D&D 5E (2014) Is Shillelagh essential?

[jaelis]

From a powergaming standpoint, Shillelagh is a dead end anyway. Useful only at low levels.

This is a good point. I always forget that RAW you can't swap out cantrips, so you have to look far ahead.

 

[Shiroiken]

I am currently playing a Land Druid who has both these cantrips, but for a specific reason. We have a Wolf Totem Barbarian and few other melee characters, so I usually wade into melee with Shillelagh (gaining Advantage from the Barbarian). I have Thorn Whip to pull enemies away from the spellcasters and archer (preferably into the reach of the Barbarian). Very likely Shillelagh will become less useful at level 11, however, as Thorn Whip will do more damage (~10.5 vs. 9.5)

 

[Hawk Diesel]

For those of you concerned with Shillelagh damage scaling: Why not put in scaling damage? Add a cumulative +2 damage at level 5, 11, and 17?

 

[Xeviat]

For those of you concerned with Shillelagh damage scaling: Why not put in scaling damage? Add a cumulative +2 damage at level 5, 11, and 17?

Because anyone with extra attack would wreck this.

If it was an action for one attack, sure.

 

[mellored]

Don't forget you can use saving throw cantips in melee without penalty. Viscous Mockery doesn't lose anything if an enemy is closr.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That's kind of true, but not as much as people tend to think, because cantrips other than Booming/Greenflame Blade and Agonizing Eldritch Blast don't get ability score modifiers, and even Booming/Greenflame Blade only get them once. A Str 16 Valor Bard who takes e.g. the Mounted Combatant feat and uses a lance will be doing 2 * (d12 + 3) = 19 points of damage by 6th level, and even if he learns Booming Blade at 10th level, he'd still only do (d12 + d8 + 3) = 14 points of damage with it at 10th level, (d12 + 2d8 + 3) = 18.5 points of damage with it at 11th-16th level, and (d12 + 3d8 + 3) = 23 points of damage with it at 17th-20th level. (Mounted Combatant isn't even strictly necessary, but it's convenient for keeping your mount alive and has other benefits and I quite like it, so I cite it in this example as a viable path that a Valor Bard could take. But you could also rely on Phantom Steed, or Find Steed, or just use kiting tactics and have a string of backup horses waiting nearby just in case.)

So in practice, all Valor Bards will do cantrip-competitive weapon damage even without maxing their attack stat, for as long as the game is likely to last.

Edit: or you could use a greatsword instead of a lance. Blind spot on my part--I like sword-and-shield for Valor Bards and sometimes forget that greatswords are an option for them.

Some of it has to do with my style expectations also. I like a bard with a longsword and a freehand for spellcasting. A lance (well, occasional usage is fine) or a greatsword just isn't my image (strongly informed by the 2e PHB) of a bard's armaments. So my Valor bard with 16 Strength and a longsword is only doing (2d8 + 6) = 15 damage. On the other hand, if he were 17th+ and wielding greenflame bladehe's doing (4d8+3) = 21 to a primary target, plus the secondary damage. Before 17th level it's going to be (3d8+3) = 16.5, so if we assume the bard has a magic sword (probably reasonable in at 11th level, though that would mean that magic items kind of are assumed to an extent), he'll do better, but if he wields mundane steel, the cantrip is much better--and then after 17th level it better be a really good magic weapon or it won't keep up.

Clerics really illustrate this problem. A cleric with the cantrip bonus damage is putting out (3d8 + 5(probably) = 18.5 damage with sacred flame at 11th level, and (4d8 + 5) = 23 at 17th+. A War cleric with a greatsword and a 20 Strength is dealing (2d6 + 1d8 + 5)= 16.5 damage at 11th level, and (2d6 + 2d8 + 5) = 21 damage at 14th level plus. It's true that there are many more ways to add damage to a weapon attack with spells, items, etc, than there are to add damage to an attack cantrip, but it still demonstrates that you are expected to be using those--and in this case that's even when you have a maxed attack stat.

Another issue I have with some of it is just that I don't like the idea of maxed attack stats for certain characters. I just think in terms of a bard or cleric in 2e with a Strength of 13 being perfectly viable in melee. 5e isn't really designed that way. If you want something as your attack stat, you need to make it high. And (again, a style thing), since longswords are Strength-based that means way more muscles on certain characters than I really want.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Because anyone with extra attack would wreck this.

If it was an action for one attack, sure.

Well I'm thinking about the pure druid who will only ever get one attack. Perhaps just say that the extra damage only applies to your first successful strike per round.

 

[Rhenny]

Ok, thanks all, settled my mind that I should just pick whatever suits the character...going to roll with the wildshape a.k.a Obsessed With Turning Things Into Other Things so Shape Water it is

Nice, when I play I always try to make my character story/RP driven rather than combat optimized. When I DM, I encourage the same. I prefer rp/story driven D&D with combat as one aspect rather than combat maximized D&D with other elements sprinkled in.

Bravo. Have fun.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

*snip good analysis*

Another issue I have with some of it is just that I don't like the idea of maxed attack stats for certain characters. I just think in terms of a bard or cleric in 2e with a Strength of 13 being perfectly viable in melee. 5e isn't really designed that way. If you want something as your attack stat, you need to make it high. And (again, a style thing), since longswords are Strength-based that means way more muscles on certain characters than I really want.

I share your distaste. 2nd edition trained me to not expect stats to change over time, and then 5E got rid of exceptional strength (yes, yes, I realize that there were apparently some precursors to 5E that didn't have exceptional strength either) and made the stat bonus distribution much flatter, e.g. Con 12 now gives you some real advantages. So I'm pretty down on the idea that you "have" to max your stats at all.

But I get what you're saying, in optimization terms: a Str 13 Valor Bard or Cleric will not find weapons-only combat competitive with his other options, like taking Spell Sniper or Magic Initiate to gain access to an attack cantrip. So if he WANTS to use a longsword and shield, you're setting the player up with a tension between mechanical effectiveness (at high levels) and fun, which never works out well.

Note BTW that monsters have this tension too, and they apparently err on the side of "fun" rather than "mechanical effectiveness." A Flind, from Volo's Guide To Monsters, would obviously be better off with a javelin or three as its ranged attack, since its Str is 20 and its Dex is only 10. It gets three attacks, but in melee those attacks are devastating and at range they are... well, not useless, but not impressive either. More "suppressive fire" than "airstrike". I guess Flinds just don't like javelins.

So I think you could abandon mechanical effectiveness and embrace pure fun and still fit in with the D&D world as envisioned by 5E products.