Druid with Polearm Master

[JamesT]

Reading the feat Polearm Master, I can't see anything excluding a Druid from using Shillelagh, wielding both a shield and quarterstaff and getting the full benefit of this feat - both the extra attack and the OA.

Am I missing something or is that correct?

[Yorrin]

Looks legit to me. Though it would be up to DM interpretation if the d8 from Shillelagh overrides the d4 from the feat.

[JamesT]

I wouldn't expect the d4 to be replaced by a d8, but I like the idea of using this feat on a druid.

Thanks.

[HorridElemental]

I can see it going both ways, but...

The feat is always active and is a fighting style anyone can pick up (assuming feats are green lit) and the Cantrip is only available to Druids and Warlocks (Tome).

So the more specific ruling could be considered Shillelagh over riding the feat.

[hawklost]

You could also look at it the opposite way. The Shillelagh is a spell that enhances the basic weapon.

The Feat gives a new specific attack that is called out as being a d4, meaning the Feat is more specific.

[Soras Teva Gee]

This is as legit as you can get. Polearm Master probably "should" be requiring a quarterstaff be used in both hands it doesn't actually do so at any point.

Shillelagh should have no effect on the d4 or rather would be specifically overruled by the feat specifically changing the damage dice again when you use the bonus action in the attack it enables. It changes quarterstaff glaive and halberd all to d4 bludgeoning specifically for the unique bonus action attack. As described pretty well by the feat you're not properly hitting someone with it, but whipping around to smack the opponent quickly with the shaft of the weapon.

You would still get to use Wis as your stat though it looks like to me.

[HorridElemental]

You could also look at it the opposite way. The Shillelagh is a spell that enhances the basic weapon.

The Feat gives a new specific attack that is called out as being a d4, meaning the Feat is more specific.


This is as legit as you can get. Polearm Master probably "should" be requiring a quarterstaff be used in both hands it doesn't actually do so at any point.

Shillelagh should have no effect on the d4 or rather would be specifically overruled by the feat specifically changing the damage dice again when you use the bonus action in the attack it enables. It changes quarterstaff glaive and halberd all to d4 bludgeoning specifically for the unique bonus action attack. As described pretty well by the feat you're not properly hitting someone with it, but whipping around to smack the opponent quickly with the shaft of the weapon.

You would still get to use Wis as your stat though it looks like to me.

You are arguing specifics in a weird way.

If feats are allowed then the spell is more specific and the feat is a general rule that is applied broadly and indiscriminatly to all that has it.

The spell is only for select people (Druids/Warlocks) and apply in a more specific manner.

So while I get where you are coming from and agree that the feat damage overrides the spell... The reasoning for your answer is way to weird for me to support.

[hawklost]

You are arguing specifics in a weird way.

If feats are allowed then the spell is more specific and the feat is a general rule that is applied broadly and indiscriminatly to all that has it.

The spell is only for select people (Druids/Warlocks) and apply in a more specific manner.

So while I get where you are coming from and agree that the feat damage overrides the spell... The reasoning for your answer is way to weird for me to support.

See it this way then. The Spell casts on all things wooden that are weapons.

The Feat specifically calls out which weapons get its bonus and what that bonus is.

All Weapons > Wooden Weapons > Specific Weapons

Specific ruling beats general ruling.

Does that work for you?

[HorridElemental]

See it this way then. The Spell casts on all things wooden that are weapons.

The Feat specifically calls out which weapons get its bonus and what that bonus is.

All Weapons > Wooden Weapons > Specific Weapons

Specific ruling beats general ruling.

Does that work for you?

No because you are ignoring everything that goes against what you think in order to make yourself right.

I could just as easily say...

All Weapons > Wooden Weapon > Specific Weapons > Feat (always applied to specific weapons that anyone can use and anyone can take this feat) > Spell (sometimes applied to specific weapons that have the feat and used by 2 classes)

[hawklost]

No because you are ignoring everything that goes against what you think in order to make yourself right.

I could just as easily say...

All Weapons > Wooden Weapon > Specific Weapons > Feat (always applied to specific weapons that anyone can use and anyone can take this feat) > Spell (sometimes applied to specific weapons that have the feat and used by 2 classes)

So what you are saying is, it all depends on the interpretation of the DM on which is more specific.

You have just proven that your own argument is as flawed as the ones you are claiming are wrong.

EDIT:
Also note that Feats are an optional rule that the DM must allow, therefore they are not part of the general rules, unlike the Spell. In that case, the DM has made a call to allow something that might possibly override other aspects of the game (any Feat) and that would make it more specific than the spells that are always part of the game.

[Soras Teva Gee]

You are arguing specifics in a weird way.

If feats are allowed then the spell is more specific and the feat is a general rule that is applied broadly and indiscriminatly to all that has it.

The spell is only for select people (Druids/Warlocks) and apply in a more specific manner.

So while I get where you are coming from and agree that the feat damage overrides the spell... The reasoning for your answer is way to weird for me to support.

Rarity in builds has nothing to do with specificity, they're just not related concepts.

I get the impression you are arguing generally and haven't pulled out the PHB for the post. And in other circumstances you may well have a point.

If Polearm Master said something like "when wielding quarterstaffs the damage dice is changed to d4" because it would be a steady (and craptacular) effect that then Shillelagh could change, being a specific limited duration spell it would overlay the 'always on' effect. Likewise if the feat said "when wielding quarterstaffs the damage dice is changed to d10" casting Shillelagh would lower the dice to a d8. Those are generalized effects that a spell is very much more specific, being of limited duration.

However this is not the case. Polearm Master has two effects, one is an always on extra trigger of OA's, the other is allowing you to make a bonus action attack when holding three types of weapons that does d4 bludgeoning damage. At a very literalist level it wouldn't even interact with the weapons damage dice at all, excepting that the feat provides flavor text for what you are doing with the weapon. Even then though the change is literally only for a specific bonus action. That overlays Shillelagh's changing of the general damage dice because its an even more specific special ability.

Single action is more specific then a general duration buff.

[Naanomi]

Semi-on topic, does a Warlock with LifeDrinker get his CHA to the damage of the 1d4?

[ambartanen]

You get all your other damage bonuses so I don't see why you wouldn't get the lifedrinker damage.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Semi-on topic, does a Warlock with LifeDrinker get his CHA to the damage of the 1d4?

Let's see... yep. Polearm Master is changing the damage dice but Lifedrinker isn't so they're parallel mechanics both should function.

[HorridElemental]

So what you are saying is, it all depends on the interpretation of the DM on which is more specific.

You have just proven that your own argument is as flawed as the ones you are claiming are wrong.

EDIT:
Also note that Feats are an optional rule that the DM must allow, therefore they are not part of the general rules, unlike the Spell. In that case, the DM has made a call to allow something that might possibly override other aspects of the game (any Feat) and that would make it more specific than the spells that are always part of the game.

I'm not saying your answer to the problem is wrong but I am saying how you got there is wrong.

You are once again ignoring everything that goes against you so that you seem right as if there is no other way of looking at things. Who are you, Lokaire?

I see the answer being either way, because there is no set in stone right answer to this question. But the way you are going about it, and if any DM did the same, is just wrong.

So if we make a general houserule, say unarmed strikes do 1d2 dmaage, it is now the most specific rule in the game because it isn't part of the base rules? That is just plain silly.

No. If I made a houserule that said all unarmed strikes do 1d2 damage, the monk still gets their specific ruling.

So when feats are introduced they are not no more specific than any other general rule. Anyone can take these feats and yet only very specific characters can take the Cantrip.

Your specific versus general reasoning just doesn't hold up.

[hawklost]

I'm not saying your answer to the problem is wrong but I am saying how you got there is wrong.

You are once again ignoring everything that goes against you so that you seem right as if there is no other way of looking at things. Who are you, Lokaire?

I see the answer being either way, because there is no set in stone right answer to this question. But the way you are going about it, and if any DM did the same, is just wrong.

So if we make a general houserule, say unarmed strikes do 1d2 dmaage, it is now the most specific rule in the game because it isn't part of the base rules? That is just plain silly.

No. If I made a houserule that said all unarmed strikes do 1d2 damage, the monk still gets their specific ruling.

So when feats are introduced they are not no more specific than any other general rule. Anyone can take these feats and yet only very specific characters can take the Cantrip.

Your specific versus general reasoning just doesn't hold up.

So your argument is that I am wrong because my logic is wrong even if my conclusion is right? Or are you attacking the conclusion by attacking the person making the argument because you cannot defend your argument any other way?

As for directly calling me out and comparing me to a person who you hold in contempt, you only exemplify your argument as being weak.

Finally, yes, I would say that ANY houserule that a DM introduces is more specific than general rules. That would be the logic of the houserule. Now, if the DM does not want a houserule to override a general rule in specific circumstances, they have this wonderful thing called .... houseruling, where they could modify it to exempt those special instances.

Therefore yes, if a DM rules that all unarmed combat deals 1d2, then even the monks would now do this. If he then said "Wait, I want monks to use whats in the books" he has only added in an exemption to his houserule, but it is still more specific then the general PHB rules.

EDIT: Note, every single houserule beats any rule in the book because that is what houserules are. Changing the rules to fit what the DM wants.

[HorridElemental]

So your argument is that I am wrong because my logic is wrong even if my conclusion is right? Or are you attacking the conclusion by attacking the person making the argument because you cannot defend your argument any other way?

As for directly calling me out and comparing me to a person who you hold in contempt, you only exemplify your argument as being weak.

Finally, yes, I would say that ANY houserule that a DM introduces is more specific than general rules. That would be the logic of the houserule. Now, if the DM does not want a houserule to override a general rule in specific circumstances, they have this wonderful thing called .... houseruling, where they could modify it to exempt those special instances.

Therefore yes, if a DM rules that all unarmed combat deals 1d2, then even the monks would now do this. If he then said "Wait, I want monks to use whats in the books" he has only added in an exemption to his houserule, but it is still more specific then the general PHB rules.

EDIT: Note, every single houserule beats any rule in the book because that is what houserules are. Changing the rules to fit what the DM wants.

Yes. Like in a math test where it is multiple choice. You get the answer right but the process wrong.

Your answer is also wrong at the same time as it is right though because there is no right answer right now. I agree the feat could in fact trump the spell, just not using your silly logic.

Comparing you to another forum user doesn't make my argument weak, I'm making an observation on your tactics of coming to a conclusion that is very similar to another person's.

Using Feats is a variant rule that is in fact a houserule. Because it is up to each individual DM to make the call at their table. The DM is modifying the base rules in the PHB and allowing an option to be used. This would be the same as if a third party made feats and allowing those feats in would also be houseruling. Just because WotC made the feats doesn't change the fact that using said feats is a houserule.

But no, making feats part of the game doesn't make them more or less specific than any other part of the game except where it specifically calls out. Monks would be more specific because they change even the houserule (unless the DM then houserules monks to not do more than 1d2).

[hawklost]

Yes. Like in a math test where it is multiple choice. You get the answer right but the process wrong.

Your answer is also wrong at the same time as it is right though because there is no right answer right now. I agree the feat could in fact trump the spell, just not using your silly logic.
.......


Wow, so you are saying I am wrong because I chose the right answer on a multiple choice test, but did not show my work (what type of multiple choice tests did your teachers give you anyways? those are usually either you get the answer correct or wrong, no showing work) that at the same time did not have a right answer on the options to begin with.

Can you really use that logic and think your are right? I mean you are pretty much saying it was a trick question with no right answer and that is why everyone but you is wrong.

[Eslin]

I'm noticing a lot of misconceptions about how to get shillelagh here - druids can start with it, warlocks and bards can have a charisma version of it, and anyone can get a wisdom based version with the magical training feat.