How good is Shillelagh for Rangers?

[Specter]

I've been toying around a Shillelagh Ranger idea, and thinking about the pros and cons of using it.

On the bright side, we have better Wisdom saves, better spell DC/to-hit and magical damage without needing a magic weapon. Assuming DEX kept at 14, breastplate and shield would give an AC of 18, not bad.

Cons would be wasting a bonus action every combat start, having less ranged versatility, and needing Magic Initiate or a Druid/Cleric multi.

Do you think it's worth it? If so, would you take MI or multiclass (one level max)?

[hymer]

Do you think it's worth it? If so, would you take MI or multiclass (one level max)?

For my money, I'd just invest in more dex. It's such a good attribute all round, you may as well use it as your fighting stat. For a primary caster with wis as casting stat I can see the allure, but even then Shillelagh is comparatively better if you find no magical weapons.

[clash]

I've been toying around a Shillelagh Ranger idea, and thinking about the pros and cons of using it.

On the bright side, we have better Wisdom saves, better spell DC/to-hit and magical damage without needing a magic weapon. Assuming DEX kept at 14, breastplate and shield would give an AC of 18, not bad.

Cons would be wasting a bonus action every combat start, having less ranged versatility, and needing Magic Initiate or a Druid/Cleric multi.

Do you think it's worth it? If so, would you take MI or multiclass (one level max)?

If you take Dwarf Nature Cleric 1/Ranger X it kickstarts your spellcasting, gives you Shillelagh and lets you use heavy armor without penalty for not meeting the strength requirement. With eventually fullplate and shield you will have 20 ac and you no longer need Dex or Str and can invest more in other stats or feats. I would say this is a cool concept and mechanically worth it.

[Rysto]

The problem with the Druid multiclass is that it rules out wearing mundane medium armour. You'd need your DM to create some kind of custom non-metal armour for you.

[MrStabby]

If you take Dwarf Nature Cleric 1/Ranger X it kickstarts your spellcasting, gives you Shillelagh and lets you use heavy armor without penalty for not meeting the strength requirement. With eventually fullplate and shield you will have 20 ac and you no longer need Dex or Str and can invest more in other stats or feats. I would say this is a cool concept and mechanically worth it.

I played this once - it was OK but I felt the need to add something more to it. The expanded spell slots were really nice especially for spells like ensnaring strike. The bonus action cramp was an issue but i found that it meant that I did run out of spells a little less frequently. Hunters mark was less often used as i had other, often better concentration options available. Problem was I could never work out quite exactly where to take the concept - down the combat route or the spellcasting route. In the end I never made it to my target of Cleric 8 Ranger 5 so I cant say for sure.

[Shining Wrath]

A ranger really doesn't want to use concentration on anything that isn't Hunter's Mark for most battles. It's hard to top a switchable 1d6 additional damage to every attack.

[MrStabby]

A ranger really doesn't want to use concentration on anything that isn't Hunter's Mark for most battles. It's hard to top a switchable 1d6 additional damage to every attack.

I found spirit guardians better.

[Specter]

A ranger really doesn't want to use concentration on anything that isn't Hunter's Mark for most battles. It's hard to top a switchable 1d6 additional damage to every attack.

Agreed, and it's a good thing that Shillelagh doesn't require concentration.

[EvilAnagram]

I found spirit guardians better.
Well, let's assume an optimum scenario. Cleric casts Spirit Guardians, who deal 3d8 damage. If you're surrounded, that's great. If we're talking a single enemy, that's still 13.5 damage.

Ranger with a rapier casts Hunter's Mark and attacks twice, dealing 2d8+2d6+10 damage, which maths to 26. If you factor in Dueling, it's 30.

Next round, the Cleric can cast spiritual weapon for 1d8+5, plus 3d8 for Spirit Guardians, and an attack for, let's say, 1d6+3. That's a solid 29 points of damage.

Granted, Spirit Guardians is better with groups, but you won't always face a group, and it's useless at range while HM is not. It also doesn't last as long, though it's great with undead.

Also granted, some Clerics can do more damage than that when you factor in archetypes, but so can all Rangers.

[MrStabby]

Well, let's assume an optimum scenario. Cleric casts Spirit Guardians, who deal 3d8 damage. If you're surrounded, that's great. If we're talking a single enemy, that's still 13.5 damage.

Ranger with a rapier casts Hunter's Mark and attacks twice, dealing 2d8+2d6+10 damage, which maths to 26. If you factor in Dueling, it's 30.

Next round, the Cleric can cast spiritual weapon for 1d8+5, plus 3d8 for Spirit Guardians, and an attack for, let's say, 1d6+3. That's a solid 29 points of damage.

Granted, Spirit Guardians is better with groups, but you won't always face a group, and it's useless at range while HM is not. It also doesn't last as long, though it's great with undead.

Also granted, some Clerics can do more damage than that when you factor in archetypes, but so can all Rangers.

Spirit guardians isn't great because of the damage - but it's nice. Spirit guardians is great because of the movement restriction.

Also when you look at hunters mark you need to account for the fact that it is often costing your bonus action. With spirit guardians you get to make a bundle of bonus action attacks as well.

[EvilAnagram]

Spirit guardians isn't great because of the damage - but it's nice. Spirit guardians is great because of the movement restriction.

Also when you look at hunters mark you need to account for the fact that it is often costing your bonus action. With spirit guardians you get to make a bundle of bonus action attacks as well.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Spirit Guardians, but I think a Ranger with Sentinel is stickier. Not Battle Master sticky, certainly not 4e Fighter sticky, but stickier than an extra 10' of movement spent getting away. It did make my Tempest Cleric a solid tank, though.

Using a bonus action only really hurts dual-wielding Rangers. Archers and single-weapon warriors don't have to use their bonus actions constantly. It's also worth remembering that boss battles and big nasties tend to stay the focus of the fight, so that limits the switching.

[MrStabby]

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Spirit Guardians, but I think a Ranger with Sentinel is stickier. Not Battle Master sticky, certainly not 4e Fighter sticky, but stickier than an extra 10' of movement spent getting away. It did make my Tempest Cleric a solid tank, though.

Using a bonus action only really hurts dual-wielding Rangers. Archers and single-weapon warriors don't have to use their bonus actions constantly. It's also worth remembering that boss battles and big nasties tend to stay the focus of the fight, so that limits the switching.

I tend to think of boss battles as being the exception rather than every other battle. I also tend to the belief that a boss on their own is easy prey for a party anyway.

Given the context is shillelagh for rangers, It is probably OK to assume that they are armed with a polearm and are therefore one feat away from a consistent bonus action attack.

It may just be me, but I think 3d8 radiant damage, halved on a save vs multiple targets (and with movement restriction added in) is better than 3d6 damage (d6 for each attack)(reduced to zero on a miss) spread among the targets you attack. Spirit guardians is a spell 2 levels higher than hunter's mark and it shows (by my estimation anyway).

[Foxhound438]

I'd say it's a decent option. I'd probably start Vuman with 14 in dex and 16's in con and wis, and have magic initiate. The reason I wouldn't want to start in something else is that it delays extra attack. Probably go the cheese route and get polearm mastery for a bonus third attack after you get shil and mark up, as well as free reaction attacks.

But my usual go-to when theory crafting unusual rangers is GWM stranger. Summon a bunch of crocodiles to restrain your target, attack with advantage, have all the cleave effects.

[ZenBear]

I'd say it's a decent option. I'd probably start Vuman with 14 in dex and 16's in con and wis, and have magic initiate. The reason I wouldn't want to start in something else is that it delays extra attack. Probably go the cheese route and get polearm mastery for a bonus third attack after you get shil and mark up, as well as free reaction attacks.

This right here. This will be one of my next characters. Take MI:Druid at 1, Hunter subclass, PAM, Sentinel, then pump WIS to 20 and still have one Feat/ASI for funsies.

[RickAllison]

The problem with the Druid multiclass is that it rules out wearing mundane medium armour. You'd need your DM to create some kind of custom non-metal armour for you.

Or be a Druid of Mielikki! As the more militant arm of the Forest Three, her druids happily use anything her rangers would use. This is because they tend be druidic protectors and warriors rather than priests and cultivators.

[MaxWilson]

Ranger with a rapier casts Hunter's Mark and attacks twice, dealing 2d8+2d6+10 damage, which maths to 26. If you factor in Dueling, it's 30.

Also, if you dual wield short swords while using Hunter's Mark (2d6+5, 2d6+5, 2d6), it's 31. Obviously that spends more of your action economy, but it's worth considering pulling out a second weapon after the first round.

Just because you didn't specialize in dual wielding doesn't mean you can't benefit from it anyway.

[EvilAnagram]

I tend to think of boss battles as being the exception rather than every other battle. I also tend to the belief that a boss on their own is easy prey for a party anyway.
Perhaps, but monsters with high HP accompanied by mooks tend to be fairly common, and dedicated damage is quite nice in those situations.


Given the context is shillelagh for rangers, It is probably OK to assume that they are armed with a polearm and are therefore one feat away from a consistent bonus action attack.

It may just be me, but I think 3d8 radiant damage, halved on a save vs multiple targets (and with movement restriction added in) is better than 3d6 damage (d6 for each attack)(reduced to zero on a miss) spread among the targets you attack. Spirit guardians is a spell 2 levels higher than hunter's mark and it shows (by my estimation anyway).

Honestly, I think a Shillelagh Ranger is going to fall behind in damage thanks to having no room for concentration spells.

And I think the fact that one first level spell can enable consistent damage on par with or greater than a second and third level spell together says a lot about its usefulness.

[djreynolds]

I've been toying around a Shillelagh Ranger idea, and thinking about the pros and cons of using it.

On the bright side, we have better Wisdom saves, better spell DC/to-hit and magical damage without needing a magic weapon. Assuming DEX kept at 14, breastplate and shield would give an AC of 18, not bad.

Cons would be wasting a bonus action every combat start, having less ranged versatility, and needing Magic Initiate or a Druid/Cleric multi.

Do you think it's worth it? If so, would you take MI or multiclass (one level max)?

It's crazy, but I've been toying with a hill dwarf nature cleric/ beast master with PAM and sentinel. The 13 in Dex hurts, but you can just have a 13 in Dex and 10 in strength. Run around in plate and bash people for abusing your pet.

[BW022]

I've been toying around a Shillelagh Ranger idea, and thinking about the pros and cons of using it.
...
Do you think it's worth it? If so, would you take MI or multiclass (one level max)?

Can't imagine it would be that useful.

Just getting the cantrip means either druid, nature cleric, variant human, three levels of warlock, etc. Nature cleric brings some extra spell casting and spells are low-levels, but they become rather useless are higher levels.

Rangers already need a lot of stats. Most are going to focus on dexterity (which gives AC, ranged attack, melee attack, saves, stealth, etc.) bonuses. Typically that means a 16. Even medium armor strength builds are likely going to go for at least a 14, and you need strength for medium armor and shield (due to the weight). That typically means 16,14 (str) or at least a 12, 16 (dex) build. Constitution... typically needs to be a 14 or so if you plan on being in melee. Add a high wisdom... and something needed to give. A 16 wisdom will cost you either str, dex, or con.

The 1d8 damage is hardly worth worrying about. You can already wield d8 one-handed melee weapons, dual wield d6 ones, and d8 ranged ones already tied to your dexterity. You can use 2d6 or d10 plus reach, if you have a strength build.

Magic is not likely a problem until you are at levels where you likely have magic, your other party members can damage it, or you can simply beat it down (resistance only halves damage), use elemental damage (oil and torches), or just go defensive while your casters use firebolt and such. Magical ammunition is also fairly common even at lower levels.

Finally, at higher levels... this will likely have no benefit and is merely drawbacks. You've given up a feat (variant human) or ranger level -- meaning slower to gain multiple attacks, ranger spells, ranger spell slots, etc. You likely will find a magical weapon, etc.

[Citan]

How good is Shillelagh for Rangers?

THAT Good!












...
...
Sorry couldn't resist. :)
For a more constructive answer:
Well, yes, it can be very well worth it, as long as there is any reason behind.
For example, if you plan on using a quarterstaff because you want to play with Polearm Mastery AND Sentinel, using Shillelagh effectively makes way to more feats.
Or if you want to make an original multiclass which requires you to bump a usual Ranger dump stat, meaning CHA or INT (STR? arguable, some STR builds can do well as Rangers).
For example, I would very well understand a Paladin multiclass to get Vengeance Oath, which would require both STR & CHA to 13.
As I would understand a Bladesinger Wizard multiclass, which requires at least 16 INT to really be worth it.

So, as long as you know and understand why you want Shillelagh in the first place, yes, it's worth it. Always. ;)

As for how to do it...
Frankly, it only depends on your own appreciation of the value of 18th and 20th level.
My own opinion is that 20th level is extremely lackluster, because it's effectively +5 damage per round at best, and you have many ways to get as much more damage by multiclassing, along with other benefits from the multiclass (just Rogue 1 can come pretty darn close to it).
As for 18th level, it's awesome in its own category, but it is still a niche feature, unless you are in a campaign where DM uses and abuses invisible creatures. And for normal campaigns, such a nice could be filled by multiclassing 3 levels in a caster to get See Invisibility, along with other features.

So, let's analyse the three situations.

1. I want to single-class.
Then Druid is the only choice through Magic Initiate. Not that this is a problem though: grab Shillelagh AND Produce Flame, now you have great melee and fairly decent ranged attack.
As for spell, I'd tend to advise a non-concentration spell because you will usually cast and keep Hunter's Mark: so Healing Word, Fog Cloud or Thunderwave would be my favorite picks. But it's a matter of taste first and foremost (after all, we are speaking about 1/day spell).

2. I want to keep 18th level Ranger
Then Nature Cleric or Druid are only choice through Magic Initiate.
Both are actually great choices, it depends on your playstyle and role in party.
Druid is great for fluff (Wild Shape Ranger, redundancy? ;)), scouting, brings a heap of good spells (the fact that many are also on Ranger spelllist is not a problem. It's rather the opposite: you can focus on learning just Ranger exclusives) geared towards mobility and utility. Faerie Fire can be great but uses Concentration.
If you go 2nd level...
- Moon Druid is good when you dip it ASAP (like, character level 2/3) but it delays Extra Attack by significant amount and will quickly become underpowered. So a good choice if you want to play with Wild Shape and/or have clever tactics in mind with it. Otherwise, a plain bad choice.
- Land Druid is equal to giving you 1 additional 1st level slot, and only 1/4 CR Wild Shape. Meh also.
Basically, if you dip Druid, either stay Druid 1 or go up to Druid 3. Stopping at Druid 2 is not good.

Nature Cleric has also many good spells, but most of them are Concentration based. It does give heavy armor proficiency though, which can be inline with a Shillelagh based Ranger if you don't care about losing speed. The Channel Divinity is nice but situational.
Basically, same as Druid: either stop on case 1 or 3, not 2.

Third way, which I would personally recommend: take 1 level Druid and 1 level Cleric: Life for Goodberry cheese, Knowledge for Command and skills, Light for Burning Hands and Warding Flare, or, or, OR... ;) Arcana Cleric for Magic Missile along with one ranged cantrip and one weapon cantrip. ;)

3. I just want to get 5th level spells
Here things become more interesting, since you get 3 levels of dipping to play with.
Straightforward choice: Nature Cleric 3 or Land Druid 3.
Both choices gives a good boost in spell slots and give access to many great spells, including non-concentration ones.
On Cleric side, Spiritual Weapon, Blindness and Hold Person (concentration) are noteworthy.
On Land Druid side, Flaming Sphere (concentration), Heat Metal (concentration), Hold Person (concentration), Moonbeam (concentration), Pass Without Trace and Spike Growth also. And you get two additional spells with Circle: Coast (Mirror Image + Misty Step), Desert (Blur+Silence) or Swamp (Darkness) are good choices.
If you fancy yourself as a "straight" Hunter, Cleric is the best choice.
If you are ready to trade Hunter's Mark for good control&damage spells, Druid is the way to go.

Druid 1 / Cleric 2
What has been said about mixing Druid 1 and Cleric 1 PLUS Domain features. Good choice here are Knowledge, Light, Tempest and War (Trickery if you want to play with spells often, otherwise no).

Knowledge makes you a Bard of sort 1/short rest.
Light should not be undervalued: 2d10+2 to any creature within 30 feet is nothing to sneeze at, especially at low levels, and the effect of nullifying any magical darkness within can save your hide.
Tempest would have been the obvious choice for a ranged Ranger (because of Lightning Arrows). For a melee though, the reaction is nice, although 5/long rest is a bit of a deal-breaker.
War has a great CD but only 1/short rest. Still, a good choice.


Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / X 1
You already got some nice things, why not expand further?
Rogue 1 is always a solid choice: Expertise and 1d6 per turn.
Fighter 1 if you want two Fighting Style (Dueling + Defense for example).
Draconic Sorcerer 1 (free Mage Armor, Shield, Magic Missiles, Chromatic Orb and weapon cantrips)
Warlock 1 for 1/short rest slot (always useful), Hex (arguably better than Hunter's Mark in some situations) or Armor of Agathys for example.

Druid 1 / X 2
Now you enter the realm of "why I did go this convoluted way in the first place" (not that the previous options are bad or anything, but some classes bring much with 2 levels...).

Bard: Jack of All Trades can be great if you want to be good at everything, and you get a few nice spells to go with.
Cleric: see above.
Fighter: nice for Action Surge, although not the best by far.
Paladin: Divine Smite and smite spells, although not the best by far (you don't get so many spells to smite with after all).
Rogue: probably the best choice overall: Cunning Action is just that great.
Warlock: also on podium because of 2 short rest slots and Invocations: Devil's Sight, 2 additional skills, detect magic etc...
Wizard: you get many good spells available, so even with bad INT you can just focus on utilities. But true value lies elsewhere...
- Diviner: because swapping a bad roll 2 times a day is good.
- Bladesinger: restricts you to light armor (or Mage Armor if you get it through any mean) which is tough. It you get at least 16 INT though, it's worth it.


Mage Initiate + X 3
A more peculiar choice, but can be worthy of consideration because it lets you access archetypes, many of which bring much to the table.
Bear Totem Barbarian cuts your damage (stops Hunter's Mark) but greatly increase your resilience. A good enough trade-off, see Rage as a panic button. Bottom list though because you won't use STR.
Lore Bard brings Expertise and Cutting Words, as well as two spells among Blindness, Heat Metal, See Invisibility or Shatter to name a few.
Champion Fighter gives crit on 19 or 20.
Battlemaster Fighter gives 4 manoeuvers per short rest (Precision/Trip attack/Evasive Manoeuver)
Long Death Monk brings steady source of THP along with constant bonus action attack (combined with Horde Breaker Hunter, you get 4 attacks per turn from level 8 onwards) as well as decent AC. Actually one of the best choices here.
Vengeance Paladin brings advantage against a single enemy once/short rest. Nice, but not the best.
Devotion Paladin brings +CHA to attack roll. Great as long as you have 16+ CHA.
Swashbuckler Rogue is nice with high CHA.
Assassin Rogue is great if you have the wits and patience to deal with it.
Tome Warlock makes you a great Ritual caster, along with 2 2nd level short rest slots. On the podium.
Chain Warlock gives you the spell slots and a magic resistance sharing familiar. On the podium.
Wizard brings "only" a potentially great number of 2nd level spells. Great if you have high INT, otherwise pass.


Hope that gave you solid ideas on what you want to build, and why. ;) (sorry for not going further up to 5 level dips, but too many possibilities and not enough time ;))

[Specter]

Thanks for the feedback, all, especially Citan. I've decided that if this is going to happen, it'll be Druid 1/Ranger X; I could use the extra spells anyway, and save a feat for either Polearm Master or Resilient, or some other I've forgotten about.