Shillelagh'ing two clubs

[JumboWheat01]

Due to a discussion I had with some friends about half-elves causing me to realize I have like next-to-no half-elf characters and my admitted curiosity of the multiclass in the Baldur's Gate games, I'm in the process of ironing out a Cleric/Ranger character. Nature Cleric 12 / Beast Master Ranger 8, in particular. I know, extremely not optimized. I'm multiclassing for a change! Baby steps!

Anyhoo, I had already planned on grabbing Shillelagh with the Nature Cleric's free Druid cantrip and rocking it with a quarterstaff, but as I was doing some reading, I noticed that clubs are considered light weapons, which means I could use them with two-weapon fighting just fine. Would I have to Shillelagh twice, once for each club, or would it work for both in a single casting? The material casting isn't too much of a worry, that would just require wearing a holy symbol so it was displayed prominently, as the PHB says, anyway.

[JNAProductions]

The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.

In other words, nope, by RAW.

Now, as a DM, I'd be fine with letting it target two clubs with one casting, probably starting at 5th level, but then you've practically GOT to have Warcaster.

[stoutstien]

Generally no. Isn't your bonus action going to be crowded with The beastmaster companion anyways?

[col_impact]

Shadowblade plus light club shillelagh is a thing. Rocking it Sith style.

[8wGremlin]

Does twin metamagic work with this? Sorc/Druid or Sorc with magic initiate

[JNAProductions]

Does twin metamagic work with this? Sorc/Druid or Sorc with magic initiate

I don't believe so. Twin targets creatures, which weapons are not. (Barring weird circumstances, like friendly animated weapons.)

[Tanarii]

If you can persuade your DM to make an exception for the recasting ending the spell, you might as well push to get both weapons with a single cast. Otherwise it's going to take two rounds of bonus actions. Since you can't 'step down' the bonus action cast time to an action to do it in one round,

On top of that it's worth noting any round you use a bonus action to cast shillelagh, the only other spells you can cast are cantrips. (Or you can make a physical attack of course.)

[JumboWheat01]

Ah, right, I totally forgot that casting it twice got rid of the old casting. Hmm... looks like quarterstaff is the way to go.

[Benny89]

Just grab Polearm Master and you have two attacks with Quarterstaff. I had a blast with 1 Druid/6 Revised Ranger Hunter PAM build. Really fun to play. Not most optimized but still hell of a fun. Start with Vuman to have 2 attacks from level 1. PAM is love, PAM is life.

[col_impact]

Just grab Polearm Master and you have two attacks with Quarterstaff. I had a blast with 1 Druid/6 Revised Ranger Hunter PAM build. Really fun to play. Not most optimized but still hell of a fun. Start with Vuman to have 2 attacks from level 1. PAM is love, PAM is life.
Warcaster is the next add on that really makes the build come alive.

[Talionis]

Hexblade Tomelock can rock two clubs and attack with both using his Charisma modifier.

[Segev]

Does shilelagh override PAM's statement that the bonus action attack with the haft is 1d4 damage? If so, how? I am not seeing it in the wording, so need it explained to me, please.

[col_impact]

Does shilelagh override PAM's statement that the bonus action attack with the haft is 1d4 damage? If so, how? I am not seeing it in the wording, so need it explained to me, please.
Ambiguous. The official FAQ indicates no. You can check that for their reasoning.

[Galithar]

Does shilelagh override PAM's statement that the bonus action attack with the haft is 1d4 damage? If so, how? I am not seeing it in the wording, so need it explained to me, please.

I would say RAW no. Shillelagh changes the damage done by the weapon because it says "the weapon's damage die becomes a d8" and PAM explicitly says that the bonus action attack uses 1d4 regardless of the weapon's damage die. However, I know many DMs who would allow it to make the bonus action attack a d8 so I would talk to your DM.

[col_impact]

I would say RAW no. Shillelagh changes the damage done by the weapon because it says "the weapon's damage die becomes a d8" and PAM explicitly says that the bonus action attack uses 1d4 regardless of the weapon's damage die. However, I know many DMs who would allow it to make the bonus action attack a d8 so I would talk to your DM.

Or you know consult the official Wizards FAQ.

[Galithar]

Or you know consult the official Wizards FAQ.

If the question was, what does Wizards say RAI is on this? Then you already addressed that. I addressed the question based on the actual wording of the abilities and pointed out to the person asking where in the text the conclusion comes from. If you don't like my answer feel free to link to the WotC FAQ, I personally couldn't care less what they say RAI is.

[col_impact]

If the question was, what does Wizards say RAI is on this? Then you already addressed that. I addressed the question based on the actual wording of the abilities and pointed out to the person asking where in the text the conclusion comes from. If you don't like my answer feel free to link to the WotC FAQ, I personally couldn't care less what they say RAI is.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sage-advice-june2015

The Sage Advice Compendium is Official Errata.

[Galithar]

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sage-advice-june2015

The Sage Advice Compendium is Official Errata.

Lmao. So you quoted me to respond with look at this sage advice that says the EXACT same thing? The only difference between what they wrote and my answer is that I highlighted the portions of the spell that made it true. I mean I get that we're all bored in quarantine but sheesh.

[col_impact]

Lmao. So you quoted me to respond with look at this sage advice that says the EXACT same thing? The only difference between what they wrote and my answer is that I highlighted the portions of the spell that made it true. I mean I get that we're all bored in quarantine but sheesh.

Now you know where the official errata is. You are most welcome.

[Galithar]

Now you know where the official errata is. You are most welcome.

Lol I've known where it is. I just personally don't care. I play with a lot of HomeBrew and house rules so when I answer questions on a forum I use straight RAW. This includes any Errata because my books are up to date (with the exception of the most recent Errata on healing Spirit etc). But doesn't include the SAC because that's usually RAI, eratta is different from an FAQ.

[sithlordnergal]

Does shilelagh override PAM's statement that the bonus action attack with the haft is 1d4 damage? If so, how? I am not seeing it in the wording, so need it explained to me, please.

RAW, it does not. Mostly because of the "Specific vs. General" thing. Shillelagh overrides the general damage of the weapon its been cast on, and PAM specifically states that the shaft does 1d4. That said, still an excellent build. Snag Shillelagh, PAM, and a Shield, and you're good to go with a d8 magical weapon that you can make a bonus action attack with.

I have a Paladin/Druid/Sorcerer AL build that makes use of that build while carrying a Staff of Power, +2 Stone Plate Armor, and a +3 Shield, and she is a BEAST. 28 base AC due to her gear, Wisdom is maxed out with one of the Books so she has +6 to Wisdom, and the Staff of Power lets her NOVA like mad since you can spend charges to deal an extra 1d6 Force damage on attacks on top of Smite and having that bonus action third attack.

[col_impact]

Lol I've known where it is. I just personally don't care. I play with a lot of HomeBrew and house rules so when I answer questions on a forum I use straight RAW. This includes any Errata because my books are up to date (with the exception of the most recent Errata on healing Spirit etc). But doesn't include the SAC because that's usually RAI, eratta is different from an FAQ.

Not according to Wizards of the Coast.

[col_impact]

RAW, it does not. Mostly because of the "Specific vs. General" thing. Shillelagh overrides the general damage of the weapon its been cast on, and PAM specifically states that the shaft does 1d4. That said, still an excellent build. Snag Shillelagh, PAM, and a Shield, and you're good to go with a d8 magical weapon that you can make a bonus action attack with.

I have a Paladin/Druid/Sorcerer AL build that makes use of that build while carrying a Staff of Power, +2 Stone Plate Armor, and a +3 Shield, and she is a BEAST. 28 base AC due to her gear, Wisdom is maxed out with one of the Books so she has +6 to Wisdom, and the Staff of Power lets her NOVA like mad since you can spend charges to deal an extra 1d6 Force damage on attacks on top of Smite and having that bonus action third attack.

Does your Stone Plate require attunement?

If so, then Water Elemental Adamantine Half Plate is possibly better consideration since it is VR, non-attunement, and prevents crits.

[sithlordnergal]

Does your Stone Plate require attunement?

If so, then Water Elemental Adamantine Half Plate is possibly better consideration since it is VR, non-attunement, and prevents crits.

Nope, its just regular old +2 Plate Armor made out of stone that a Druid can wear. There's a downside to Adamantine Half Plate...As a Druid in AL, I am not allowed to use any sort of metal armor. This includes Adamantine, since it is technically metal. Otherwise I'd be using the Adamantine Full Plate that I found during one adventure. For a while I was using Scorpion Armor from ToA, cause it was the only non-metal heavy armor I could find, and had to use a Periapt of Proof Against Poison to avoid the 10d10 poison damage. Luckily with Shield and Shield of Faith, I can avoid most attacks thrown my way because its really hard to hit an AC 35 without a crit.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Lol I've known where it is. I just personally don't care. I play with a lot of HomeBrew and house rules so when I answer questions on a forum I use straight RAW. This includes any Errata because my books are up to date (with the exception of the most recent Errata on healing Spirit etc). But doesn't include the SAC because that's usually RAI, eratta is different from an FAQ.

I don't think there's too many people who play with more homebrew than me and my groups and we use the errata and official rulings when needed to clarify something. We then later may or may not change it.

It's a great source even if JC and co sometimes have some weird rulings.

Besides, not everyone plays with houserules and YOU may not like the official errata but pretending like it isn't an excellence source for others is very self centered.

[col_impact]

Nope, its just regular old +2 Plate Armor made out of stone that a Druid can wear. There's a downside to Adamantine Half Plate...As a Druid in AL, I am not allowed to use any sort of metal armor. This includes Adamantine, since it is technically metal. Otherwise I'd be using the Adamantine Full Plate that I found during one adventure. For a while I was using Scorpion Armor from ToA, cause it was the only non-metal heavy armor I could find, and had to use a Periapt of Proof Against Poison to avoid the 10d10 poison damage. Luckily with Shield and Shield of Faith, I can avoid most attacks thrown my way because its really hard to hit an AC 35 without a crit.

The Water Elemental version is made out of shells that are as hard as adamantine.

[sithlordnergal]

The Water Elemental version is made out of shells that are as hard as adamantine.

Oh nice! What tier can that be found in? Cause she's at T4 now.

[col_impact]

Oh nice! What tier can that be found in? Cause she's at T4 now.

Its VR so any tier technically. The item is in the DMG.

[Galithar]

I don't think there's too many people who play with more homebrew than me and my groups and we use the errata and official rulings when needed to clarify something. We then later may or may not change it.

It's a great source even if JC and co sometimes have some weird rulings.

Besides, not everyone plays with houserules and YOU may not like the official errata but pretending like it isn't an excellence source for others is very self centered.

Again, I acknowledge errata and use the books for RAW. I would appreciate if you kindly quit trying to insinuate that I am doing something wrong for giving RAW answers. Errata and the SAC FAQs are not the same thing. Errata is a correction or change to a written text, it amends the RAW. That is how I answer. It is a fine source for anyone to use, and I never stated otherwise. Saying I don't use it is in no way an admonishment of those who do. I don't have to use a source to give a clear RAW answer to a question. Which I again point out that SAC had the exact answer I did. I just didn't look up someone else's answer. I looked at the rules myself and gave an answer based on what they said.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't think there's too many people who play with more homebrew than me and my groups and we use the errata and official rulings when needed to clarify something. We then later may or may not change it.

It's a great source even if JC and co sometimes have some weird rulings.

Besides, not everyone plays with houserules and YOU may not like the official errata but pretending like it isn't an excellence source for others is very self centered.

The official Q&A is nothing in a home game.
It is just RAI, not RAW and not an Erreta.

If you play in an official place or if and only if your table desided to use the official Q&E it becomes relevant.

It is better for the OP to ask the DM then to try and force him to use sage advice like you suggested. Communication is key in this game.

[Benny89]

Does shilelagh override PAM's statement that the bonus action attack with the haft is 1d4 damage? If so, how? I am not seeing it in the wording, so need it explained to me, please.

For me yes, because I always use rule that specific beats general and I consider spell to be more specific than feat. Because for me feats allow initial attack, which means without feat there wouldn't be any shilelagh bonus action attack anyway. So you need feat first, shilelagh later.

So general= Pole Arm Master 1d4 attack. Then you apply shilelagh on top of that, which now affects bonus attack damage dice because there wouldn't be bonus attack damage dice other way around.

So I rule that PAM bonus attack is also d8.

Wizards may disagree with it, but tons of they rullings is stupid and they mostly say "no" to a lot of stuff that gives some benefits even when that doesn't make any sense.

For example I bet $100 bucks that if we had 1 Hexblade/Evocation wizard Magic Missle exploit before the Magic Missle question about dice roll was officially asked- they would deny that you roll only once for all magic missiles. They just tend to say "no" to anything that seems to combo well even if RAW and RAI supports it.

So I would use my head little more than following up on what SA says because he is still only a human and writes many idiotic things (like Shield Master for example). Same like I wouldn't listen to what Abrams have to say about SW only because he is director. You need to use your head too and use logic. If shilelagh makes your staff attacks stronger with magic, why suddenly one side of your staff forgets to also be magically enchanced?

Again- RAW are only directions. DM needs to use his head.

[Zetakya]

Cast Shillelagh on a Quarterstaff and then snap it in half - presto, two clubs!

[col_impact]

For me yes, because I always use rule that specific beats general and I consider spell to be more specific than feat. Because for me feats allow initial attack, which means without feat there wouldn't be any shilelagh bonus action attack anyway. So you need feat first, shilelagh later.

So general= Pole Arm Master 1d4 attack. Then you apply shilelagh on top of that, which now affects bonus attack damage dice because there wouldn't be bonus attack damage dice other way around.

So I rule that PAM bonus attack is also d8.

Wizards may disagree with it, but tons of they rullings is stupid and they mostly say "no" to a lot of stuff that gives some benefits even when that doesn't make any sense.

For example I bet $100 bucks that if we had 1 Hexblade/Evocation wizard Magic Missle exploit before the Magic Missle question about dice roll was officially asked- they would deny that you roll only once for all magic missiles. They just tend to say "no" to anything that seems to combo well even if RAW and RAI supports it.

So I would use my head little more than following up on what SA says because he is still also only human and writes many idiotic things (like Shield Master for example).

{Scrubbed}

[Benny89]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If your DM says you have d20 die and your table is fine with it- it's not my business. Play as you want. Besides such strawman argument makes no sense. Every handbook of every RPG ever released has statement that says that rules writtent are only general directions and it's up to DM to adjust them as he see fit for his own game.

It's not Adventures League. If you want to follow RAW till the letter and treat SA as law- go for it. But it doesn't apply to any other RPG table. DM is the final person who says what is what.

[JumboWheat01]

Cast Shillelagh on a Quarterstaff and then snap it in half - presto, two clubs!

If I had the strength to reliably snap a quarterstaff in half for two clubs I probably wouldn't need Shillelagh, now would I? :smalltongue:

Still, quarterstaff and PAM will at least let me mimic two-weapon fighting will allowing for a shield for better AC. Combine with medium armor and the defense fighting style that'll let me hit 20 AC before magic items, a good total.

[Benny89]

If I had the strength to reliably snap a quarterstaff in half for two clubs I probably wouldn't need Shillelagh, now would I? :smalltongue:

Still, quarterstaff and PAM will at least let me mimic two-weapon fighting will allowing for a shield for better AC. Combine with medium armor and the defense fighting style that'll let me hit 20 AC before magic items, a good total.

Yup, PAM Is love. PAM is life.

Welcome to PAM-club. Once you go PAM you never go back.

[Chad.e.clark]

On the line of thought about "specific vs general" with regards to PAM bonus and whether or not Shillelagh bumps up the d4 bonus to a d8, wouldnt RAW support the d4 bonus attack over-riding the d8 from Shillelagh?

Specific beats general. Every character that has access to Shillelagh cant cast it and the cantrip is not a variant rule, therefore it is general. So with Shillelagh turns quarterstaff into d8 for all attacks, in general. But take a specific feat, PAM, and you get access to a specific bonus action, utilizing the quarterstaff for a specific damage dice, a d4. There is no other way to utilize a quarterstaff to be a d4 damage dice. Specific beats general.


To follow specific vs general, you have to be only comparing two things at a time.

Quarterstaff is a d6/d8 in general, except when Shillelagh is specifically cast on it.

A Shillelagh quarterstaff in general does not have bonus action attack, except when they take the specific feat PAM.

Cantrips are a general, non-variant rule available to characters. Feats are a specific, variant rule not always available to every character. Therefore feats over-rule cantrips. Bonus attack is a d4 with PAM. But at the end of the day, it ain't gonna change much.

[stoutstien]

On the line of thought about "specific vs general" with regards to PAM bonus and whether or not Shillelagh bumps up the d4 bonus to a d8, wouldnt RAW support the d4 bonus attack over-riding the d8 from Shillelagh?

Specific beats general. Every character that has access to Shillelagh cant cast it and the cantrip is not a variant rule, therefore it is general. So with Shillelagh turns quarterstaff into d8 for all attacks, in general. But take a specific feat, PAM, and you get access to a specific bonus action, utilizing the quarterstaff for a specific damage dice, a d4. There is no other way to utilize a quarterstaff to be a d4 damage dice. Specific beats general.


To follow specific vs general, you have to be only comparing two things at a time.

Quarterstaff is a d6/d8 in general, except when Shillelagh is specifically cast on it.

A Shillelagh quarterstaff in general does not have bonus action attack, except when they take the specific feat PAM.

Cantrips are a general, non-variant rule available to characters. Feats are a specific, variant rule not always available to every character. Therefore feats over-rule cantrips. Bonus attack is a d4 with PAM. But at the end of the day, it ain't gonna change much.

Feats being a variant option has no bearing on it being more or less specific rules.
If a table plays with feats they become specific standard player options so they are on equal footing with cantrips.

[Segev]

...huh. Does PAM say a regular quarterstaff doesn't get its Versatile benefit when you're using it? Because if you get its Versatile benefit, don't you have d8/d4 with PAM anyway? All shilelagh adds at that point is "it's a magic weapon" and Wis instead of Strength to hit and damage. Still might be worth it for the right build, but not quite as impressive.

(Also, when is a quarterstaff ever wielded one-handed?)

[Keravath]

The official Q&A is nothing in a home game.
It is just RAI, not RAW and not an Erreta.

If you play in an official place or if and only if your table desided to use the official Q&E it becomes relevant.

It is better for the OP to ask the DM then to try and force him to use sage advice like you suggested. Communication is key in this game.

You can play a home game however you want.

However, if you are discussing RAW then the Sage Advice compendium is considered official rules clarifications and is thus RAW. This does not include all JCs tweets which are not official. The Sage Advice compendium is. You can choose to ignore its contents if you wish but it is still RAW just as much as the official errata.

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules de-signer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

These are official clarifications as to what RAW says so as to avoid confusion and arguments. There are three sources for RAW - the original books, the errata and the official clarifications.

"If I cast shillelagh on my quarterstaff and have the Polearm Master feat, does the bonus attack use a d4 or a d8 for damage? The benefit from Polearm Master applies to the opposite end of the weapon and always uses a d4 for damage rather than the weapon’s normal damage die. This is true for a quarterstaff enhanced with shillelagh just as it is for a normal one."

However, as is perfectly clear from RAW :) ... you can choose to ignore any of these rules in any home game you want to run but if you want to cite RAW on something it includes all of these specific sources.

[sithlordnergal]

...huh. Does PAM say a regular quarterstaff doesn't get its Versatile benefit when you're using it? Because if you get its Versatile benefit, don't you have d8/d4 with PAM anyway? All shilelagh adds at that point is "it's a magic weapon" and Wis instead of Strength to hit and damage. Still might be worth it for the right build, but not quite as impressive.

(Also, when is a quarterstaff ever wielded one-handed?)

I mean, you still get the Versatile benefit, so you can use the quarterstaff as a d8 weapon without Shillelagh with two hands. However, with Shillelagh you can wield it in one hand, carry a shield, and still gain the benefits of PAM's bonus action attack while treating the Quarterstaff as a d8 weapon. You don't have to give up the +2 AC granted by a shield.

[Chad.e.clark]

Feats being a variant option has no bearing on it being more or less specific rules.
If a table plays with feats they become specific standard player options so they are on equal footing with cantrips.

But then you go down this rabbit hole of which is the more general rule that the specific is over-riding. And then the rules-lawyering begins. But as I see it, specific beats general is the only thing that matters, and what is more specific vs more general is what must be proven. Are cantrips or feats more general? Or to put it another way, what option will be accepted at every table no questions asked: cantrips or feats?

In general, every table will use cantrips. The vast majority, but not every table, will use feats. Specific tables, probably even the majority but still specific tables, can opt to use those extra rules.

But again, d4 + Wis vs. d8+ Wis is what, 3 points of damage on average? That is not worth stressing over. What makes the bonus action PAM really valuable is all of the riders you can tack on(Battle Master Maneuvers, Divine Smite, Improved Divine Smite, Lifedrinker invocation, Divine Favor, GWM -5/+10, etc)

[Theodoxus]

On top of that it's worth noting any round you use a bonus action to cast shillelagh, the only other spells you can cast are cantrips. (Or you can make a physical attack of course.)

Actually, since shillelagh is a bonus action cantrip, you can cast a leveled spell as an action. The limitation is casting two spells, not on one of them being a bonus action. (Though probably the best option at that point would be Booming or Green-flame Blade - since you might as well attack with the shillelagh, else, why cast it?)


I mean, you still get the Versatile benefit, so you can use the quarterstaff as a d8 weapon without Shillelagh with two hands. However, with Shillelagh you can wield it in one hand, carry a shield, and still gain the benefits of PAM's bonus action attack while treating the Quarterstaff as a d8 weapon. You don't have to give up the +2 AC granted by a shield.

YMMV, but having LARPed a lot in my younger days, trying to swing a staff one handed while wielding a shield is... complicated - even with a lot of practice. The idea of then spinning the staff, with one hand, while not entangling yourself in your shield, to hit "with the haft" is laughable.

Of course, this is a simulationist concept in a gamist world - so by pure game mechanics, your supposition is supported... but it so breaks verisimilitude that a lot of DMs (myself included) don't allow it. I'm perfectly fine with the rest of PAM working with a one-handed staff and shield though.

I'm also completely fine with a 1d4 shield bash as a bonus action triggered by an attack action. So, the damage value remains.

[sithlordnergal]

YMMV, but having LARPed a lot in my younger days, trying to swing a staff one handed while wielding a shield is... complicated - even with a lot of practice. The idea of then spinning the staff, with one hand, while not entangling yourself in your shield, to hit "with the haft" is laughable.

Of course, this is a simulationist concept in a gamist world - so by pure game mechanics, your supposition is supported... but it so breaks verisimilitude that a lot of DMs (myself included) don't allow it. I'm perfectly fine with the rest of PAM working with a one-handed staff and shield though.

I'm also completely fine with a 1d4 shield bash as a bonus action triggered by an attack action. So, the damage value remains.

I mean, that's fair, not many DMs allow that combo to work. Though I will say that is purely a Homebrew ruling. Both RAW and RAI, as confirmed by Sage Advice*, state that you can get all of PAM's benefits using a quarterstaff in one hand.

I do like the shield bash as a bonus action instead of using the other end of the quarterstaff though. Its the same effect, its just fluffed differently.

* https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/07/polearm-master-feat-one-handed/

[Segev]

I just think the quarterstaff should have been a 2-handed weapon to begin with. It's the wizard's go-to bludgeoning weapon; it can stay a d6 even two-handed.

[Theodoxus]

It's pretty classic for monks too... though I suppose one could easily make a 'bo staff' that has the current Qstaff attributes and grant monks the specific proficiency for it (probably as a martial weapon, but I'm open to discussion on that point), then make the qstaff a d6, non-versatile, two-handed weapon. (PAM would be updated to not work with Qstaves, but would work with Bo Staves.)

Shillelagh would still only affect clubs and qstaves, This way, shillelagh makes both a 1 handed (club) deal a d8 or a 2 handed (qstaff) deal a d8. Martial characters would gravitate toward the Bo Staff, unless they specifically have a casting stat (Wisdom, typically) higher than their strength (or need a reliable magical weapon for some reason).

[Segev]

It's pretty classic for monks too... though I suppose one could easily make a 'bo staff' that has the current Qstaff attributes and grant monks the specific proficiency for it (probably as a martial weapon, but I'm open to discussion on that point), then make the qstaff a d6, non-versatile, two-handed weapon. (PAM would be updated to not work with Qstaves, but would work with Bo Staves.)

Shillelagh would still only affect clubs and qstaves, This way, shillelagh makes both a 1 handed (club) deal a d8 or a 2 handed (qstaff) deal a d8. Martial characters would gravitate toward the Bo Staff, unless they specifically have a casting stat (Wisdom, typically) higher than their strength (or need a reliable magical weapon for some reason).

Not sure why monks need quarterstaves or "bo staves" to be d8 weapons. They have a number of options that aren't. If it's crucial that the quarterstaff be a d8 when wielded 2-handed, you could also MAKE IT a d8 2-handed weapon without Versatile.

The problem I see is the wielding of a quarterstaff 1-handed. I know there ARE styles that do that, but they're unusual, and they take a lot more training than is implied by most classes who get quarterstaff proficiency. Moreover, they're not iconic to the weapon or any of the usual fantasies of using it, which means its weird that that's the supposed default (as "versatile" weapons are implied to be usually used one-handed with the option for two for greater force).

[Theodoxus]

Well, my solution would do exactly that... as for why? Because far too many people saw Gandalf 'one hand' a staff (along with TWF with staff and longsword...)

The image has, sadly, become iconic.

[Segev]

Well, my solution would do exactly that... as for why? Because far too many people saw Gandalf 'one hand' a staff (along with TWF with staff and longsword...)

The image has, sadly, become iconic.

...wait, what? I know I've missed some memes by not watching the LotR movies, but he wielded a staff one-handed? How? I can't imagine him assuming the xiaolin monk stance.

[col_impact]

...wait, what? I know I've missed some memes by not watching the LotR movies, but he wielded a staff one-handed? How? I can't imagine him assuming the xiaolin monk stance.

What is so unusual about 1 handed strikes with a quarterstaff shilellagh?

Shilellagh stick fighting is practiced today. It is called bataireacht and you can find videos on youtube for it.

The fighting irish were boxers, stick fighters, and wrestlers. Friars would sometimes train in those techniques. Sometimes the friars had to personally insure justice was served.

I am a long time practitioner of the martial arts.

[Dork_Forge]

What is so unusual about 1 handed strikes with a quarterstaff shilellagh?

Shilellagh stick fighting is practiced today. It is called bataireacht and you can find videos on youtube for it.

The fighting irish were boxers, stick fighters, and wrestlers. Friars would sometimes train in those techniques. Sometimes the friars had to personally insure justice was served.

I am a long time practitioner of the martial arts.

An actual Shillelagh is a lot shorter than a Quarterstaff, as a cursory google of bataireacht shows. Attempting any of the same maneuvers with a much longer and heavier stick surely wouldn't go well. If one handing a weapon of that length was actually effective then we would have more examples of it in history and media.

On the topic of dual casting the cantrip, if a player wanted to play more of a two stick fighting kind of character I'd probably rule it would make both of them magical but not bump the damage up.

[col_impact]

An actual Shillelagh is a lot shorter than a Quarterstaff, as a cursory google of bataireacht shows. Attempting any of the same maneuvers with a much longer and heavier stick surely wouldn't go well. If one handing a weapon of that length was actually effective then we would have more examples of it in history and media.

On the topic of dual casting the cantrip, if a player wanted to play more of a two stick fighting kind of character I'd probably rule it would make both of them magical but not bump the damage up.

I use a shilellagh that is an actual blackthorn walking staff that would exactly equate to a quarterstaff. If you look up Iroquois War Club and the Gun Stock War Club you might get a better idea.

I have no problems one handing it. I even have a spear attacment for it which I can also wield one-handed.

And a quarterstaff is the same weight as a longword which I can also use one-handed.

[Joe the Rat]

PAM on the Q-staff is a reliable approach. And should still give you the option to use the casting stat.


Actually, since shillelagh is a bonus action cantrip, you can cast a leveled spell as an action. The limitation is casting two spells, not on one of them being a bonus action. (Though probably the best option at that point would be Booming or Green-flame Blade - since you might as well attack with the shillelagh, else, why cast it?)

My second favorite Warlock uses this as his opening gambit, though he uses his arcane focus (blackthorn club/rod) in lieu of a staff.

[Galithar]

Actually, since shillelagh is a bonus action cantrip, you can cast a leveled spell as an action. The limitation is casting two spells, not on one of them being a bonus action. (Though probably the best option at that point would be Booming or Green-flame Blade - since you might as well attack with the shillelagh, else, why cast it?)


Shillelagh being a Cantrip does not exempt it from the only cantrips if you cast a bonus action spell. The rule is that if you cast a bonus action spell, you can't cast a spell with your action other than cantrips. It does not ever say that the bonus action spell must be a levelled spell.



A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.


A Cantrip is still a spell, and if you cast one as a bonus action you are limited to casting a Cantrip with a casting time of 1 action for that turn.

[Tanarii]

Actually, since shillelagh is a bonus action cantrip, you can cast a leveled spell as an action. The limitation is casting two spells, not on one of them being a bonus action. (Though probably the best option at that point would be Booming or Green-flame Blade - since you might as well attack with the shillelagh, else, why cast it?)

That is not correct. If you cast any spell as a bonus action, including a cantrip, the only other spells you can cast on your turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

[JackPhoenix]

However, if you are discussing RAW then the Sage Advice compendium is considered official rules clarifications and is thus RAW. This does not include all JCs tweets which are not official. The Sage Advice compendium is. You can choose to ignore its contents if you wish but it is still RAW just as much as the official errata.

Unlike what's written in the books and errata, Sage Advice is not RAW. It is, at best, RAI, but most often just officially endorsed rulings.

[Keravath]

<deleted> ... not worth arguing about

[stoutstien]

If I had a player who wanted a cast it on two different clubs at the same time I would allow it but reduce damage to 1D4.

[Tanarii]

Unlike what's written in the books and errata, Sage Advice is not RAW. It is, at best, RAI, but most often just officially endorsed rulings.

Part of the problem is people often use the term RAW to include the "official explanation from the game designers of how the written rule is supposed to work".

Technically by definition of the words words Rules As Written this is not correct. But it's certainly understandable.

I understand others being dismissive of Sage Advice when it was just some guys house-rules.But Crawford isn't Skip Williams. The Compendium is well thought out and reflects a balance between telling people how the rule is supposed to work without excessive rule parsing all while encouraging us to make our own rulings. (AFAICT you are not dismissive.)

[Laserlight]

Be aware that some DMs won't let you PAM-and-shield, regardless of RAW, so you might check with your DM first.

[JumboWheat01]

If I can't PAM, I can't PAM, I'll just replace it with something else. My plans are just that, plans. Ranger 5+ gives me two attacks, so I won't be left with just single smacks anyways.

[Benny89]

Be aware that some DMs won't let you PAM-and-shield, regardless of RAW, so you might check with your DM first.

And why is that? It says it can be use with spear and quarterstaff and using "pole" weapon with shield is as old as infantry gets...

If your DM has a problem with "back end strike" with one hand just refluff it to shield-bash attack. Mechanically bonus attack has same dmg etc. you just roleplay it as shield bash.

Easy.

[Theodoxus]

Shillelagh being a Cantrip does not exempt it from the only cantrips if you cast a bonus action spell. The rule is that if you cast a bonus action spell, you can't cast a spell with your action other than cantrips. It does not ever say that the bonus action spell must be a levelled spell.



A Cantrip is still a spell, and if you cast one as a bonus action you are limited to casting a Cantrip with a casting time of 1 action for that turn.


That is not correct. If you cast any spell as a bonus action, including a cantrip, the only other spells you can cast on your turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

so... you're saying I can't cast Bless as an action, and then Shillelagh as a bonus action? Really? well, I've been running my games all wrong then...

[Segev]

It does strike me as weird that you can't cast anything with a casting time of "1 bonus action" on your action. "bonus action" isn't actually the same as a "swift action" in 3.5; it's literally a "bonus action," as in, a second action you can take as a bonus. If you just want to use your normal action to do it, it's still an action, so why can't you do it?

It's one of those weird corner cases that only comes up because spells have specified casting times, as opposed to most things, which are normally actions and then get special abilities to let you do them as bonus actions. Or which trigger the ability to do them as bonus actions based on what you did as an action (e.g. two-weapon fighting or a monk's martial arts attack).