Shadow Blade

[ciarannihill]

So I love the spell Shadow Blade's flavor and the idea behind it, but it seems somewhat uninteresting in terms of actual use, seemingly being best utilized by a Dex Sword and Board Eldritch Knight with Duelist at 3rd level to maximize damage with it. Are there any other interesting ways to use it that I can't think of? And is this better as a thing to concentrate on as opposed to Haste with GWM/GWF? Less downside if Concentration breaks and 2 more AC because offhand Shield, but 12d8+28 vs 8d6 (reroll 1s and 2s)+60 seems pretty in favor of the Greatsword.

Warlocks get more sustained use out of it since they get slots back on short rests, so something like a Hexblade could theoretically use it to supplement melee, but they get fewer attacks than Fighters so I don't know how amazing that is either.


Anyone like this spell like me? Or anyone find interesting uses for it?

[Spiritchaser]

A fighter/sorcerer can get a lot of damage out of this Spell.

EK comes on line soonest with more spell slots, but any fighter could work. Draconic sorcerer is a great fit, but again, any could work.

Upcast at SB on round 1 then quicken GFB on subsequent rounds.

Even with fighter at level 5 damage is substantial, and at 11/9 with a level 5 blade you get 18 +5(Dex) +2(dueling)+ 18.5(gfb assume draconic) for your BA attack and 18+5 +2 for each of three more for 113.5 total damage. Action surge if you need more.

Not too shabby for a fairly tough, versatile character, and you’ll frequently have advantage. Elven accuracy would not be crazy here

Rogue sorcerer can also do well

[Mortis_Elrod]

Evoker’d Overchannel feature might be useful. I wonder if it the max damage counts for the whole duration. If it does then 6 levels of a martial class for extra attack or Sorcerer for quickened/twinned B.B./gfb.

Hrmm. No idea on the Sorcerer subclass. Maybe draconic for +Cha to fire damage. That would give Cha+Int+Int on GFB.

Storm might be fun too.

[Blood of Gaea]

Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger Wizard, Arcane Trickster Rogue, and non-Hexblade Bladelocks get the most use out of it in my opinion.

[ciarannihill]

Evoker’d Overchannel feature might be useful. I wonder if it the max damage counts for the whole duration. If it does then 6 levels of a martial class for extra attack or Sorcerer for quickened/twinned B.B./gfb.

Hrmm. No idea on the Sorcerer subclass. Maybe draconic for +Cha to fire damage. That would give Cha+Int+Int on GFB.

Storm might be fun too.

I don't think Overchannel would apply to it, since the spell it only conjuring the weapon, attacks with the weapon are what do the damage so I don't think it would apply. I could be wrong, though.

[Dalebert]

My AT will probably take it. It's another way to get advantage to ensure his sneak attack and also exploit elven accuracy. It also means he can do massive psychic dmg with his sneak attack just in case he's ever fighting a bear barbarian. ;)

[Mortis_Elrod]

I don't think Overchannel would apply to it, since the spell it only conjuring the weapon, attacks with the weapon are what do the damage so I don't think it would apply. I could be wrong, though.

overchannel only requires that the spell does damage. The spell most certainly does.

It doesn’t specify a duration, or spell school
Only does damage and 5th level or lower spell.

[Vogie]

I really think it was put in as a nod to people who wanted to DW as a bladelock, or having a non-Shillelagh melee weapon for tomelocks... using LR slots for the spell seems like a waste.

It's in the same category as Witch bolt, which seems to have been included simply for Sorcerers to Twin.

[ciarannihill]

overchannel only requires that the spell does damage. The spell most certainly does.

It doesn’t specify a duration, or spell school
Only does damage and 5th level or lower spell.

My reading is that the spell does not do damage, the weapon created by the spell does. Using Shape Stone to make a baseball sized rock which you then throw as an improvised weapon doesn't mean Shape Stone did the damage. Likewise, the casting of this spell doesn't inherently do damage -- it creates a weapon which you can then attack with. That's why RAW I don't think it would work the way you think it does, at the very least it certainly doesn't read like it would.

[Mortis_Elrod]

My reading is that the spell does not do damage, the weapon created by the spell does. Using Shape Stone to make a baseball sized rock which you then throw as an improvised weapon doesn't mean Shape Stone did the damage. Likewise, the casting of this spell doesn't inherently do damage -- it creates a weapon which you can then attack with. That's why RAW I don't think it would work the way you think it does, at the very least it certainly doesn't read like it would.

Weapon from Shadowblade is the spell.

That’s like saying Bigbys Hand isn’t dealing damage The magical hand I made is doing it.

[Deox]

Weapon from Shadowblade is the spell.

That’s like saying Bigbys Hand isn’t dealing damage The magical hand I made is doing it.

Relevant tweet from JC. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/17/if-i-overchannel-bigbys-hand/)

States it's "not exactly the intent". Using this as a point of reference, I think the same logic could be applied to Shadow Blade.

Edit: To clarify, I'm in agreement with allowing Bigby's / Shadow Blade to be a valid target for Overchannel to allow for maximum damage.

[Crgaston]

The most depressing thing about this spell is that on a Blade Pact Warlock, it’s not a Pact weapon. So none of the invocations work with it.

[CTurbo]

It works best when combined with Booming Blade. I think it's near mandatory for all Bladesingers and probably all Arcane Tricksters

[Foxhound438]

EK fighter, as you said, definitely comes to mind. Particularly in the case of a dex based archer fighter- you won't have the strength to use a heavy weapon up close, and if you aren't using crossbow expert you need a good option for melee- shadow blade is quite a lot better than a rapier for multiple reasons. As an aside to this one in specific, EK's are really more good as defense focused builds in the first place, since it's harder to get a lot of use out of SS/GWM due to a lack of an easy way to recoup accuracy like battlemaster (precision attack) or barbarian (reckless attack), at least until 19th when you could have greater invisibility.

Since it's a finesse weapon per the spell's description, rogues can use it for an extra d8 compared to a rapier, and free advantage means sneak attack made easy so long as you're not in bright light. Arcane Trickster can grab it on its own (on top of booming blade or green flame blade if they aren't in PHB+1 land), and otherwise any rogue can take 3 or 5 levels of warlock/sorcerer/wizard to pick it up.

paladin/sorcerer or paladin/warlock could get a lot of use of of the spell if they don't care to concentrate on anything else. There's a lot of things that you might prefer to concentrate on in paladin like bless or wrathful smite, but if all you care about is damage, a 3rd level shadow blade gives you back the damage you would get with a smite in 2 hits; with free advantage that probably happens the turn you cast it. A paladorc in specific can then start quickening green flame blades to further up the DPR at a relatively low cost.

[Matrix_Walker]

On the subject of the RAW of Overchannel...

It could be interpretted that the first strike is maximized, and then subsequent hits are considered as using the feature again.

[Corran]

Anyone like this spell like me? Or anyone find interesting uses for it?
I too like the flavor of that spell. But as far as concentration spells go, I find it a bit on the meh side. So if I were to pick it as one of a character's spells, I would do so under the premise of exploiting its situational value. And the situational value of this spell, is that it allows you access to a weapon when you are not supposed to have one. Few things allows for something like that (off the top of my head, warlock pact blade, eldritch knight weapon bond, being secretly a monk, exceptional uses of sleight of hand, or subtle creation under some very specific circumstances). So I would take this spell on an assassin type of character, or if the campaign revolved a lot around political/spy/murder/intrigue themes. Even better if both hold true.

[Sudsboy]

I'm in the same boat - I've been obsessed with the spell since Xanathar's came out. My current idea is to use it on a Sorcadin. Paladin of Conquest 6/ Dragon Sorc 3+. I'd go five Paladin levels then 3 Sorc levels then come back for the extra Pal level. Conquest gives you Armor of Agathys. I see spending most of your spell levels on Shield, Shadow Blade, smites, and conversion to sorc points. You can quicken Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade giving you three attacks per round in all but the most epic of combats. I think this outperforms most other Shadowblade combinations for DPR.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Shadow Blade, at first seemed like a good solution for my single classed BladeLock's TWF woes. No TWF fighting style, no Dual Wielder feat, but Shadow Blade looks like the perfect off hand weapon for a Dex-based BladeLock. Except it's not.

I can only use light weapons when dual-wielding, so my Pact Blade goes from a rapier to a short sword (or scimitar). And Shadow Blade uses my concentration slot, so no Hex damage. So does a scimitar Pact Blade and an off-hand Shadow Blade do damage equal to a rapier Pact Blade + Hex with an off-hand dagger + Hex?

Without advantage, it's too close to call. With advantage, I think Shadow Blade wins. This seems to hold true at 3rd level, when I first get Shadow Blade, and at 5th level, when Shadow Blade gets an extra d8 and my Pact Blade gets an extra attack. At 9th level (using a 5th level slot) Shadow Blade gets another damage boost, at which point I'd go with it.

With Elven Accuracy, Shadow Blade gets even better, provided there's some source of advantage. I've got a couple of other spells that provide advantage consistently (Faerie Fire, Improved Invisibility) but they're also concentration spells, which is no help.

In summary, I really want to like Shadow Blade, but currently, I can do just about as much damage with the weapons/spells I already have. By the time Shadow Blade's damage is worthwhile to me, I'll be picking out 5th level spells, not 2nd level ones. And its advantage feature is rather situational, IMHO. I have other spells that grant advantage to me every round, or to my entire party.

[krugaan]

I'm considering taking the spell as a hexbard.

The issue at hand is that our bearbarian is under the sway of an evil weapon and we might need to, uh ... separate them.

[JNAProductions]

So I love the spell Shadow Blade's flavor and the idea behind it, but it seems somewhat uninteresting in terms of actual use, seemingly being best utilized by a Dex Sword and Board Eldritch Knight with Duelist at 3rd level to maximize damage with it. Are there any other interesting ways to use it that I can't think of? And is this better as a thing to concentrate on as opposed to Haste with GWM/GWF? Less downside if Concentration breaks and 2 more AC because offhand Shield, but 12d8+28 vs 8d6 (reroll 1s and 2s)+60 seems pretty in favor of the Greatsword.

Warlocks get more sustained use out of it since they get slots back on short rests, so something like a Hexblade could theoretically use it to supplement melee, but they get fewer attacks than Fighters so I don't know how amazing that is either.


Anyone like this spell like me? Or anyone find interesting uses for it?

Did you factor in hit chance? Because I'm guessing that the +60 comes from GWM, which is gonna screw you HARD against a foe with decent AC.

[RSP]

I like it on melee-focused bards (thru MS) and Bladesingers. It adds quite a bit of damage to each attack, and scales well.

[rbstr]

Did you factor in hit chance? Because I'm guessing that the +60 comes from GWM, which is gonna screw you HARD against a foe with decent AC.

Yeah, the pure damage comparison is total bunk since it doesn't factor in the -5 of the -5/+10.
This is a persistent problem when comparing DPR around here.
And it's very clear that Shadow Blade would be better when you account for hit rates since GWM is only adding like 6-10 damage a round.
12d8+28 is 82
8d6+60 is 88...with rerolls only adding ~4-5.

The premise that GWM comes out way ahead is pretty flawed to begin with.

[RSP]

Maxed attack stat
+5 Prof Bonus (since we’re talking about an EK that can cast 3rd level spells).

GWM
+5, 2d6+15=22

SB (dueling)
(2) +10, 2d8+7=16
(3) +10, 3d8+7=20.5

With the -25% effectiveness, for every 10 hits SB gets, GWM is only getting 7.5 hits, so GWM gets about 165 damage compared to SB as a 2nd level spell getting 160. Upcasting SB increases this significantly (~205). If you just want to factor in the -25% effectiveness, GWM is at about 16.5 damage.

Keep in mind, with SB you get Advantage when not in Bright Light, which is pretty often in my experience during adventures, which helps a lot in getting hits and maintaining that damage output.

Now, obviously, Haste is granting an extra attack to help bridge that lower efficiency (and GWF would add a little as well), but the AC benefit of Haste is balanced by having a shield all the time with SB.

Losing Concentration with Haste is awful, so that’s a negative in favor of SB.

SB can be thrown but Haste grants extra movement.

It’s tough to compare Haste and SB with numbers as they do more than just damage, but I like SB compared to GWM for damage, particularly when you realize how often you get the Advantage. Plus it can be used more often than Haste as a 2nd level spell, and you can always have your shield up while getting Advantage 90% of the time.

[odigity]

My AT will probably take it. It's another way to get advantage to ensure his sneak attack and also exploit elven accuracy. It also means he can do massive psychic dmg with his sneak attack just in case he's ever fighting a bear barbarian. ;)

That makes sense, given that AT is the best mechanically-suited 5e class for a Jedi.

[unusualsuspect]

Maxed attack stat
+5 Prof Bonus (since we’re talking about an EK that can cast 3rd level spells).

GWM
+5, 2d6+15=22

SB (dueling)
(2) +10, 2d8+7=16
(3) +10, 3d8+7=20.5

With the -25% effectiveness, for every 10 hits SB gets, GWM is only getting 7.5 hits, so GWM gets about 165 damage compared to SB as a 2nd level spell getting 160. Upcasting SB increases this significantly (~205). If you just want to factor in the -25% effectiveness, GWM is at about 16.5 damage.

That math is wrong. -5 to hit is not always -25% effectiveness.

At AC 11, with your baseline stats, it's close (for every 20 hits by SB, ~15.8 hits for GWM), but as you get higher, it decreases. At AC 21, it's actually for every 20 hits by SB, 10 hits for GWM.

Math:
+5 to hit AC 11 = 6+ to hit, or 75% hit chance.
+10 to hit AC 11 = 2+ to hit (1s always miss), or 95% hit chance.
The ratio of SB hits to GWM hits is thus
0.95 : 0.75
or
1 : .789

+5 to hit AC 21 = 16+ to hit, or 25% hit chance.
+10 to hit AC 21 = 11+ to hit, or 50% hit chance.
The ration of SB hits to GWM hits is thus
0.5 : 0.25
or
1 : .5

[RSP]

That math is wrong. -5 to hit is not always -25% effectiveness.

At AC 11, with your baseline stats, it's close (for every 20 hits by SB, ~15.8 hits for GWM), but as you get higher, it decreases. At AC 21, it's actually for every 20 hits by SB, 10 hits for GWM.

Math:
+5 to hit AC 11 = 6+ to hit, or 75% hit chance.
+10 to hit AC 11 = 2+ to hit (1s always miss), or 95% hit chance.
The ratio of SB hits to GWM hits is thus
0.95 : 0.75
or
1 : .789

+5 to hit AC 21 = 16+ to hit, or 25% hit chance.
+10 to hit AC 21 = 11+ to hit, or 50% hit chance.
The ration of SB hits to GWM hits is thus
0.5 : 0.25
or
1 : .5

Sure, but it’s a generalized comparison, not meant to simulate every possible instance (which if you want to do, I’d be interested in seeing, but isn’t necessary for the question asked). For that purpose, how they compare, assuming the -5=-25%, pretty much works, particularly with ACs <21.

GWM’s -5/+10 falls off on effectiveness as AC increases, but since no one really knows everything they’ll be encountering when playing, keeping it simple works better (at least in my opinion). But it is good to know that at higher ACs, the contrast is greater. Thanks!

[unusualsuspect]

Sure, but it’s a generalized comparison, not meant to simulate every possible instance (which if you want to do, I’d be interested in seeing, but isn’t necessary for the question asked). For that purpose, how they compare, assuming the -5=-25%, pretty much works, particularly with ACs <21.

GWM’s -5/+10 falls off on effectiveness as AC increases, but since no one really knows everything they’ll be encountering when playing, keeping it simple works better (at least in my opinion). But it is good to know that at higher ACs, the contrast is greater. Thanks!

The -5 = -25% really only works when you're at or near AC 10, and it becomes a consistently larger gap the higher you go from there.

+5 to hit AC 16 = 11+ to hit, or 50% chance
+10 to hit AC 16 = 6+ to hit, or 75% chance
The ratio of SB hits to GWM hits is thus
.75 : .5
or
1 : .67

There's a substantial difference in doing 3/4 the potential DPS, doing 2/3 the potential DPS, and doing 1/2 the potential DPS.

When the thread of the conversation is about factoring in accuracy and target AC into comparisons for DPS purposes (particularly when discussing something mostly available at Tier 2 play), effectively assuming a fairly low AC will skew the analysis.

I don't think a full AC 1 through 30 analysis is necessary, personally, but covering some extremely basic sets (AC 10, AC 15, AC 20, maybe AC 25) will provide a much more useful gauge, particularly for DPS methods like GWM that are so incredibly reliant on targets being easy to hit.

If you absolutely must choose a single AC to compare, I'd think you'd want something more middle ground than the equivalent of AC 11, particularly since it the -5 = -25% assumption only really approaches being representative when the non -5 comparison is literally hitting 95% of the time.

[RSP]

The -5 = -25% really only works when you're at or near AC 10, and it becomes a consistently larger gap the higher you go from there.

+5 to hit AC 16 = 11+ to hit, or 50% chance
+10 to hit AC 16 = 6+ to hit, or 75% chance
The ratio of SB hits to GWM hits is thus
.75 : .5
or
1 : .67

There's a substantial difference in doing 3/4 the potential DPS, doing 2/3 the potential DPS, and doing 1/2 the potential DPS.

When the thread of the conversation is about factoring in accuracy and target AC into comparisons for DPS purposes (particularly when discussing something mostly available at Tier 2 play), effectively assuming a fairly low AC will skew the analysis.

I don't think a full AC 1 through 30 analysis is necessary, personally, but covering some extremely basic sets (AC 10, AC 15, AC 20, maybe AC 25) will provide a much more useful gauge, particularly for DPS methods like GWM that are so incredibly reliant on targets being easy to hit.

If you absolutely must choose a single AC to compare, I'd think you'd want something more middle ground than the equivalent of AC 11, particularly since it the -5 = -25% assumption only really approaches being representative when the non -5 comparison is literally hitting 95% of the time.

With the AC 16 comparison you have up, why isn’t the difference between 75% and 50%, 25%? There’s 5 sides of the d20 that miss for the GWM -5, that hit for the non-GWM. 5 out of 20 is 25%. So 10 hits of the non-GWM would only have 7.5 hits for the GWM -5/+10. I’m not sure why you think that’s not a fair comparison.

[Tanarii]

Against average AC relative to level, GWM typically does about 60% damage compared to not using GWM. Either 40/65 hit chance, or 35/60. Or 6 hits for every 10 without.

Not counting advantage or exceptional bonuses to hit, of course. With advantage you're looking at closer to ~65% against average ACs.

[unusualsuspect]

With the AC 16 comparison you have up, why isn’t the difference between 75% and 50%, 25%? There’s 5 sides of the d20 that miss for the GWM -5, that hit for the non-GWM. 5 out of 20 is 25%. So 10 hits of the non-GWM would only have 7.5 hits for the GWM -5/+10. I’m not sure why you think that’s not a fair comparison.

That's absolute hit chance, but doesn't reflect comparative effectiveness.

Use concrete numbers, and it becomes more clear. Imagine each person attacks 4 times. With a 75% hit chance, you'd expect the SB to hit 3 times out of 4. With a 50% hit chance, you'd expect the GWM to hit 2 times out of 4.

3 hits for every 2 is 150% the hits.

Go to AC 21, and the absolute difference in hit chance doesn't change (still -25%), but the ratio changes again. With a 50% hit chance, you'd expect the SB to hit 2 times out of 4. With a 25% hit chance, you'd expect the GWM to hit 1 time out of 4.

2 hits for every 1 is 200% the hits.

That's why your assumption is problematic. It miscalculates their comparative output, because you're focusing on the (meaningless) absolute difference in hit chance, and not their comparative effectiveness.

[RSP]

That's absolute hit chance, but doesn't reflect comparative effectiveness.

Use concrete numbers, and it becomes more clear. Imagine each person attacks 4 times. With a 75% hit chance, you'd expect the SB to hit 3 times out of 4. With a 50% hit chance, you'd expect the GWM to hit 2 times out of 4.

3 hits for every 2 is 150% the hits.

Go to AC 21, and the absolute difference in hit chance doesn't change (still -25%), but the ratio changes again. With a 50% hit chance, you'd expect the SB to hit 2 times out of 4. With a 25% hit chance, you'd expect the GWM to hit 1 time out of 4.

2 hits for every 1 is 200% the hits.

That's why your assumption is problematic. It miscalculates their comparative output, because you're focusing on the (meaningless) absolute difference in hit chance, and not their comparative effectiveness.

I understand it’s not a perfect comparison, numberswise, but I was looking for a method to compare the two outside of AC (which we can’t know as we don’t even know the DM running this hypothetical adventure, much less the monsters they’ll choose to use in encounters), while not just leaving it to “well, GWM does more damage on a hit,” hence using the difference in hit percentage.

Now, I’m not great with stats, and I very much appreciate your breakdown here (it educated me), but without knowing the ACs, is there a better way to compare the two? The comparison I did is the best at I know to do that, though I’m open to using a better one, if there is one.

[samcifer]

I understand it’s not a perfect comparison, numberswise, but I was looking for a method to compare the two outside of AC (which we can’t know as we don’t even know the DM running this hypothetical adventure, much less the monsters they’ll choose to use in encounters), while not just leaving it to “well, GWM does more damage on a hit,” hence using the difference in hit percentage.

Now, I’m not great with stats, and I very much appreciate your breakdown here (it educated me), but without knowing the ACs, is there a better way to compare the two? The comparison I did is the best at I know to do that, though I’m open to using a better one, if there is one.

I think I need a percentage number to make sense of this. Assuming you have maxed out your attack stat, what is the percentage on a chance to hit with GWM's +5 to hit vs. without the penalty? What about having a +1 weapon? How much of a difference in percentage to hit is that?