be used against 9th level encounters and must bring appropriate value but also not not trivialize them. 5th level Paladin only spell will be used against 17th level encounters and must bring appropriate value. Destructive Wave isn't just expending a spell slot, it's using the Paladin's in-combat action and it must be worth it.
It is impossible to overstate how completely vehemently I disagree with this. A half-caster is NOT intended to have as much utility with his spellcasting abilities as a full spellcaster at the same character level. This is an absolutely core design of the game.
Fortunately, I am not comparing a Paladin's action using a 5th level slot to a Wizard spending a 9th level slot, which would be "comparing a half-caster's utility with spellcasting abilities to a full spellcaster at the same character level." I am comparing two 5th level spells, not upcast at all, at the minimum character level needed to cast them, barring extraordinary methods.
In fact, even assuming a Ranger casting Steel Wind Strike at 17th level, it doesn't change anything, if we also assume, like the Paladin, that the casting stat is maxed out by 16th level. The reason for this is the game still assumes that at 17th level, you will hit 65% of the time. If Destructive Wave targeted another attribute, a failed save would be about 10% to 35% more likely, depending on the attribute (Dexterity would typically be 5 points lower for a 25% greater chance of failure).
By comparison, Conjure Volley is a 5th level Ranger spell and would be similarly be used in 17th level or higher encounters. It does 8D8 Force Damage (same damage type as Steel Wind Strike) but has a range. The average on the dice is 36. Because it targets Dexterity, the save bonus will likely be around +5 versus a DC of 19. It will fail the save 65% of the time. On average, the spell will deal 23.4 (65% failed save) + 6.3 (35% successful save for half damage) = 29.7 damage per target, for a spell that purely deals damage. Cone of Cold will probably fair worse because it targets Constitution again and even at 9th level (when a Wizard could first cast it), the average save bonus is around +5 and a DC 17 is reasonable so a 55% chance of a failed save is expected.
If the spell is not effective at 17th level, then it's not worth casting. In any case, you picked the spell. If a Paladin were to cast it at 9th level, perhaps through a magic item, the results would probably be slightly less favorable as I would expect their spell save DC to be 2 or more points lower than at 17th, relative to the constitution save bonus of creatures at their level. However, a Paladin cannot cast Destructive Wave, a Paladin Only spell, with their own spell slots until 17th level. Because of that, it would be poor design if that spell was not effective against 17th level encounters. I won't out perform higher level spells. In fact, it struggles because it requires a Constitution save, which is typically among the higher, if not highest, of a creature's saves. You chose the spell to compare Steel Wind Strike and it turns out that it doesn't compare as favorably as you'd like when the appropriate factors are taken into account.
So sorry, but this discussion is over. The spell description says what it says and the text has been quoted and explained.
Dude, you don't get to declare a thread closed. All you can do is stop responding, and if people disagree, they can still post.
Also, your very accommodating interpretation of "vanish" is very much in opposition to how you're interpreting rules text in other discussions.
This is a spell where the chrome doesn't mesh well with the mechanics, but if they'd wanted to have you be unseen and therefore gain advantage, they could easily have specified it. Maybe you vanish, but there are big visual effects to the attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. You vanish but
are not granted the rank of Masterdo not gain the Invisible Condition. There is no opportunity attacks because there is no movement from the spell until the teleportation after the attacks are resolved. The spell never says you move between attacks; the movement is an incorrect assumption because the spell requires melee spell attacks, however, just like a whip has a 15 foot melee range, this spell has a 30 foot melee range. Technically, there is no mechanical effect of vanishing and if someone is eligible to react to you making an attack from your position when you cast the spell, they still are but there is a strong argument for disadvantage at least up to fully preventing the reaction.2. Somatic and material, but that doesn't invalidate your question. Yes, if you are invisible from Hiding or from another source, you benefit from the effects for the spell, typically ending after making an attack roll. I presume that all attack rolls from the spell happen simultaneously and would benefit or not benefit from Invisibility but there may be some technicality that I am forgetting that requires the attacks to be resolved in a sequence and only the first attack has advantage. I don't think so though.
3. Yes and no. You don't move before or between each strike and there may not be a "between each strike". Your position when you make each attack is the position at the time that you cast the spell.
4. No, they wouldn't necessarily know where you were. 4.1 would give you an opportunity to make another Hide check but you would not remain hidden automatically. If you are a Rogue (maybe an Arcane Trickster), you could use a Bonus Action to Hide after the spell casting to regain the hidden condition. 4.2 The total cover is a separate stipulation and would be difficult to achieve unless you killed one of the targets. Remember that you would need to see each target as well as your destination from your original position and, in this case, you would also need the destination to be obscured from the surviving targets and your space to be withing 5 feet of a target. Any wall or objects of significant substance will push you out of that 5 foot range.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
So, you stay where you are ('vanish' doesn't mean anything). You make up to 5 simultaneous attacks (which reveals your initial position if hidden). Then you teleport to a final position.
4.1 Best way to make a bonus action Hide check is to play a Goblin. Second best way is actually a Thief subclass (and cast it off a scroll) - and then you can take a normal hide action, since you can read the scroll as a bonus action! (Or the other way around, it really doesn't matter). (Arcane Trickster is also likely to need to cast it off a scroll).
Still seems silly to me that they know where you are unless you take a hide action - they can't see you, and they probably can't hear you unless the combat is literally just you without a party (and even then, determining a particular 5' square is your location off of sound alone seems ... unlikely). 5e rules on knowing creature locations are dumb beyond belief.
4.2 I mean, yes, it probably requires one creature to die, which is why I specified that.
(And yes, M component too, obviously)
Ending hidden doesn't necessarily mean the enemy knows where you are. Hidden just prevents them from finding you via the invisible condition. Discuss the situation with your DM.
A Goblin's Nimble Escape does the same thing as a Rogue's Cunning Action. It's available at level 1 and more limited than Cunning Action but all Rogues have Cunning Action at level 2 (Arcane Trickster and Thief). A Thief won't be able to use the scroll until level 13. Arcane Tricksters can't cast it from a scroll but could use an Enspelled Item for it.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That's a good point, it ends invisibility from hiding, but if you're moving silently, that's separate from invisibility... and totally DM discretion.
Arcane Trickster uses the wizard spell list, right? So should be able to read any wizard spell scrolls?
(The point of mentioning goblin is its a species, not a class, so you can play a goblin wizard and not worry about splashing Rogue 2 into a wizard build).
Arcane Trickster only goes up to 4th level and Steel Wind Strike is 5th level. While technically Arcane Trickster uses the Wizard Spell List, I would only consider spells up to 4th level as Arcane Trickster spells.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I'd say there's no such limitation, since the only requirement is: "If the spell is on your spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without Material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible". And the spell list for the Arcane Trickster is the entire Wizard spell list, even if you can't prepare spells of some levels.
This is similar for the Eldritch Knight subclass:
I am actually on board with this idea.
General rule for Unseen Attackers and Targets:
Steel Wind Strike effect:
Spells do what they say.
The first thing that happens with this spell effect after flourishing the weapon is that you "vanish".
The word "to" in this context means "in order to". When you do the first thing "in order to" do the second thing it means that the first thing is done before the second thing -- or at the very least that the second thing is done while the first thing is happening. So, in this case, attacks are made after, or perhaps while, the spellcaster has "vanished".
A common English definition of the word "vanish":
-- to disappear from sight, especially quickly; become invisible.
You do not have to actually have the Invisible condition in this game in order to be unseen. There are many reasons why you might be unseen. By definition, "vanishing" is most certainly one of those reasons. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any way within the game that a creature can see another creature who has vanished -- not even Truesight.
RAW, it seems correct to allow for the attack rolls from this spell to be made with advantage.
In this case it wouldn't actually matter since you have vanished while making these attacks as per the above question. So, whether or not you remain hidden for all of the attacks would have no impact on the fact that you make all of these attacks with advantage.
However, suppose that you didn't vanish as part of the spell, but the rest of the spell description remained the same and you cast this spell while hidden. Based on the spell description, these attacks should be treated as happening and resolving simultaneously.
Unfortunately, and perhaps counterintuitively, this game has this rule:
So, does this mean that the resolution of each attack constitutes separate and therefore simultaneous "effects"? Or is this all one (spell) "effect"? For example, when we cast an instantaneous AoE spell such as Fireball, we don't really think of all of the affected creatures as being damaged "in sequential order". We think of all of that damage as being resolved "at the same time". Is that actually correct? Or, how about a spell such as Magic Missile which explicitly states that "The darts all strike simultaneously" -- in cases where it might matter, do the various creatures that are struck by a Magic Missile spell take this damage in some sort of order?
I think that it is reasonable to rule that the effects of a spell within the spell description all count as being part of only one effect which means that the Simultaneous Effects rule should not apply. As a result, if you are hidden when you cast this spell, you would remain hidden until all of the attacks are resolved. Again, it wouldn't matter in this particular case since you are attacking while "vanished" anyway, but in a similar situation you would resolve all of the attacks before becoming no longer hidden.
Mechanically what happens here is that your position is given away when your attack is resolved:
Now, it's reasonable to rule that after this occurs you then teleport to a new location that is potentially Heavily Obscured such as into an area of Darkness. But this doesn't mean that you are hidden after the teleportation -- it just means that you are currently Unseen. In order to become hidden, you would need to take the Hide action (again).
This is a pretty common result. For example, if you successfully Hide inside of a building and then you peek out to three-quarters cover to fire an arrow at someone with your longbow, as soon as that attack is resolved you are no longer hidden. On that same turn you might then use your movement to disappear deep inside of that building and totally out of view. But you are not actually hidden at that moment. In order to become hidden again you would need to take the Hide action again.
I disagree. Spells say what they do, outside of descriptive text. Vanishing is not a recognized mechanical effect. You are proposing a 5th level spell provides an automatic successful hide check or invisibility, plus up to 5 attacks (for 6D10 damage each), plus a 35 foot teleport afterwards? If that had been their intention, they could have just said all of the attacks or the first attack has advantage.
No, "vanish" is not a mechanically defined term like hide or invisible and it is purely a fluff description of the spell effect. In order to qualify for advantage, you must qualify for it when the spell is cast (i.e., already be hidden or invisible). There are multiple ways to interpret the language of the spell. Treating "vanishing" as a free invisibility and advantage is unbalanced while treating it as a fluff description with no mechanical implications is more in line with 5th level spells. For example, assuming you get 5 targets in their AoEs, Cone of Cold, Flame Strike, and Conjure Volley deliver moderately higher damage per casting despite delivering pure damage with no additional effects. The AoEs are most certainly balanced against fewer than 5 valid targets which just furthers the point that 5 attacks with 6D10 damage with free advantage is disproportionately high.
So to reiterate, there are multiple valid readings of the natural English used in the spell description, the reading that the "vanish" is fluff because it has not a mechanical term used elsewhere is supported by evidence of the intention of the rules via the balance compared to other spells of the same level. You can do what you like at your table, but spells do what they say they do and Steel Wind Strike does not say you become invisible or that you hide. You do not get an effective +3.8 * on each attack by casting a spell that does not say that you have advantage on the attacks.
* Getting advantage on an attack that does not otherwise have advantage or disadvantage is typically equivalent to a +3.8 on that attack roll. If your chance to hit is abnormally high or low, the equivalent modifier will vary.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I just want to point out that Unseen is not a mechanically defined keyword, and yet being unseen (not specifically invisible - that's just one way to be unseen) is the trigger for advantage. There's more ways to become unseen than just invisibility.
Becoming unseen is pretty trivial. A cantrip can do that.
The meaning of "vanish" in this context is not ambiguous. It does not have to be a defined game term to have meaning in the rules.
The spell description is essentially describing attacks that are being made "during" the teleportation. Except that instead of opening up that exact can of worms, the spell description describes three things that happen sequentially -- the spellcaster vanishes, then the spellcaster makes some attacks, then the spellcaster reappears at a different location via teleportation.
I did not say anything about the spell providing a means for hiding or causing invisibility. The spell does not say that. Instead, the attacks are being made while the attacker is unseen. As pointed out in a subsequent post by another poster, the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule only requires that the attacker be unseen to gain advantage on the attack.
This is incorrect. An attack qualifies for advantage at the moment that the attack is made.
Interpreting this spell to provide advantage on all of its attacks is not particularly unbalanced or overpowered. It's still pretty situational for this to be optimized. First, the attacks must occur within the range of 30 feet. There are a great many combats in which there just won't be 5 different enemies located within 30 feet of you. And in the cases where there are, there might actually be quite a bit MORE than 5 different enemies there.
For example, compare against the Level 5 spell Destructive Wave. That spell affects the same area (30-foot emanation) and could potentially catch way more than 5 enemies within. That effect causes 5d6 + 5d6 damage and knocks creatures prone. Also, that effect does half damage on a save (as opposed to zero damage on a missed attack for Steel Wind Strike). So, even if we give all attacks advantage with Steel Wind Strike (which we should), in a situation where you would have been 50/50 to hit on each attack without advantage, the Destructive Wave spell still does more damage per creature than Steel Wind Strike with advantage (26.25 vs 22).
There is no balance issue here.
Whether "vanish" is rules text or descriptive is ambiguous. If you assume that it is rules text, then yes, being unseen would give you advantage on the attack roll. This would translate to about a 40% increase in damage in typical encounters and puts it deceptively out of scale compared to other 5th level spells. The alternative reading, that "vanish" is pure descriptive text and has no mechanical impact is more in line with the damage capabilities of a 5th level spell.
If you conclude that the spell does not provide free advantage because it does not say it does, then you must qualify for advantage when the spell is cast because you cannot perform any action during the spell to gain it before the attack.
Steel Wind Strike's average damage is 23 damage per attack without advantage and 32.2 damage with advantage. Are you forgetting the extra damage on a crit which has a nearly doubled chance to occur when you have advantage? With 5 targets, that's 115 damage versus 160.88, plus a free teleport. Also, keep in mind that the maximum damage from Destructive Wave is 60 damage per creature (half thunder and half radiant or necrotic) while the maximum damage from Steel Wind Strike is 120 per creature (force) due to the possibility of a critical hit. And finally, Force is one of the best damage types for avoiding resistances and immunities.
Con is one of the worst spell saves and the prone condition is situationally beneficial or harmful for your allies (If they are adjacent to the target you have advantage on attacks but further away, they have disadvantage). It can be exploited, but it's not automatically a boon. Steel Wind Strike's teleportation will generally be beneficial in all cases. This is not a spell for a caster that shies away from melee so striking 5 targets and ending adjacent to one is a solid closing option.
As an aside, I don't think the 2024 DMG has an equivalent section, but the 2014 version had a section on estimating monster DPR. For area effects, it suggested estimating the damage assuming 2 targets were caught int he AoE and both failed their save. I don't think it helps here as I assume Steel Wind Strike would similarly be calculated as 2 targets were hit (normally) since the same target cannot be hit multiple times.
You are severely undervaluing advantage on an attack.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
As mentioned below, as the percentage chance to hit without advantage improves, the benefit of having advantage is lessened, but it's true that having advantage does represent a pretty decent increase in average damage.
Also, I realize that I did miscalculate earlier as I made an incorrect assumption that your chances to hit improve from 1/2 to 2/3. Instead, the chances actually improve to 3/4. I will recalculate below.
It's true that I did not factor in the effects of a critical hit in my calculations for my previous post, but when calculating the expected value of the damage of an attack that factor is somewhat negligible since critical hits happen so infrequently (although admittedly it does become more of a factor when advantage applies). Still, I'll be sure to include that in future calculations.
Even so, these numbers in bold that you are claiming are not accurate.
Let's run through it in more detail.
First, hopefully we can agree that as soon as we put a 6th or 7th enemy into the nearby area then Destructive Wave quickly becomes the obviously superior option.
So, let's now assume that for some reason there are exactly 5 nearby enemies for comparison purposes.
Assumptions:
For example purposes, I am proposing a scenario where the chances to hit without advantage are 50%. Such as, +5 to-hit vs 16 AC or +8 to-hit vs 19 AC where we need an 11 or better on the d20 to succeed. Many typical combats might offer slightly better chances to hit for the PCs than this, but we have to pick something and this situation allows for the easiest math. Also, mathematically, as your chances to hit without advantage improve, the amount of average damage gained by having advantage is lessened.
At the same time, I am proposing a scenario where the enemy has a 50% chance to succeed on the saving throw vs Destructive Wave, which in many cases is a bit too generous. So, the "error" introduced by making these two assumptions somewhat cancels out.
For this example, the enemies don't resist any particular type of damage.
Lastly, for this example, we will assume that a critical hit is scored only when the die roll exactly equals 20 on a d20.
Calculations:
Destructive Wave: 5d6 + 5d6 damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful save.
Expected Value:
The average damage on 1d6 = 3.5. So, 5d6 = 3.5 * 5 = 17.5. So, 5d6 + 5d6 = 35. (on a failed save)
On a successful save, 35 / 2 = 17.5.
Weighted Average: 1/2 (35) + 1/2 (17.5) = 26.25 damage.
Steel Wind Strike Without Advantage: 6d10 damage on a hit. 0 damage on a miss.
Expected Value:
The average damage on 1d10 = 5.5. So, 6d10 = 5.5 * 6 = 33. (on a hit)
The average damage on a critical hit is 12d10 = 5.5 * 12 = 66. (on a critical hit)
On a miss, damage = 0.
Weighted Average: 1/2 (0) + 9/20 (33) + 1/20 (66) = 18.15 damage without advantage.
Steel Wind Strike With Advantage: 6d10 damage on a hit. 0 damage on a miss.
Expected Value:
The average damage on 1d10 = 5.5. So, 6d10 = 5.5 * 6 = 33. (on a hit)
The average damage on a critical hit is 12d10 = 5.5 * 12 = 66. (on a critical hit)
On a miss, damage = 0.
Weighted Average: 1/4 (0) + 261/400 (33) + 39/400 (66) = 11187 / 400 = 27.9675 damage.
So, the power level of these two spells is pretty similar, and again, that is assuming that there are 5 or less nearby enemies. If there are more enemies than that, then Steel Wind Strike (even with advantage) becomes a suboptimal choice pretty quickly. There is still no balance concern here. The spell does provide for pretty decent damage output in the right situations, but it's not out of line with the power of a 5th level spell in general.
No, "vanish" does not give you advantage, and if it did the spell would say that. Taking words that don't have a condition in the rules and giving it one is rules lawyering, that even lawyers don't get to do, a court would toss them out for such shenanigans. If the designers wanted you to have advantage, they would say "you gain the invisible condition and maintain it through all your attacks."
Actually, I didn't realize you picked a Paladin only spell. Steel Wind Strike may go against CR 9 opponents but Destructive Wave will be going against CR 17 opponents and a Paladin is less likely to have maxed out Charisma. Let's still assume a save DC of 8 + 6 + 5 = 19 with an average enemy Constitution Save bonus of + 10 (40% chance of a failed save)
Destructive Wave will be, against a CR 9 creature, on average get a failed save approximately 65% of the time.
14 (40% failed save) + 10.5 (60% successful save, half damage) = 24.5 damage. (122.5 for 5 targets)
You will be hitting on average, 65% of the time with an equal CR target, barring unusual modifiers to the roll.
19.8 (60% normal hit) + 3.3 (5% critical hit) = 23.1 damage without advantage. (115.5 for five targets)
Again, for an on CR encounter, you will be hitting 65% of the time on a single d20 roll. Now, with the advantage, you will have a 9.75% chance of critically hitting and a 78% chance of a normal hit (87.75% total).
25.74 (78% normal hit) + 6.435 (9.75% critical hit) = 32.175 damage. (160.875 for 5 targets, a 39.29% increase of over without advantage and a 31.33% increase of Destructive Wave).
Your math was off because your assumptions did not take into account typical success rates for even CR opponents. You are comparing an almost purely damage spell (as I said, the prone condition has pros and cons for you and your allies) to one that deals damage and maneuvers the caster. You are comparing a spell that deals moderately higher dice damage but has worse damage typing. And finally, you are comparing a spell that a Paladin only has access to at level 17 to a spell that is available starting at level 9, but I don't think that would change much; it would shift the DPR of the AoE spell towards the middle of the with and without advantage but still highlight that free advantage outpaces damage for the level.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
This entire argument is false.
A spell does not have to say that it gives advantage. Spell descriptions can include specific rules as desired, but they otherwise always abide by the general rules of the game. The general rule for Unseen Attackers and Targets already allows for attacking with Advantage when the target of your attack cannot see you. The spell does not have to reiterate that.
Who said anything about giving anybody a condition? I have no idea what you are talking about with any of that.
Maybe the authors didn't want to use the Invisible condition for this purpose. After all, some creatures can see creatures that have the Invisible condition. That's not the mechanic that they were going for. Instead, the authors say that the spellcaster vanishes, so he does.
If the authors didn't want the spellcaster to vanish, then they should not have written it like that. They could have just as easily written the spell as:
"You flourish the weapon used in the casting. 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."
In that case, the spellcaster would be attacking 5 creatures while in plain sight. Instead, the designers added more to the effect. Prior to making any attacks, the spellcaster vanishes. It is what it is.
I don't understand. Why in the world are you arbitrarily changing the numbers for my example? It's my example. I fully explained which numbers I would be using. I picked a scenario where the attack roll had a 50% chance to succeed and where the saving throw had a 50% chance to succeed because that makes for easier math for people to be able to follow along and it compares the two spells fairly. Obviously if the particular encounter in question happens to be a battle against monsters that have a low AC and a strong saving throw ability, then the best tactic would be to use the spell with the attack roll mechanic. Conversely, if the monsters happen to have high AC but a poor saving throw ability, then the best tactic would be to use the spell with the saving throw mechanic. Those aren't really fair comparisons.
You also cannot claim that a particular 5th Level spell is meant to be stronger than other 5th Level spells purely because it is meant to be used by a Paladin. The whole point of the discussion is about whether or not my interpretation of Steel Wind Strike is comparable in power to other 5th Level spells. Spells that are marked as 5th Level are 5th Level -- it doesn't matter who is using it.
My math in my previous post was flawless. It is accurate to 4 places after the decimal point. Don't claim that my math "was off" when it wasn't -- that's just confusing to future readers of the thread.
Hopefully you realize that if you are already starting from a place of assuming a 65% chance to-hit (for some unknown reason), then when you add Advantage to that roll you actually get less benefit from that Advantage than if you started with a 50% chance to-hit. That's just making your own argument harder on yourself.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like you are setting up one spell to have a 40% chance of success and putting it up against another spell that you are declaring has a 65% chance of success. That's just a totally useless comparison and makes your resulting numbers meaningless.
Given that, it's not really worth continuing this discussion. There is no evidence that adjudicating the spell in question in such a manner that allows Advantage on the attack rolls is overpowered.
At the end of the day, the spell says what it says. In the perfect scenario it can be a pretty powerful option. But that's still pretty situational. There's no need to homebrew nerf the spell. It's fine as written.
It's not arbitrary. An average equal CR encounter will have a 65% chance of success, not 50%. Your example numbers are arbitrary and do not reflect typical values for the CR the spells would first be cast against. The arbitrary percentage you chose skews the math. Now, granted, my understanding of those numbers are based on someone else's research with the 2014 SRD monsters. If it is important to you, I can try to create my own aggregate for the level 9 and level 17 scenarios. It might be interesting to weigh these damage numbers against average hit points as well.
Actually, it does matter. A 5th level Wizard spell will start to be used against 9th level encounters and must bring appropriate value but also not not trivialize them. 5th level Paladin only spell will be used against 17th level encounters and must bring appropriate value. Destructive Wave isn't just expending a spell slot, it's using the Paladin's in-combat action and it must be worth it.
Your math was off at first because you failed to take into account critical hits. Then your results were off because your assumptions about success chance were not appropriate for on level encounters. If you start with incorrect numbers and apply the formulas correctly, that still results in flawed math.
And despite that, I demonstrated that the attack without advantage is in line with your choice of 5th level spells and assuming free advantage provided a notable damage boost.
We agree, just not on what is written.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It is impossible to overstate how completely vehemently I disagree with this. A half-caster is NOT intended to have as much utility with his spellcasting abilities as a full spellcaster at the same character level. This is an absolutely core design of the game.
[Redacted]
[Redacted] Instead, consider 5 Driders within range, for example. See how both spells do. Then make a different encounter and repeat if desired since, as already mentioned, the best spell to use will likely depend on the strengths and weaknesses of the actual monsters encountered (because the spells are similarly powerful).
[Redacted]
[Redacted] The exact encounters chosen will vary widely and there will always be a variety of tactics and spells which will be the optimal choice for a particular situation. There was nothing wrong with my math and it showed quite clearly that this spell without Advantage underperforms and with Advantage is more appropriate for the level.
[Redacted]
Fortunately, I am not comparing a Paladin's action using a 5th level slot to a Wizard spending a 9th level slot, which would be "comparing a half-caster's utility with spellcasting abilities to a full spellcaster at the same character level." I am comparing two 5th level spells, not upcast at all, at the minimum character level needed to cast them, barring extraordinary methods.
In fact, even assuming a Ranger casting Steel Wind Strike at 17th level, it doesn't change anything, if we also assume, like the Paladin, that the casting stat is maxed out by 16th level. The reason for this is the game still assumes that at 17th level, you will hit 65% of the time. If Destructive Wave targeted another attribute, a failed save would be about 10% to 35% more likely, depending on the attribute (Dexterity would typically be 5 points lower for a 25% greater chance of failure).
By comparison, Conjure Volley is a 5th level Ranger spell and would be similarly be used in 17th level or higher encounters. It does 8D8 Force Damage (same damage type as Steel Wind Strike) but has a range. The average on the dice is 36. Because it targets Dexterity, the save bonus will likely be around +5 versus a DC of 19. It will fail the save 65% of the time. On average, the spell will deal 23.4 (65% failed save) + 6.3 (35% successful save for half damage) = 29.7 damage per target, for a spell that purely deals damage. Cone of Cold will probably fair worse because it targets Constitution again and even at 9th level (when a Wizard could first cast it), the average save bonus is around +5 and a DC 17 is reasonable so a 55% chance of a failed save is expected.
If the spell is not effective at 17th level, then it's not worth casting. In any case, you picked the spell. If a Paladin were to cast it at 9th level, perhaps through a magic item, the results would probably be slightly less favorable as I would expect their spell save DC to be 2 or more points lower than at 17th, relative to the constitution save bonus of creatures at their level. However, a Paladin cannot cast Destructive Wave, a Paladin Only spell, with their own spell slots until 17th level. Because of that, it would be poor design if that spell was not effective against 17th level encounters. I won't out perform higher level spells. In fact, it struggles because it requires a Constitution save, which is typically among the higher, if not highest, of a creature's saves. You chose the spell to compare Steel Wind Strike and it turns out that it doesn't compare as favorably as you'd like when the appropriate factors are taken into account.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
So sorry, but this discussion is over. The spell description says what it says and the text has been quoted and explained.
Dude, you don't get to declare a thread closed. All you can do is stop responding, and if people disagree, they can still post.
Also, your very accommodating interpretation of "vanish" is very much in opposition to how you're interpreting rules text in other discussions.
This is a spell where the chrome doesn't mesh well with the mechanics, but if they'd wanted to have you be unseen and therefore gain advantage, they could easily have specified it. Maybe you vanish, but there are big visual effects to the attacks.