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.
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.
This has no relevance to the point I was making, but the very next thing after that text does:
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.
Sage Advice is part of the official rulings. Mike Mearls's opinions are not.
The Sage Advice entry which talks about resolving spell attacks consecutively is mainly just distinguishing how the damage is determined for these spells vs an AoE spell such as Fireball where you make the damage roll once and apply that same damage to all of the targets. Since these are separate attacks, they will have separate damage rolls and some attacks will hit while others will miss. Whether or not you enforce that a spell like Magic Missile declares all targets ahead of time before any damage is resolved or not is sort of beyond the scope and irrelevant to this discussion since in the case of Steel Wind Strike, you cannot target any creature more than once. In a spell like Magic Missile, this matters since your first dart could kill an enemy, so if your subsequent darts were declared to target that same enemy then they would be wasted under that interpretation. Or, in the case of Scorching Ray, your first ray might miss an enemy that is about to die, so if you had declared to only target that enemy once then it survives. These are not considerations when casting Steel Wind Strike.
I'm not sure why it's being proposed that attacks resolving consecutively would matter at all in this case. If you subscribe to the interpretation that the spell makes you unseen prior to any of the attacks and that you reappear after all of the attacks are finished, then all of the attacks would be treated the same way. The attacking creature is not actually Hidden in this case so there is nothing different about resolving the first attack compared to any of the others.
If you insist on an interpretation that ignores the text of the spell description and determine that the attacker can be seen, then Hiding will almost never help you anyway since the moment your location changes en route to making a melee attack you are no longer Hidden anyway (unless you can somehow reach the first enemy from behind three-quarters cover) so again all of the attacks would be treated in the same way.
Really, this detail about how the attack rolls and damage rolls are resolved really doesn't matter for this spell.
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.
Arguments aren't true or false, they exist or don't. Feel free to disregard, but you are not the official arbiter of truth in the universe. It is what you think it to be is my position.
The attacks being resolved in order is affected by the general rule for resolving Simultaneous Effects. You decide the order as the caster (since you're the controller of the effects). All targets are declared before you roll any stacks. But since the spell doesn't say all the attacks are simultaneous (like how Magic Missile states all missiles hit simultaneously) it must be resolved in order.
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.
This has no relevance to the point I was making, but the very next thing after that text does:
Sage Advice is part of the official rulings. Mike Mearls's opinions are not.
pronouns: he/she/they
The Sage Advice entry which talks about resolving spell attacks consecutively is mainly just distinguishing how the damage is determined for these spells vs an AoE spell such as Fireball where you make the damage roll once and apply that same damage to all of the targets. Since these are separate attacks, they will have separate damage rolls and some attacks will hit while others will miss. Whether or not you enforce that a spell like Magic Missile declares all targets ahead of time before any damage is resolved or not is sort of beyond the scope and irrelevant to this discussion since in the case of Steel Wind Strike, you cannot target any creature more than once. In a spell like Magic Missile, this matters since your first dart could kill an enemy, so if your subsequent darts were declared to target that same enemy then they would be wasted under that interpretation. Or, in the case of Scorching Ray, your first ray might miss an enemy that is about to die, so if you had declared to only target that enemy once then it survives. These are not considerations when casting Steel Wind Strike.
I'm not sure why it's being proposed that attacks resolving consecutively would matter at all in this case. If you subscribe to the interpretation that the spell makes you unseen prior to any of the attacks and that you reappear after all of the attacks are finished, then all of the attacks would be treated the same way. The attacking creature is not actually Hidden in this case so there is nothing different about resolving the first attack compared to any of the others.
If you insist on an interpretation that ignores the text of the spell description and determine that the attacker can be seen, then Hiding will almost never help you anyway since the moment your location changes en route to making a melee attack you are no longer Hidden anyway (unless you can somehow reach the first enemy from behind three-quarters cover) so again all of the attacks would be treated in the same way.
Really, this detail about how the attack rolls and damage rolls are resolved really doesn't matter for this spell.
Arguments aren't true or false, they exist or don't. Feel free to disregard, but you are not the official arbiter of truth in the universe. It is what you think it to be is my position.
The attacks being resolved in order is affected by the general rule for resolving Simultaneous Effects. You decide the order as the caster (since you're the controller of the effects). All targets are declared before you roll any stacks. But since the spell doesn't say all the attacks are simultaneous (like how Magic Missile states all missiles hit simultaneously) it must be resolved in order.