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.
Feel free to immediately cease being antagonistic and confrontational for no reason. It is unwarranted.
Nobody has declared any thread closed. I have no idea where you are getting such ideas. The discussion that has ended is the one between me and one other poster that had been going on for a handful of posts. The discussion ending is not entirely of my own choosing I might add. My logical reasons that I gave as to why his arguments were unreasonable have been redacted and I still do not know the reason -- when that happens it really is just impossible to continue with the discussion. But either way, it had run its course anyway although why you have something to say in the matter all of a sudden is an absolute mystery.
I have no idea to what you are referring when you claim that my interpretation is inconsistent with other discussions. You would have to provide some specific examples. In all cases in this forum, I read and interpret rules text. I am quite good at it, and I share my findings with the community. As far as I can tell, no other interpretation of "vanish" makes any sense. Have I given a different interpretation of what it means for a creature to vanish in other threads? As always, other DMs are free to interpret the rules however they like. If you are running a game and you decide other creatures can see a creature that has vanished, then good for you. Run it however you like.
If there were any big visual effects to the attacks the spell description would say so. Spells do what they say, and they only do what they say. The text for this spell has been quoted and explained.
There's a very simple reason to assume the "vanish" in the spell's description doesn't give advantage: The spell's description would tell you if it did. It's not rules text, it's just flavor of the spell, or it would tell you to apply advantage to all the attacks made as part of it.
Are you technically not seen for the exact instant of the attacks? Maybe not. But spells do exactly what they say they do, no more, no less. They tell the mechanical function.
What matters for vision is whether or not you're seen at the time you cast the spell. And even then, since the attacks are resolved in order, you only get advantage on the first attack unless you have something granting persistent advantage (such as Greater Invisibility keeping you invisible).
What matters for vision is whether or not you're seen at the time you cast the spell.
This is not true. The Unseen Attackers and Targets rule is applied at the moment that an attack is made, not at some other moment prior to or after the attack. It doesn't matter if the attack happens to be nested within some sort of Action or Spell or a creature's Turn or anything like that. It only matters whether or not the attacker is seen when the attack is made.
since the attacks are resolved in order, you only get advantage on the first attack unless you have something granting persistent advantage (such as Greater Invisibility keeping you invisible).
This is not true either. Every attack is evaluated independently based on the circumstances that are present during that attack. It seems like you might be conflating the rules for Hiding with this situation. This attacker is not necessarily hidden. He is simply Unseen during every attack before eventually reappearing in a new location via teleportation.
There's a very simple reason to assume the "vanish" in the spell's description doesn't give advantage: The spell's description would tell you if it did.
I disagree with this.
A spell's description will explicitly provide its own rules that apply when the spell effect is originated, but the general rules of the game always apply unless the spell description explicitly creates an exception.
For example, there are a handful of spells in the Basic Rules which explicitly declare that an attacker gains Advantage, such as: Faerie Fire, Foresight, Guiding Bolt, Otto's Irresistible Dance and Shining Smite. The reason why these spells must explicitly declare this Advantage is because there is no general rule that would otherwise apply to those situations. Normally, if you can see a creature, you can simply attack that creature with a normal roll. So, Faerie Fire lights up a target creature so that you can see it. So what? According to the general rules, why should that provide any Advantage? It doesn't. That spell provides Advantage only because the spell explicitly says that it does. A similar effect happens with Guiding Bolt and Shining Smite. Otto's Irresistible Dance causes a creature to dance. Is there any general rule which says that you should have Advantage when attacking a creature that is dancing? No. So, the spell must explicitly declare this.
Now consider the case where I cast Invisibility on myself. Does the Invisibility spell say anything about granting Advantage to my attack rolls? No. But, under normal circumstances will I have Advantage on my next attack roll? Yes. Why is that? Because there is already a general rule that applies to that situation. The rules for the Invisible condition state: "your attack rolls have Advantage". So, the spell description does not need to explicitly state this. It is already covered by the existing general rules.
Likewise, the Steel Wind Strike spell does not have to explicitly declare that attacks are made with Advantage. The general rule for Unseen Attackers and Targets already applies. So, it is enough for the spell to describe an effect which makes the attacker unseen, such as when the attacker vanishes.
It's not rules text, it's just flavor of the spell . . .
Well, this is another matter. I do not read this as flavor text in this particular case for this particular spell. But if for some reason a DM decides that this portion of the description is flavor and is not actually something that is happening as a result of the origination of the spell effect, then of course they will arrive at a different ruling as to whether or not the attacker is unseen.
It feels like it would be kind of a tough sell to tell a player, "No, the spellcaster does not actually vanish" when the spell description says, "You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind", but the DM has the final say on such things as always.
What matters for vision is whether or not you're seen at the time you cast the spell. And even then, since the attacks are resolved in order, you only get advantage on the first attack unless you have something granting persistent advantage (such as Greater Invisibility keeping you invisible).
Why are attacks resolved in an order? What order? The spell doesn't say that, nor does it provide for an order.
Mearls, iirc, has said attacks are simultaneous in similar situations (ie, Eldritch Blast).
Also: make up your mind? Either it's determined when the spell is cast (and thus true for all attacks), or its determined for each attack individually. You can't have it both ways. (This is even assuming you're correct about the spell not making you unseen, you can't argue its determined when the spell is cast, but then say 'actually, no, the later attacks don't benefit because you're revealed now'. If it's determined when the spell is cast, then all the attacks are determined then.)
Sage Advice clarified the question of spells making attack rolls against multiple targets here:
When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast, do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack roll (and damage, if appropriate).
Sage Advice clarified the question of spells making attack rolls against multiple targets here:
When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast, do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack roll (and damage, if appropriate).
And Mearls said the opposite. There is no consensus from the designers of the game on it.
I side with Mearls here (and think Sage Advice is simply wrong as a matter of rules). If you upcast hold person, do you choose a target, wait to see their save result, then choose your next target? I don't think so. The general rule is not things are consecutive when it comes to spell targets. The general rule is that they're simultaneous. Similarly, fireball deals damage to all creatures in its AoE simultaneously. If Fireball involved an attack against each creature, those would be simultaneous too. The default for spells is declare all targets, then resolve effects.
(And Sage Advice's additional note on rolling attacks/damage separately is, well, not relevant to the question. Of course each attack and each instance of damage is separate rolls, regardless of whether they are simultaneous or consecutive).
And in SWS's case in particular, since you can teleport adjacent to any target, that suggests the narrative is they all happen at once, because otherwise you should have to teleport adjacent to the last target hit.
And if you are right that they're consecutive, why would you need to choose all 5 targets immediately? It's no different than choosing targets for Eldritch blast. If the choice of targets happens simultaneously, then the hits happen simultaneously. You don't choose targets then make attacks. The choosing of targets and the attacks are simultaneous. (Having been chosen as a target is simultaneous with receiving the attack).
Sage Advice clarified the question of spells making attack rolls against multiple targets here:
When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as Scorching Ray or Eldritch Blast, do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack roll (and damage, if appropriate).
And Mearls said the opposite. There is no consensus from the designers of the game on it.
I side with Mearls here (and think Sage Advice is simply wrong as a matter of rules).
It's fine for you to feel that way, and it's fine for you to rule that way when you're DMing, but just keep in mind that what you're saying here is that you think the official rules are wrong about what the official rules are. Sage Advice is part of the official rules; the opinion of a single person who used to work for Wizards of the Coast is not.
The official rules are the rules that are written in the rulebooks.
Here is what Sage Advice says about itself:
Official Rulings
Official rulingson how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
A "ruling" is not the same thing as a "rule". As such, there are no official rules in Sage Advice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Feel free to immediately cease being antagonistic and confrontational for no reason. It is unwarranted.
Nobody has declared any thread closed. I have no idea where you are getting such ideas. The discussion that has ended is the one between me and one other poster that had been going on for a handful of posts. The discussion ending is not entirely of my own choosing I might add. My logical reasons that I gave as to why his arguments were unreasonable have been redacted and I still do not know the reason -- when that happens it really is just impossible to continue with the discussion. But either way, it had run its course anyway although why you have something to say in the matter all of a sudden is an absolute mystery.
I have no idea to what you are referring when you claim that my interpretation is inconsistent with other discussions. You would have to provide some specific examples. In all cases in this forum, I read and interpret rules text. I am quite good at it, and I share my findings with the community. As far as I can tell, no other interpretation of "vanish" makes any sense. Have I given a different interpretation of what it means for a creature to vanish in other threads? As always, other DMs are free to interpret the rules however they like. If you are running a game and you decide other creatures can see a creature that has vanished, then good for you. Run it however you like.
If there were any big visual effects to the attacks the spell description would say so. Spells do what they say, and they only do what they say. The text for this spell has been quoted and explained.
There's a very simple reason to assume the "vanish" in the spell's description doesn't give advantage: The spell's description would tell you if it did. It's not rules text, it's just flavor of the spell, or it would tell you to apply advantage to all the attacks made as part of it.
Are you technically not seen for the exact instant of the attacks? Maybe not. But spells do exactly what they say they do, no more, no less. They tell the mechanical function.
What matters for vision is whether or not you're seen at the time you cast the spell. And even then, since the attacks are resolved in order, you only get advantage on the first attack unless you have something granting persistent advantage (such as Greater Invisibility keeping you invisible).
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
This is not true. The Unseen Attackers and Targets rule is applied at the moment that an attack is made, not at some other moment prior to or after the attack. It doesn't matter if the attack happens to be nested within some sort of Action or Spell or a creature's Turn or anything like that. It only matters whether or not the attacker is seen when the attack is made.
This is not true either. Every attack is evaluated independently based on the circumstances that are present during that attack. It seems like you might be conflating the rules for Hiding with this situation. This attacker is not necessarily hidden. He is simply Unseen during every attack before eventually reappearing in a new location via teleportation.
I disagree with this.
A spell's description will explicitly provide its own rules that apply when the spell effect is originated, but the general rules of the game always apply unless the spell description explicitly creates an exception.
For example, there are a handful of spells in the Basic Rules which explicitly declare that an attacker gains Advantage, such as: Faerie Fire, Foresight, Guiding Bolt, Otto's Irresistible Dance and Shining Smite. The reason why these spells must explicitly declare this Advantage is because there is no general rule that would otherwise apply to those situations. Normally, if you can see a creature, you can simply attack that creature with a normal roll. So, Faerie Fire lights up a target creature so that you can see it. So what? According to the general rules, why should that provide any Advantage? It doesn't. That spell provides Advantage only because the spell explicitly says that it does. A similar effect happens with Guiding Bolt and Shining Smite. Otto's Irresistible Dance causes a creature to dance. Is there any general rule which says that you should have Advantage when attacking a creature that is dancing? No. So, the spell must explicitly declare this.
Now consider the case where I cast Invisibility on myself. Does the Invisibility spell say anything about granting Advantage to my attack rolls? No. But, under normal circumstances will I have Advantage on my next attack roll? Yes. Why is that? Because there is already a general rule that applies to that situation. The rules for the Invisible condition state: "your attack rolls have Advantage". So, the spell description does not need to explicitly state this. It is already covered by the existing general rules.
Likewise, the Steel Wind Strike spell does not have to explicitly declare that attacks are made with Advantage. The general rule for Unseen Attackers and Targets already applies. So, it is enough for the spell to describe an effect which makes the attacker unseen, such as when the attacker vanishes.
Well, this is another matter. I do not read this as flavor text in this particular case for this particular spell. But if for some reason a DM decides that this portion of the description is flavor and is not actually something that is happening as a result of the origination of the spell effect, then of course they will arrive at a different ruling as to whether or not the attacker is unseen.
It feels like it would be kind of a tough sell to tell a player, "No, the spellcaster does not actually vanish" when the spell description says, "You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind", but the DM has the final say on such things as always.
Why are attacks resolved in an order? What order? The spell doesn't say that, nor does it provide for an order.
Mearls, iirc, has said attacks are simultaneous in similar situations (ie, Eldritch Blast).
Also: make up your mind? Either it's determined when the spell is cast (and thus true for all attacks), or its determined for each attack individually. You can't have it both ways. (This is even assuming you're correct about the spell not making you unseen, you can't argue its determined when the spell is cast, but then say 'actually, no, the later attacks don't benefit because you're revealed now'. If it's determined when the spell is cast, then all the attacks are determined then.)
Sage Advice clarified the question of spells making attack rolls against multiple targets here:
Steel Wind Strike seems like the same kind of thing.
pronouns: he/she/they
And Mearls said the opposite. There is no consensus from the designers of the game on it.
I side with Mearls here (and think Sage Advice is simply wrong as a matter of rules). If you upcast hold person, do you choose a target, wait to see their save result, then choose your next target? I don't think so. The general rule is not things are consecutive when it comes to spell targets. The general rule is that they're simultaneous. Similarly, fireball deals damage to all creatures in its AoE simultaneously. If Fireball involved an attack against each creature, those would be simultaneous too. The default for spells is declare all targets, then resolve effects.
(And Sage Advice's additional note on rolling attacks/damage separately is, well, not relevant to the question. Of course each attack and each instance of damage is separate rolls, regardless of whether they are simultaneous or consecutive).
And in SWS's case in particular, since you can teleport adjacent to any target, that suggests the narrative is they all happen at once, because otherwise you should have to teleport adjacent to the last target hit.
And if you are right that they're consecutive, why would you need to choose all 5 targets immediately? It's no different than choosing targets for Eldritch blast. If the choice of targets happens simultaneously, then the hits happen simultaneously. You don't choose targets then make attacks. The choosing of targets and the attacks are simultaneous. (Having been chosen as a target is simultaneous with receiving the attack).
It's fine for you to feel that way, and it's fine for you to rule that way when you're DMing, but just keep in mind that what you're saying here is that you think the official rules are wrong about what the official rules are. Sage Advice is part of the official rules; the opinion of a single person who used to work for Wizards of the Coast is not.
pronouns: he/she/they
Actually, no it is not.
The official rules are the rules that are written in the rulebooks.
Here is what Sage Advice says about itself:
A "ruling" is not the same thing as a "rule". As such, there are no official rules in Sage Advice.