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.
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.