shillelagh + polearm master on a quarterstaff bonus attack damage?

[samcifer]

I've never tried this combination before, but if I have a quarterstaff and the pm feat, then cast shillelagh on the staff, will the bonus action attack still only do 1d4 of damage or would it become a d8? Also, am I correct in assuming that either way, I add my wis mod to the damage instead of strength?

[Pildion]

I've never tried this combination before, but if I have a quarterstaff and the pm feat, then cast shillelagh on the staff, will the bonus action attack still only do 1d4 of damage or would it become a d8? Also, am I correct in assuming that either way, I add my wis mod to the damage instead of strength?

Well, Shillelagh says "For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." So I'd say its a d8 for any damage roll with that weapon PAM included.

[Warder]

FWIW, Jeremy Crawford said it's still a d4 (a few times I think, but this is the source I found):

https://www.sageadvice.eu/shillelagh-polearm-master-damage-with-a-staff-still-be-a-d4-or-would-it-be-a-d8/

I think the reasoning is that Shillelagh changes the weapon's damage dice, and Polearm Master doesn't use the weapon's damage dice.

[Frogreaver]

I would say d4. The weapon does its weapon damage dice which becomes d8. The PAM feat doesn’t deal weapon damage, it just deals a d4. Thus, no change.

[Gignere]

I would say d4. The weapon does its weapon damage dice which becomes d8. The PAM feat doesn’t deal weapon damage, it just deals a d4. Thus, no change.

Another way to understand RAI is that regardless of weapon damage, glaive d10, two hand staff/spear d8, or one hand spear/staff d6 the bonus attack does a d4 so no reason a shillelagh staff wouldn’t be d4 either.

[Segev]

Shillelagh does say it changes the weapon's damage die. Polearm Master, however, also says, "The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage." Which means that you have to ask which is more specific: the change in the damage die for using Polearm Master, or the change in the damage die from the spell?

A similar question arises for Monks and martial arts dice: if a monk with a d6 or higher Martial Arts die uses Polearm Master with a quarterstaff instead of the monk's usual bonus action attack (yeah, yeah, why would he? Maybe there's a special reason to be using the quarterstaff instead of an unarmed strike), does he get to replace the d4 damage die with his martial arts die, as normal?

Thinking about it, I would personally rule that Polearm Master is serving the same purpose as the weapons table: it is telling us the damage die type of the butt end of the polearm in question, just the same way the weapons table tells us the primary end's damage die type. Therefore, effects which modify a weapon's damage die would apply normally, and both shillelagh and a Monk's Martial Arts feature would change the d4 of the butt end of the weapon. Your druid polearm master with shillelagh can get a d8 on his bonus action attack.

[Frogreaver]

Shillelagh does say it changes the weapon's damage die. Polearm Master, however, also says, "The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage." Which means that you have to ask which is more specific: the change in the damage die for using Polearm Master, or the change in the damage die from the spell?

A similar question arises for Monks and martial arts dice: if a monk with a d6 or higher Martial Arts die uses Polearm Master with a quarterstaff instead of the monk's usual bonus action attack (yeah, yeah, why would he? Maybe there's a special reason to be using the quarterstaff instead of an unarmed strike), does he get to replace the d4 damage die with his martial arts die, as normal?

Thinking about it, I would personally rule that Polearm Master is serving the same purpose as the weapons table: it is telling us the damage die type of the butt end of the polearm in question, just the same way the weapons table tells us the primary end's damage die type. Therefore, effects which modify a weapon's damage die would apply normally, and both shillelagh and a Monk's Martial Arts feature would change the d4 of the butt end of the weapon. Your druid polearm master with shillelagh can get a d8 on his bonus action attack.

I can understand the argument but I think the alternative one is better. I'll try to lay it out in a bit more detail below.

The normal procedural process flow following standard 5e play would look like:


Step 1. Druid casts shillelagh.
Step 2. Quarterstaff damage die becomes a d8 instead of d6 (for one-handed)
Step 3. He attacks with quarterstaff dealing d8+mod damage.
Step 4. Finally he bonus action attacks with PAM, which explicitly says, 'the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4'. Since it's already been established that the quarterstaff damage die is now d8 (in step 2) and since this is the final procedural step it should apply last - meaning the d4 from PAM would overwrite the d8 from shillelagh.

[Segev]

I can understand the argument but I think the alternative one is better. I'll try to lay it out in a bit more detail below.

The normal procedural process flow following standard 5e play would look like:


Step 1. Druid casts shillelagh.
Step 2. Quarterstaff damage die becomes a d8 instead of d6 (for one-handed)
Step 3. He attacks with quarterstaff dealing d8+mod damage.
Step 4. Finally he bonus action attacks with PAM, which explicitly says, 'the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4'. Since it's already been established that the quarterstaff damage die is now d8 (in step 2) and since this is the final procedural step it should apply last - meaning the d4 from PAM would overwrite the d8 from shillelagh.


Valid, but no more so than how I read it; DM's call.

[Frogreaver]

Valid, but no more so than how I read it; DM's call.

The question is not about validity but about which valid case is more convincing.

[Chronos]

The crux, I think, is whether a polearm is one weapon or two weapons. If it's one weapon, the Shillelagh spell affects the whole weapon, including the butt end. If it's two weapons, Shillelagh only affects one of them. I think I incline towards thinking that it's two weapons, even though they're attached, because they deal different amounts of damage, usually (except for a quarterstaff) different types, and they use different striking surfaces. On the other hand, this means that you could, if you chose, cast Shillelagh on the butt end of the quarterstaff, and deal 1d8 with your action (from the staff's normal two-handed damage die) and 1d8 with your bonus action (from the enspelled butt end). Though you'd be using different attack stats for the two, which would be a bit awkward.

[Quietus]

An argument could be made either way, as noted, depending on whether the DM feels Shillelagh or PAM is the more specific source. Personally I'd allow the d8 to apply to the bonus action attack, because setting up that die is a bonus action itself, and so you're losing that extra attack to bump the damage of the next attack by 2.

[Keltest]

I was originally going to post in favor of the D4 damage die, but upon consideration, weapon enchantments and smites and such still fully affect the bonus action attack, so it seems odd to make an exception for shillelagh.

[Frogreaver]

IMO something that changes a weapons damage die (shileleagh) is more general than something that changes a weapon's damage die on a specific bonus action attack (Polearm Master).

[Psyren]

The official answer is no.


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.

With that said, using Sage Advice rulings is your DM's choice, so ask them.

[strangebloke]

imo the PAM BA attack should be treated as a separate weapon, a club. Not a heavy weapon, not a magic weapon even if the polearm normally is.

Makes things make more sense IMO.

[yellowrocket]

imo the PAM BA attack should be treated as a separate weapon, a club. Not a heavy weapon, not a magic weapon even if the polearm normally is.

Makes things make more sense IMO.

Was with you right up until magical. They while thing is still magical, but the secondary attack isn't as strong because it's not a full swing or it'd be an extra attack.

[strangebloke]

Was with you right up until magical. They while thing is still magical, but the secondary attack isn't as strong because it's not a full swing or it'd be an extra attack.

Maybe it can be magical, but I'm loathe to apply enhancement bonuses.

[No brains]

imo the PAM BA attack should be treated as a separate weapon, a club. Not a heavy weapon, not a magic weapon even if the polearm normally is.

Makes things make more sense IMO.

I think it would make sense if the back end of the weapon retained the weapon's properties because historical weapons made use of their weight and reach when attacking with the back end.

Of course, this isn't a very helpful perspective since the weapon this argument would make the most sense for, a greataxe fluffed as a poleaxe, can't use PAM anyway.

I think allowing the larger die wouldn't be the worst. Needing to start with a nonmagical staff limits your weapon options even more than using general polearms, so this could make up for not having a good magic weapon

Also taking a feat to get d8 damage on a bonus action attack already exists in Dual Wielder. Only instead of chancing upon wielding the Sword of Kas and a Moonblade at the same time, you get 1 stick.

Finally, Sage Advice believes some odd things about Shillelagh. You can get the BA with a shield in the other hand, but you won't count as wielding a magic weapon versus a Rakshasha. It might be a good place to work from when thinking about the intent of the rules, but sometimes they were intended to be silly.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1337077670283100161
(I can't find where I saved the other one)

[yellowrocket]

Maybe it can be magical, but I'm loathe to apply enhancement bonuses.

That's what I mean. it keeps the 1d4 that it usually gets. Because it's not a full extra attack. But it's part of the magically enhanced weapon so it's magical, just not extra damaging magical.

[strangebloke]

I think it would make sense if the back end of the weapon retained the weapon's properties because historical weapons made use of their weight and reach when attacking with the back end.

yeah, but PAM is a quick incidental strike with the butt of your spear and is working off kungfu tropes where you fight with polearms by spinning them around. It's not like you're pulling off a murder stroke here. More like a slap with about a foot of your haft for leverage.

This is why the damage is consistent with a club.

[Segev]

The question is not about validity but about which valid case is more convincing.

That is going to be pretty inherently subjective. I find my reading more convincing. I do not expect that everyone will. To me, Polearm Master lays out a "new" weapon - the butt end of the polearm - and gives it a damage type. Shillelagh and Martial Arts allow you to replace certain weapon dice with a different damage die. When the polearm is that type of weapon, you can make the replacement.

Another approach would be to look at the two rules and say that neither is more general than the other, so application is up to the player of the character using them.

Then there is the approach that says that Polearm Master is changing the die type of the weapon to a d4, and does so after Shillelagh and Martial Arts have been applied. I do not find this one particularly convincing, but I won't say it isn't a way some might choose to read it.

Two of these three leave the higher die type in place. They also happen to be the two I find most convincing.

[BaronCorvo]

PAM doesn't add a new weapon though, it literally adds another attack option to an existing weapon.

1. Shillelagh changes your weapon’s damage die to a d8. It applies to all attacks with that weapon.

2. Polearm Master allows you to make a bonus action attack with your weapon. The weapon's damage die for that attack is a d4.

3. Shillelagh sets the weapon's damage die for any attack while PAM sets the weapon's damage only for a special bonus action attack.

4. Changing the damage die for all attacks with a weapon is more general than setting a damage die for a specific attack with a weapon.

5. Therefore (since specific beats general) it makes more sense to me that PAM's "add a d4 attack to an existing weapon" beats Shillelagh's "replace the damage die with a d8 for all attacks".

You can rule the other way, it makes an already powerful feat more powerful by effectively adding +2 to DPR while still allowing +2 or +3 to AC. It means PAM + Shillelagh does as much damage as Dual Wielder + Two-Weapon Fighting but with a higher AC and using the casting stat for melee as well as spell DC. It means a quarterstaff is deadlier than a halberd. It's also more damage than a greatsword while still allowing a shield (and again uses the casting stat). The main reason to use Shillelagh is to be able to attack with Wisdom and be SAD; making druids better at melee than fighters wasn't really the idea. Greatsword catches up by 11th level or if you power attack a lot, so it probably won't break the game (and dual wielding is already weak). But "all attacks" seems pretty clearly more general than "one bonus action attack" IMO.

[yellowrocket]

But "all attacks" seems pretty clearly more general than "one bonus action attack" IMO.

Whats more specific is that a bonus action attack is not an attack, because mo one else gets a full damage attack with a bonus action.

[samcifer]

Whats more specific is that a bonus action attack is not an attack, because mo one else gets a full damage attack with a bonus action.

Two weapon fighting style does.

[Frogreaver]

Two weapon fighting style does.

He was obviously talking about with polearm master...

[ender241]

Shillelagh says "the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." The bonus action attack from PAM doesn't use the weapon's damage die, it uses a d4. It doesn't matter what the weapon's damage die is. In contrast, it also says "you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon." Since the PAM BA attack is indeed a melee attack using the weapon, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of strength. In addition, "the weapon also becomes magical, if it isn't already" and therefore the damage would be counted as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances.

If you're still on the fence, the fact is that PAM is already one of the strongest feats on it's own, and provides several ways to synergize with other feats/spells/abilities (one of which is shillelagh). It doesn't need the boost.

Another way to think about it: the Weapons table in the PHB specifies the damage die/dice for each weapon. For the PAM BA attack, you don't use that, you use a d4. Even though a glaive is 1d10 slashing normally, the PAM BA attack is 1d4 bludgeoning. If a new spell came along that changed a glaive's damage die to 1d12 temporarily, the PAM BA attack wouldn't start doing 1d12 slashing damage. That clearly wouldn't make sense, but it's only more obvious because of the different damage type. Shillelagh is the same idea though. It changes the weapon's damage die but PAM uses a d4 damage die specifically, not the weapon's.

[Witty Username]

My instinct is d4, mostly because weapon damage is a trait of the weapon that PAM ignores. This game terms nonsense is always frustrating.

[BaronCorvo]

If Shillelagh applied to the bonus attack then a 1st level Variant Human Fighter could do 12-26 points of damage per round, average 19. That's obviously insane.

Variant Human chooses Magic Initiate: Druid and takes Shillelagh. As a level 1 Fighter takes the Dueling fighting style. Makes Wisdom the primary stat (16 with point buy or standard array). Carries a shield and quarterstaff, which means they can apply the Dueling fighting style to their damage and also get +2 AC. Casts Shillelagh.

main attack: 1d8 + WIS (3) + Duel (2) = 6-13, average 9.5
bonus attack: 1d8 + 3 + 2 = 6-13, average 9.5

DPR 12-26, average 19

At first level this fighter, using no house rules or setting-specific feats or backgrounds or exotic weapons, and without doing anything particularly convoluted in terms of build, can one-shot creatures up to CR 1 with ease. Brass dragon wormling, hippogriff, orc, no problem. And they can start with AC 18 as well, if they put at least a 13 in Strength. Plus they now have decent Wisdom saves, one of the best saves in the game. Meanwhile the putz who takes a greatsword is doing 10 points of DPR and gets no shield.

[Gignere]

If Shillelagh applied to the bonus attack then a 1st level Variant Human Fighter could do 12-26 points of damage per round, average 19. That's obviously insane.

Variant Human chooses Magic Initiate: Druid and takes Shillelagh. As a level 1 Fighter takes the Dueling fighting style. Makes Wisdom the primary stat (16 with point buy or standard array). Carries a shield and quarterstaff, which means they can apply the Dueling fighting style to their damage and also get +2 AC. Casts Shillelagh.

main attack: 1d8 + WIS (3) + Duel (2) = 6-13, average 9.5
bonus attack: 1d8 + 3 + 2 = 6-13, average 9.5

DPR 12-26, average 19

At first level this fighter, using no house rules or setting-specific feats or backgrounds or exotic weapons, and without doing anything particularly convoluted in terms of build, can one-shot creatures up to CR 1 with ease. Brass dragon wormling, hippogriff, orc, no problem. And they can start with AC 18 as well, if they put at least a 13 in Strength. Plus they now have decent Wisdom saves, one of the best saves in the game. Meanwhile the putz who takes a greatsword is doing 10 points of DPR and gets no shield.

No way to do this at level 1 unless DM grants a bonus feat at level 1. Need both magic initiate and PAM to pull this off which at the earliest is level 4, even if you use vhuman or custom.

[ender241]

No way to do this at level 1 unless DM grants a bonus feat at level 1. Need both magic initiate and PAM to pull this off which at the earliest is level 4, even if you use vhuman or custom.

You can still do what was described at level 1, minus the dueling fighting style, just not as a fighter. A vhuman or custom lineage druid or nature cleric can get PAM and shillelagh at level 1. Ranger can do it at level 2.

PAM is already a very strong feat without having a way to bump the d4 to a d8. I've already provided the justification for RAW why it shouldn't happen. If you still think the rules are ambiguous, the fact that it makes PAM even more powerful when it doesn't need it should be enough justification to leave it at a d4.

[Segev]

Eh. It's strong, yes, but that only gives justification to choose a ruling, not to say "therefore the RAW don't permit it." The RAW absolutely permit both a reading where the spell changes the damage die from d4 to d8, and a reading where the damage die for the butt-end attack is always a d4. However, I, personally, find the second argument much weaker, because you could make the argument that the weapon table changes the die type from (shillelagh's) d8 to whatever is in the weapon table just as easily as you can make the argument that PAM changes the die type from (shillelagh's) d8 to (PAM's) d4.

[ender241]

Eh. It's strong, yes, but that only gives justification to choose a ruling, not to say "therefore the RAW don't permit it."

You're right. My first post provided my reasoning for why it's still a d4 RAW.


The RAW absolutely permit both a reading where the spell changes the damage die from d4 to d8, and a reading where the damage die for the butt-end attack is always a d4. However, I, personally, find the second argument much weaker, because you could make the argument that the weapon table changes the die type from (shillelagh's) d8 to whatever is in the weapon table just as easily as you can make the argument that PAM changes the die type from (shillelagh's) d8 to (PAM's) d4.

I disagree that RAW permits both interpretations. If Shillelagh said "melee attacks with the weapon use a d8 for weapon damage," you would have an argument. But it says that "the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." There's a subtle but important difference. PAM doesn't use the weapon's damage die. So changing the weapon's damage die has no impact on PAM. Full stop.

As for the weapon table somehow overriding the shillelagh damage, that doesn't happen because the spell is more specific than the general weapon damage. But the PAM attack is a specific type of attack with a specific damage die (separate from the weapon's). It doesn't matter what the weapon's damage die is and how it became what it is. The PAM attack is a d4. Those two arguments are not even close to the same.

Houserule spears to do d10 damage? PAM with it still does d4 bludgeoning.

Wotc comes out with a new spell that changes glaives to d12 damage die temporarily? PAM with it still does d4 bludgeoning.

Shillelagh is essentially changing the entry in the PHB weapon table temporarily. PAM doesn't care what's in the weapon table.

Even if you still refuse to believe that this is how it works RAW, it is RAI per JC. So if you want to go against RAI and buff a feat that doesn't need buffed, go for it. But I don't see the benefit in doing so.

[Segev]

I disagree that RAW permits both interpretations. If Shillelagh said "melee attacks with the weapon use a d8 for weapon damage," you would have an argument. But it says that "the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." There's a subtle but important difference. PAM doesn't use the weapon's damage die. So changing the weapon's damage type has no impact on PAM. Full stop.

That's just it. PAM doesn't change the weapon's damage die. It says the weapon's damage die is d4. In order of operations, PAM creates the damage die ex nihilio. Shillelagh then comes in and says, "well, since you're using the weapon I'm enchanting, the damage die is changed [from d4] to d8."

[ender241]

That's just it. PAM doesn't change the weapon's damage die. It says the weapon's damage die is d4. In order of operations, PAM creates the damage die ex nihilio. Shillelagh then comes in and says, "well, since you're using the weapon I'm enchanting, the damage die is changed [from d4] to d8."

PAM says "The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage."
(Emphasis mine). It's essentially saying "I don't care what the weapon damage die for this weapon normally is, use a d4 for this attack instead." It doesn't matter what order you apply things, PAM doesn't care what the weapon's damage die is.

Answer me this: if a spell "super glaive" came out that said "for 1 minute, a glaive you wield has it's damage die changed to a d12." What would be the damage die and damage type of the PAM attack?

[Segev]

PAM says "The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage."
(Emphasis mine). It's essentially saying "I don't care what the weapon damage die for this weapon normally is, use a d4 for this attack instead." It doesn't matter what order you apply things, PAM doesn't care what the weapon's damage die is.

Answer me this: if a spell "super glaive" came out that said "for 1 minute, a glaive you wield has it's damage die changed to a d12." What would be the damage die and damage type of the PAM attack?

Similarly, shillalagh says, "For the duration...the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." It is essentially saying, "I don't care what the damage die for the weapon normally would be; for the duration, use d8 for any attacks with it, instead."

You feel that PAM is more specific. I find shillelagh to be both more specific and to happen as a later order of operations.

You wouldn't, for example, argue that PAM removes hunter's mark's extra d6 of damage, would you? No, of course not; the spell is applied after PAM sets the weapon damage die, not before.

But! I do see where you're coming from; I just am not convinced that your ruling is better RAW interpretation than mine. I think mine is better, but I do not think it is the only possible one. Just the better one. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

RAW is indeed ambiguous.
RAI (Sage Advice) is clear.
Present your case to your DM and go based on that.

Ultimately we're talking about an average DPR difference of ~2, it's not that big a deal.

[Keltest]

Similarly, shillalagh says, "For the duration...the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." It is essentially saying, "I don't care what the damage die for the weapon normally would be; for the duration, use d8 for any attacks with it, instead."

You feel that PAM is more specific. I find shillelagh to be both more specific and to happen as a later order of operations.

You wouldn't, for example, argue that PAM removes hunter's mark's extra d6 of damage, would you? No, of course not; the spell is applied after PAM sets the weapon damage die, not before.

But! I do see where you're coming from; I just am not convinced that your ruling is better RAW interpretation than mine. I think mine is better, but I do not think it is the only possible one. Just the better one. :smalltongue:

Shillelagh might be more specific, but I don't think the argument that it comes later in the order of operations holds much water. PAM doesnt occur until you take the attack action with the weapon and use your bonus action, while the spell has already affected the weapon. The weapon's die is already changed, then PAM comes in and tells you to ignore that and use a new die.

[ender241]

Similarly, shillalagh says, "For the duration...the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." It is essentially saying, "I don't care what the damage die for the weapon normally would be; for the duration, use d8 for any attacks with it, instead."

You feel that PAM is more specific. I find shillelagh to be both more specific and to happen as a later order of operations.

You wouldn't, for example, argue that PAM removes hunter's mark's extra d6 of damage, would you? No, of course not; the spell is applied after PAM sets the weapon damage die, not before.

But! I do see where you're coming from; I just am not convinced that your ruling is better RAW interpretation than mine. I think mine is better, but I do not think it is the only possible one. Just the better one. :smalltongue:

I see what you're saying. But even with the interpretation that both PAM and Shillelagh simply override the weapon's normal damage die, I don't see how shillelagh applies after PAM. You have to cast it first, so upon casting it you essentially change the general damage die for the weapon. PAM comes into play when you actually attack, at which point you are making a specific type of attack, so that overrides the general weapon damage, regardless of how it was previously determined.

The difference with Hunter's Mark is that it's applied to all weapon attacks against the target. The PAM BA attack is a weapon attack, albeit a special one. You could use your bare arms or an improvised weapon and still get the +d6. Shillelagh changes the weapon damage die, which is completely different. Thus, a different interaction with PAM.

I will concede that yours is a possible RAW reading, though it makes zero sense to me. But it's already determined to not be RAI. And the buff is not needed, like I've said multiple times. PAM is already one of the best feats.

Still curious how you would handle super glaive + PAM though 😛.

[JNAProductions]

RAW is indeed ambiguous.
RAI (Sage Advice) is clear.
Present your case to your DM and go based on that.

Ultimately we're talking about an average DPR difference of ~2, it's not that big a deal.

I'll echo this.

My personal ruling would be that you'd get a 1d4 butt attack, but it would still be magic. Your DM may rule differently, and if this happens at your table, it's their opinion that matters most.

[BaronCorvo]

No way to do this at level 1 unless DM grants a bonus feat at level 1. Need both magic initiate and PAM to pull this off which at the earliest is level 4, even if you use vhuman or custom.

Ah, you're right, I knew I was overlooking something. So a 2nd level Fighter/Druid or Ranger can do 19 DPR. Or a 1st level druid with PAM can do 15 DPR per round (8-22 hp) without the Dueling fighting style ((d8 + 3) x 2). A fighter who goes all in on damage (1H spear or staff with PAM and dueling) can do 16, which I believe is the max, but they can't wildshape or cast spells. I don't think PAM needs any buffs.

Edit: correction, Fighter/Druid gets 19 DPR, a 2nd level Ranger can't take Dueling and Shillelagh at the same time.

[Frogreaver]

Similarly, shillalagh says, "For the duration...the weapon's damage die becomes a d8." It is essentially saying, "I don't care what the damage die for the weapon normally would be; for the duration, use d8 for any attacks with it, instead."

You feel that PAM is more specific. I find shillelagh to be both more specific and to happen as a later order of operations.

You wouldn't, for example, argue that PAM removes hunter's mark's extra d6 of damage, would you? No, of course not; the spell is applied after PAM sets the weapon damage die, not before.

But! I do see where you're coming from; I just am not convinced that your ruling is better RAW interpretation than mine. I think mine is better, but I do not think it is the only possible one. Just the better one. :smalltongue:

I think it’s easiest to view shileleah as updating the weapon damage chart. Then everything else happens normally from there.

You seem to view shileleah as modifying the damage die at the time of the attack. It’s not clear why.

[BaronCorvo]

Hunter's Mark doesn't do anything to the damage die, it just adds damage to any weapon attack. It's completely orthogonal to PAM and Shillelagh. Same goes for Improved Divine Smite. It's funny to me how convoluted people's arguments get when a particular interpretation of the rules might benefit them.

If a DM wants to rule that Shillelagh's change of the damage die is somehow more specific than PAM's adding a special bonus attack action it's not the end of the world, but it's a very generous read of RAW and it's not RAI. +2 DPR isn't huge but it's the same as Archery or Dueling give until extra attacks come in, and both of those are already strong.

[Chronos]

Ranger levels won't help anything, since rangers don't get cantrips. It could be a nature cleric, though, or a 3rd-level tome warlock, or (I think) an artificer.

[ender241]

Ranger levels won't help anything, since rangers don't get cantrips. It could be a nature cleric, though, or a 3rd-level tome warlock, or (I think) an artificer.

Tasha's added the Druidic Warrior fighting style to rangers which lets you learn two druid cantrips. Good call on tomelock though. But not sure how an artificer would learn shillelagh.

[Damon_Tor]

It's not strong enough of a combo for me to get worked up about as a DM. If my player wanted to invest a feat and a cantrip into what amounts to about the same damage as a dual-wielder with the relevant feat and fighting style, I'm inclined to let them. However, it's worth noting that I require the staff to be held two-handed to use the butt end via PAM.

[animorte]

It's not strong enough of a combo for me to get worked up about as a DM. If my player wanted to invest a feat and a cantrip into what amounts to about the same damage as a dual-wielder with the relevant feat and fighting style, I'm inclined to let them. However, it's worth noting that I require the staff to be held two-handed to use the butt end via PAM.

Also note that unarmed strikes could also be a knee or foot! This actually makes sense especially in the case of Monks, though I wouldn't imagine any sort of martial character would be unfamiliar with resorting to these tactics if necessary.

[Chronos]

I think that there was some version or other of Artificer (UA, probably) that got Shillelagh on their regular spell list, but I haven't kept up with the current version of the class to say whether it's still on it. That's why I added the "(I think)".

[Psyren]

It's a bit redundant for Artificers since both of the "melee" ones get Int to attack and damage anyway.

[Segev]

It's a bit redundant for Artificers since both of the "melee" ones get Int to attack and damage anyway.

I think the allure for the Artificer is the possibility of upping the d4 on the bonus action attack to a d8. Obviously, whether this allure applies varies by DM.

[ender241]

I think the allure for the Artificer is the possibility of upping the d4 on the bonus action attack to a d8. Obviously, whether this allure applies varies by DM.

The bigger impact would be to multiclassing. Currently the only way to get int-based attacks that I'm aware of (outside of UA) is through Battlesmith or Armorer. If you could get the same with a 1 level artificer dip vs a 3 level dip it becomes much more appealing. Especially for someone like a Bladesinger that wouldn't want to delay spell progression too much.

[Psyren]

I think the allure for the Artificer is the possibility of upping the d4 on the bonus action attack to a d8. Obviously, whether this allure applies varies by DM.

I hear you but I'd have a hard time justifying PAM on any artificer. Artillerist and Alchemist want to be spamming cantrips instead of weapon attacks, Battlesmith has a better use for its bonus action built in, and Armorer can eventually get a better BA through homunculus. Best of all, none of them need a buff round to get the Int to attack/damage going.


The bigger impact would be to multiclassing. Currently the only way to get int-based attacks that I'm aware of (outside of UA) is through Battlesmith or Armorer. If you could get the same with a 1 level artificer dip vs a 3 level dip it becomes much more appealing. Especially for someone like a Bladesinger that wouldn't want to delay spell progression too much.

Shillelagh also gets you Int-based attacks, provided you're using a club or quarterstaff.

Worth noting that a Wiz 17/Artificer 3 has the spell slots of a Wizard 19 so it's not that bad of a delay.

[Pildion]

RAW is indeed ambiguous.
RAI (Sage Advice) is clear.
Present your case to your DM and go based on that.

Ultimately we're talking about an average DPR difference of ~2, it's not that big a deal.

In the End, this is it. Just ask your DM.

[ender241]

Shillelagh also gets you Int-based attacks, provided you're using a club or quarterstaff.

That's what I was referring to. If artificers had shillelagh on their spell list you could get int shillelagh with a 1 level dip. As it stands there's no way to get int shillelagh outside of maybe UA, that I'm aware of.



Worth noting that a Wiz 17/Artificer 3 has the spell slots of a Wizard 19 so it's not that bad of a delay.


The spell slots work out fine, yes. But I'd be more concerned with the delay in spell level. For instance, if you start as artificer (which would be tempting to get the con save proficiency) you're not getting level 3 spells until level 8, at which point the other full casters in your party are already rocking level 4 spells and will learn level 5 spells before you even get your level 4s. Maybe it's just me but I just hate to delay spell progression for a full caster by more than 1, maybe 2 multi-class levels.

I digress though. I think the original topic has been beaten to death and we're straying further from it each post anyway.

[Psyren]

That's what I was referring to. If artificers had shillelagh on their spell list you could get int shillelagh with a 1 level dip. As it stands there's no way to get int shillelagh outside of maybe UA, that I'm aware of.

Yeah, I wish Fighting Initiate worked with any class' fighting styles instead of just Fighter :smallfrown:



The spell slots work out fine, yes. But I'd be more concerned with the delay in spell level. For instance, if you start as artificer (which would be tempting to get the con save proficiency) you're not getting level 3 spells until level 8, at which point the other full casters in your party are already rocking level 4 spells and will learn level 5 spells before you even get your level 4s. Maybe it's just me but I just hate to delay spell progression for a full caster by more than 1, maybe 2 multi-class levels.

I digress though. I think the original topic has been beaten to death and we're straying further from it each post anyway.

Point.

[Khrysaes]

No way to do this at level 1 unless DM grants a bonus feat at level 1. Need both magic initiate and PAM to pull this off which at the earliest is level 4, even if you use vhuman or custom.

Technically not true with the strixhaven backgrounds granting feats that give spells. So RAW it can be done as a vhumannwith.. witherbloom background? However most dms disallow those backgrounds unless playing strixhaven so mostly a moot point.

The new dragonlance ua backgrounds also give a feat with spells.

[Khrysaes]

That's what I was referring to. If artificers had shillelagh on their spell list you could get int shillelagh with a 1 level dip. As it stands there's no way to get int shillelagh outside of maybe UA, that I'm aware of.


Artificer level 2 and their infusions for a spellwrought cantrip tattoo.

Technically the wish spell.

Maybe some of the changes in races in monsters of the multiverse as they can all select their casting stat now.

[ender241]

Technically not true with the strixhaven backgrounds granting feats that give spells. So RAW it can be done as a vhumannwith.. witherbloom background? However most dms disallow those backgrounds unless playing strixhaven so mostly a moot point.

The new dragonlance ua backgrounds also give a feat with spells.

Strixhaven Initiate only lets you learn 2 out of 3 possible cantrips, depending on the chosen college, and a 1st level spell. None of them have shillelagh as as option. Witherbloom, for instance, is "Choose two from chill touch, druidcraft, and spare the dying." So I believe all the RAW ways to get PAM + Shillelagh before level 4 have already been discussed. Fighter is not one of them, and Strixhaven backgrounds don't help with it regardless.

[Khrysaes]

Strixhaven Initiate only lets you learn 2 out of 3 possible cantrips, depending on the chosen college, and a 1st level spell. None of them have shillelagh as as option. Witherbloom, for instance, is "Choose two from chill touch, druidcraft, and spare the dying." So I believe all the RAW ways to get PAM + Shillelagh before level 4 have already been discussed. Fighter is not one of them, and Strixhaven backgrounds don't help with it regardless.

You are right i just checked them. I forgot it was only the first
Level spell you get to pick.

[ender241]

Artificer level 2 and their infusions for a spellwrought cantrip tattoo.

Spellwrought tattoo doesn't use your spellcasting ability. It has set ability modifiers depending on the level of the spell. Cantrips are +3. So probably better than your Str modifier but not the same as int based shillelagh. And you can only use it once per day. Definitely not worth a 2 level dip.



Technically the wish spell.


True... But obviously only doable at level 17+ and only once per day. Not to mention there are hundreds of better uses for wish. But technically you're right, you can get int shillelagh that way. I forgot about that.



Maybe some of the changes in races in monsters of the multiverse as they can all select their casting stat now.

Possibly. I haven't seen it yet, only saw LudicSavant's summary of it.

[Segev]

I hear you but I'd have a hard time justifying PAM on any artificer. Artillerist and Alchemist want to be spamming cantrips instead of weapon attacks, Battlesmith has a better use for its bonus action built in, and Armorer can eventually get a better BA through homunculus. Best of all, none of them need a buff round to get the Int to attack/damage going.That's fair, and makes sense. When you already have a solid, regular use for your bonus action, PAM is far less attractive.

[Khrysaes]

Hopefully not too much thread Necromancy, but I re-discovered how to get INT based Shillelagh. (Or eldritch blast??)

All Purpose Tool from Tasha's.

Requires at least 1 artificer level.

Choose ANY cantrip, and for 8 hours you can cast it as an artificer cantrip.

[Eriol]

Hopefully not too much thread Necromancy, but I re-discovered how to get INT based Shillelagh. (Or eldritch blast??)

All Purpose Tool from Tasha's.

Requires at least 1 artificer level.

Choose ANY cantrip, and for 8 hours you can cast it as an artificer cantrip.
Very interesting. And valid IMO. And not thread necromancy when it's less than 2 weeks IMO.

[samcifer]

Hopefully not too much thread Necromancy, but I re-discovered how to get INT based Shillelagh. (Or eldritch blast??)

All Purpose Tool from Tasha's.

Requires at least 1 artificer level.

Choose ANY cantrip, and for 8 hours you can cast it as an artificer cantrip.

How does that work? I love the idea, but am not sure how to do that legally.

[Eriol]

Here's the text of the tool from Tasha's:

ALL-PURPOSE TOOL
Wondrous item, uncommon (+1), rare (+2), very rare
(+3) (requires attunement by an artificer)
This simple screwdriver can transform into a variety of tools; as an action, you can touch the item and transform it into any type of artisan's tool of your choice (see the "Equipment" chapter in the Player's Handbook for a list of artisan's tools). Whatever form the tool takes, you are proficient with it. While holding this tool, you gain a bonus to the spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your artificer spells. The bonus is determined by the tool's rarity.

As an action, you can focus on the tool to channel your creative forces. Choose a cantrip that you don't know from any class list. For 8 hours, you can cast that cantrip, and it counts as an artificer cantrip for you. Once this property is used, it can't be used again until the next dawn.
It's that last part that's important: "Choose a cantrip that you don't know from any class list. For 8 hours, you can cast that cantrip, and it counts as an artificer cantrip for you." While it's ambiguous about casting stat, given that it doesn't mention one, and that INT is the stat for Artificers, it's reasonable IMO that whatever you pick becomes an INT-based cantrip. Also note that there does not seem to be a requirement to be holding the APT in order to cast that cantrip either, so no problem there. Then for the feat, either variant human, custom lineage, or whatever out there grants a feat at level 1 (if any).

[animorte]

It's that last part that's important: "Choose a cantrip that you don't know from any class list. For 8 hours, you can cast that cantrip, and it counts as an artificer cantrip for you." While it's ambiguous about casting stat, given that it doesn't mention one, and that INT is the stat for Artificers, it's reasonable IMO that whatever you pick becomes an INT-based cantrip.

That is correct. If it becomes an Artificer cantrip, then it would be based on the Artificer's spellcasting stat.

[Khrysaes]

Of note. You can have more than one all purpose tool, when your 8 hours are up, or close to being up, take a short rest to attune to a different one.

[samcifer]

Unfortunately, the all purpose tool can't be created via infusions if that is the intent. You can only replicate common magical items and the lowest rarity of the tool is uncommon. Just confirmed this on the d&d beyond character creator.

[Khrysaes]

Unfortunately, the all purpose tool can't be created via infusions if that is the intent. You can only replicate common magical items and the lowest rarity of the tool is uncommon. Just confirmed this on the d&d beyond character creator.

Yeah. It isn’t self contained with features. It requires you to get one in game. Interestingly, Adventurer’s League gives a free magic item at level 5, which can be the all purpose tool.

Edit: starting at 5th level, not first, in the player’s guide season 11.

[Witty Username]

Hopefully not too much thread Necromancy, but I re-discovered how to get INT based Shillelagh. (Or eldritch blast??)

All Purpose Tool from Tasha's.

Requires at least 1 artificer level.

Choose ANY cantrip, and for 8 hours you can cast it as an artificer cantrip.

Rule of thumb is 1 month before thread necromancy is an issue.