Another Steel Wind Strike question- what a confusing spell! SWS and GWM

[diplomancer]

So, I was reading the Great Weapon Master feat (I hadn't done it for a while), and realized that, IF you're considered to be somehow attacking with "the weapon used in the casting" (there ARE other spell attacks that use weapons, like a Magic Stone thrown from a sling), you can use the GWM feat if you want to, as neither bullet point requires a melee weapon attack. Now, the -5+10 would very rarely be used, since no one wants to risk losing 6d10 damage, unless maybe if attacking with advantage and with Elven Accuracy; but the first bullet point would trigger quite often.

Now, I don't imagine many Wizards going the GWM route, but I could see a high-level Melee Ranger pulling that off; so, what do you guys think, would it work? Should it work?

My answers to those two questions are:
1- No, it wouldn't work. Though the spell heavily implies that you're attacking with the weapon, it doesn't actually state that this is what you're doing (unlike Magic Stone with a sling).
2- Yes, it should work; balance-wise, as I've mentioned, this would mostly be used by high level Rangers, and maybe some weird Str Valor Bards, but very few wizards would get GWM in the first place (and if they DID, they are already probably gimping themselves, so they would deserve the buff); so this is a buff to those high level rangers and to those Str Valor Bards, and, honestly, they could use those buffs. But also intent-wise, the whole "story" of the spell is about magically transforming your attacks with a particular weapon. So it SHOULD be considered that you're attacking with it, even if it's a melee spell attack.

[Mastikator]

GWM is used when you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon.
SWS lets you make a melee spell attack.

I'm unsure if that is a problem because funnily enough GWM doesn't say "melee weapon attack", just "melee attack".

[ender241]

It's answer 1 - you aren't attacking with a weapon. You're flourishing the weapon and then making melee spell attacks. The weapon is the material component and nothing more.

[tKUUNK]

It's answer 1 - you aren't attacking with a weapon. You're flourishing the weapon and then making melee spell attacks. The weapon is the material component and nothing more.

this ^

as noted previously on this thread: although GWM states "melee attack" and not "melee weapon attack" the next phrase immediately follows: "with a heavy weapon you are proficient with". So GWM is pretty specific that it IS using a melee weapon.

That said, it would be a fun synergy to allow, in a high-power campaign. Very anime-esque!!

[Kane0]

GWM is used when you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon.
SWS lets you make a melee spell attack.

I'm unsure if that is a problem because funnily enough GWM doesn't say "melee weapon attack", just "melee attack".

I suppose you're making a melee spell attack using a heavy weapon, which is wierd but valid?

[ender241]

I suppose you're making a melee spell attack using a heavy weapon, which is wierd but valid?

You aren't though. Nowhere in SWS does it state that the weapon is used to make the melee spell attack.

Compare it to Booming Blade: "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it..."

Or Magic Stone: "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."

SWS lacks this language. It says: "You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. Choose up to five creatures you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against each target."

The weapon used in the casting is flourished. That's it. Then melee spell attacks are made. If it said "Make a melee spell attack with the weapon used in the casting" then GWM could apply. But it doesn't.

[loki_ragnarock]

So, I was reading the Great Weapon Master feat (I hadn't done it for a while), and realized that, IF you're considered to be somehow attacking with "the weapon used in the casting" (there ARE other spell attacks that use weapons, like a Magic Stone thrown from a sling), you can use the GWM feat if you want to, as neither bullet point requires a melee weapon attack. Now, the -5+10 would very rarely be used, since no one wants to risk losing 6d10 damage, unless maybe if attacking with advantage and with Elven Accuracy; but the first bullet point would trigger quite often.

Now, I don't imagine many Wizards going the GWM route, but I could see a high-level Melee Ranger pulling that off; so, what do you guys think, would it work? Should it work?

My answers to those two questions are:
1- No, it wouldn't work. Though the spell heavily implies that you're attacking with the weapon, it doesn't actually state that this is what you're doing (unlike Magic Stone with a sling).
2- Yes, it should work; balance-wise, as I've mentioned, this would mostly be used by high level Rangers, and maybe some weird Str Valor Bards, but very few wizards would get GWM in the first place (and if they DID, they are already probably gimping themselves, so they would deserve the buff); so this is a buff to those high level rangers and to those Str Valor Bards, and, honestly, they could use those buffs. But also intent-wise, the whole "story" of the spell is about magically transforming your attacks with a particular weapon. So it SHOULD be considered that you're attacking with it, even if it's a melee spell attack.

I'd allow it.

Melee rangers don't get enough love. Throwing them a bone hurts nobody.

[Keltest]

None of the damage comes from the weapon used, only the spell. I would say the weapon is not actually used in the attack for rules interaction purposes.

[Silpharon]

Agree with others, though that wording is certainly confusing. It's strange to require the weapon but not "use it".

That said, I just noticed how good Steel Wind Strike is with an Assassin... 60d10 total on 5 attacks with advantage... Yummy

[stoutstien]

Agree with others, though that wording is certainly confusing. It's strange to require the weapon but not "use it".

That said, I just noticed how good Steel Wind Strike is with an Assassin... 60d10 total on 5 attacks with advantage... Yummy

Don't forget you could be a bugbear as well for an extra 4d6 per hit as well.

[diplomancer]

Agree with others, though that wording is certainly confusing. It's strange to require the weapon but not "use it".

That said, I just noticed how good Steel Wind Strike is with an Assassin... 60d10 total on 5 attacks with advantage... Yummy

Yeah, the bolded part is why I'd allow it, even though, on a strict reading, the weapon's never used. What's it doing then? What is the caster doing if the intent of the spell is that he's going around really fast or teleporting and then attacking? Is he punching the targets? Staring really hard at them? Why the weapon then?

No. I'd say, specially if you go with the understanding that the intent of the spell is that the caster's moving around to each target individually, that he IS attacking them with the flourished weapon, but that its damage is transformed by the spell. And for that reason, I'd allow it, IF going with that reading of the spell.

[Chronos]

Steel Wind Strike does the same damage if you cast it with a dagger or a greatsword. That's what decides it for me: What you're attacking with clearly isn't the weapon itself, or what weapon it is would matter.

[Bardon]

Don't forget you could be a bugbear as well for an extra 4d6 per hit as well.

I can see an extra 2d6 if it's first-round combat but where does the second 2d6 come from?

[diplomancer]

I can see an extra 2d6 if it's first-round combat but where does the second 2d6 come from?

If you're an Assassin and surprise the targets, every hit is a critical hit.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Steel Wind Strike does the same damage if you cast it with a dagger or a greatsword. That's what decides it for me: What you're attacking with clearly isn't the weapon itself, or what weapon it is would matter.

Similarly, what if the weapon is flaming? Or poisoned? Or silver? Etc.

[sithlordnergal]

It would be number 1: Even though the spell does imply it, the spell doesn't state that you're using the weapon to attack. As such, you're not meant to use the weapon in the attack, and cannot use Heavy Weapon Master. If it did intend for you to use the weapon then it would mention that, like how Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, and Magic Stone all mention using the weapon for the attack as part of casting the spell.

As for what you're doing with the weapon, you're doing a flourish. You're moving the weapon in some fancy, but ultimately pointless, way, and hurting people with magic.

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, the bolded part is why I'd allow it, even though, on a strict reading, the weapon's never used. What's it doing then? What is the caster doing if the intent of the spell is that he's going around really fast or teleporting and then attacking? Is he punching the targets? Staring really hard at them? Why the weapon then?

No. I'd say, specially if you go with the understanding that the intent of the spell is that the caster's moving around to each target individually, that he IS attacking them with the flourished weapon, but that its damage is transformed by the spell. And for that reason, I'd allow it, IF going with that reading of the spell.

That could make for an interesting multiclass...3 levels of Rogue for Assassin, 2 levels of Paladin for Smite, Bladesinger to be the melee Gish and spell slots. If you surprise someone you could auto-crit for 12d10+10d8 from Steel Wind Strike and Divine Smite, if you spend two 5th level spell slots. Course that'd be a pretty high level build...level 14 at the lowest.

[Bardon]

If you're an Assassin and surprise the targets, every hit is a critical hit.

D'oh. Of course - I should have picked that up! Thanks.