D&D 5E Is Shadow Blade = Pass W/O Trace?

[Adamant]

Puk.... the phrase "spend their concentration" was my attempt to w/ brevity show both spells require Concentration.

I guess it did not come through.

That's likely because of the minor typo that changes the whole meaning of the sentence. Then instead of them.

Not trying to be strict on grammar, just thought you should know what caused the misunderstanding.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Adding more options can only possibly raise the power level of a character; never reduce it. The possible impact of allowing this option is either negligible, or someone will be more powerful. The best-case scenario is that it doesn't wreck the balance too badly.

So how does that answer the question? Is this a fair swap?

Multiclassing, moreover, is premised off the idea that more options are not inherently more powerful in a bounded system. A 3/3/3 Bard/Warlock/Paladin is not inherently a better caster than a 9th lvl Bard. Subclass interaction is the culprit for 'overpowered' combos

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So how does that answer the question? Is this a fair swap?

This not a fair swap, because fair swaps don't exist. Every option increases the power level of the game, either by a little or by a lot.

Multiclassing, moreover, is premised off the idea that more options are not inherently more powerful in a bounded system. A 3/3/3 Bard/Warlock/Paladin is not inherently a better caster than a 9th lvl Bard. Subclass interaction is the culprit for 'overpowered' combos

Multi-classing, which is an optional rule, inherently raises the power level of the game. For any given character concept, multi-classing either makes the character stronger or it makes the character weaker. And we can't expect any rational actor to choose the option that makes them weaker.

 

[NotAYakk]

The existence of an underpowered option does not mean that more options don't generate more power. Because options you don't choose don't make you weaker.

More options, unless they are all really bad, means you can sift through those options to find ones that make your build stronger.

The more powerful the thing being swapped around, the bigger the impact; being able to choose the height or weight of your PC is an option, but the impact is small.

Swapping one strong spell for another has a large impact. Even if they are both awesome things, the ability to pick one of X awesome things is stronger than having any one picked for you.

Both PWOT and Shadowblade are awesome spells. Which is better is going to be very build, party and situation dependent; but very often, it will be build and party.

Shadowblade isn't all that strong on most wizards, because most wizards really don't want to enter melee. Shadowblade is quite strong on someone with many attacks and the ability to survive in melee.

PWOT is quite strong if you are the only person in your party with it, and you and/or your party chooses to stealth, and exploration pillar is important at your table, and your DM runs stealth as useful. If any of those aren't true, it isn't nearly as strong.

Getting Shadowblade on a high-tap-count melee-capable character with high level spell slots is tricky, and that is one of the reasons why it isn't ridiculously strong. You can still build characters around it (EK 7/Sorcerer 13 isn't bad; a 16d8+2*stat one-two combo, psychic and thunder or fire).

The real question you should be asking is:
1. Is the player in question likely to charop that character outside of the rest of the group's bounds?
2. Can the DM deal with any charop resulting?
3. Will it make the game more fun?

You aren't publishing a supplement, you are DMing a PC.

 

[Blue]

I don't think it's a fair swap. Spell lists usually have focuses. Both of those spells are quite good within their focuses. Swapping either way means that the respective spell list will go with nothing comparable to a really outstanding spell of a type they normally wouldn't get.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This not a fair swap, because fair swaps don't exist. Every option increases the power level of the game, either by a little or by a lot.

Multi-classing, which is an optional rule, inherently raises the power level of the game. For any given character concept, multi-classing either makes the character stronger or it makes the character weaker. And we can't expect any rational actor to choose the option that makes them weaker.

This is a great example of theory that doesn’t match reality.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So how does that answer the question? Is this a fair swap?

Multiclassing, moreover, is premised off the idea that more options are not inherently more powerful in a bounded system. A 3/3/3 Bard/Warlock/Paladin is not inherently a better caster than a 9th lvl Bard. Subclass interaction is the culprit for 'overpowered' combos

According to Mike Mearls several years ago, there is nothing wrong with wholesale swaps of spell lists, in most cases.
In most games, the switch won’t change the power level outside of theory.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Blue, spells and characters have more categories of identity than just Exploration tier or Combat tiers. I've seen plenty of non melee Shadow sorcs take the spell based off the Shadow theme alone w/o regard to Exploration or Combat tiers.

If your answer is "depends on CharOp"..than anti -Mu, 'cause the problem is bigger than your answer