Shillelagh and quarterstaffs

[Caliban]

I personally see nothing inherently unbalancing to using two shillellagh spells to create a 1d10/1d10 weapon, considering that you still have to spend two feats to use it effectively.

However, everytime I have allowed that interpretation certain individuals have claimed that the shillelagh spell would affect both ends with one casting, since a double weapon is still "a weapon" and spell affects "a weapon".

So I decided on the stricter interpretation, to settle the issue.

In any case, you wouldn't be able to cast shillelagh on the same quarterstaff twice, because it can only be cast on a non-magical weapon and the first casting of the spell makes the quarterstaff a magical weapon.

 

[drnuncheon]

In any case, you wouldn't be able to cast shillelagh on the same quarterstaff twice, because it can only be cast on a non-magical weapon and the first casting of the spell makes the quarterstaff a magical weapon.

...unless you count the two heads as separate weapons, of course. Then the second head is a non-magical weapon and a legitimate target for shillelagh.

I can understand the need for a strict ruling if your players are going to be argumentative like that. On the other hand, I'd think that players who want the 1d10+1/1d10+1 badly enough would argue even with your current interpretation (as has occurred on this thread)

J

 

[Valmur_Dwur]

I don't think it's all that strong for a 1st level spell Heck look at Flare for a zero level spell can be deadly. You also have to take into consideration that we are talking about wizards and Druids here, not exactly the "tanks" of the party. The way it reads seem to me that if I were to describe it to my players it would sound like this. AHEM : disclaimer(I would hope my players would say this but) After rubbing the mistletoe along the shaft of the quarterstaff a sheen appears upon it. Grabbing it again in your ready stance the wood seems almost alive in your hands as if nature was in some way imparting the force of a thunderstorm within the wood. You feel as if you can call upon this fury when striking your foes. End. Rule Zero this one I think.

 

[Astlin]

Why is the quarterstaff even mentioned in the spell?
If the target is a club or staff and the end result is a club, why bother having a staff as a target at all? (it wasn't in 2E)
If the effect of the spell is that it transforms both weapons into a club, then that is what would have been stated in the description of the spell.

A 1d6, one-handed, medium weapon becomes a 1d10 +1 weapon. (It does not change the fact that it is a one-handed, medium weapon).

A 1d6, two-handed, large, double weapon becomes a 1d10 +1 weapon. (It does not change the fact that it is a two-handed, large, double weapon).

The only properties of the weapon that change, are the damage (1d6 to 1d10) and the enhancement bonus (+0 to +1).


JMO

Astlin

 

[drowdude]

I'd rather do that than accept the interpretation that one casting of the spell makes a quarterstaff into a 1d10/1d10 +1 weapon. (Using the reasoning that a quarterstaff is "a weapon" even if it is a double weapon.)

So in any game I run, you cast shillelagh, but you just get a +1 weapon that does 1d10+1 damage. It does not turn a quarterstaff into a double bastardsword.

Ok... nitpick... it's not *exactly* like a double bastard sword since the threat range remains x2.


I look at it like this... Shillelagh is only available to druids; the weapon enchanted with Shillelagh can only be used by the druid who created it; it only functions on 2 weapons out of all the character may be proficient with; & when used as a double weapon it still requires multiple feats use effectively at all....

All of that adds up to a balanced spell IMO.


But hey, WotC really did leave it up to interpretation, so both points of view are correct depending upon your rationale and the type of game you are running.

 

[KarinsDad]

I can understand how reading the SRD might potentially be confusing on this since it has a run on sentence, but the PHB seems more clear with nearly identical, but segregated sentences.

"Your own oak cudgel or unshod quarterstaff becomes a weapon with a +1 enchantment bonus to attack and damage rolls."

Note: Nothing is mentioned about the properties of the club (i.e. cudgel as mentioned as a club in the target portion) or quarterstaff changing except the enchantment bonuses.

"It deals 1D10 points of damage (+1 point for the enchantment bonus) when you wield it."

It merely states what the damage due to the spell will be. It says nothing about how you wield it and since a quarterstaff is a double weapon, you can wield a quarterstaff as a double weapon. Each attack, regardless of from which end, will deal D10+1 damage because sometimes you are wielding the one end (fighting two weapon with a double weapon), sometimes you are wielding the other end.

Nothing in the spell description whatsoever indicates that the properties of the weapon are changed in any way with the exception of the changed damage and the bonus to hit. The lengths are the same. The weights are the same. You can use the weapons just like always (i.e. still skilled in using it).

I personally see nothing inherently unbalancing to using two shillellagh spells to create a 1d10/1d10 weapon, considering that you still have to spend two feats to use it effectively.

However, everytime I have allowed that interpretation certain individuals have claimed that the shillelagh spell would affect both ends with one casting, since a double weapon is still "a weapon" and spell affects "a weapon".

And they are correct.

So I decided on the stricter interpretation, to settle the issue.

In any case, you wouldn't be able to cast shillelagh on the same quarterstaff twice, because it can only be cast on a non-magical weapon and the first casting of the spell makes the quarterstaff a magical weapon.

You seem confused. Either it affects the entire weapon, or it does not. You seem to want to have both, but only your way: it affects the entire weapon so that you cannot cast it twice, but it does not affect the entire weapon so that both ends are not affected.

Even your own words indicate that this seems like a personal problem you have with the spell, so you house ruled it.

Your entire argument boils down to it not explicitly specifying D10/D10. That's so weak, it's almost non-existant.

 

[kreynolds]

That's so weak, it's almost non-existant.

Straw-man, almost? I've been having the spell effect the entire weapon (both ends if a dual weapon) ever since I started running 3rd edition games, mostly because I honestly thought, and still think, that's how it works, but I also haven't run into any problems with it, so what the hey.

 

[Caliban]

.

Even your own words indicate that this seems like a personal problem you have with the spell, so you house ruled it.

Your entire argument boils down to it not explicitly specifying D10/D10. That's so weak, it's almost non-existant.

It becomes a weapon.
It does not become a double weapon, or it would state that when you cast it on a quarterstaff you can use both ends to attack at 1d10/1d10. Since it does not, that means that it turns a club and a quarterstaff into the same type of weapon.

Disagree with me if you want, but a 1st level spell will not create a +1 double bastard sword in any game I run. That is simply too powerful.

If that's a house rule, so be it.

 

[KarinsDad]

It becomes a weapon.
It does not become a double weapon.

It also does not become a two handed weapon, a missile weapon, a one handed weapon, or a single weapon.

The text does not change the type of weapon it is.

Disagree with me if you want, but a 1st level spell will not create a +1 double bastard sword in any game I run. That is simply too powerful.

With a duration of one ENTIRE minute at first level or one combat using up one first level spell out of the Druid's possible two.

With an average damage of 6.5 w/o the Druid's Strength (maybe 12) compared to the Ranger with two weapons doing an average damage of 4 (one weapon at 4.5, one at 3.5) w/o the Ranger's Strength (maybe 16) where the Ranger can do it all day long, but the Druid can only beef it up for a minute?

Hmmm. That's like saying that Tensor's Transformation is too powerful for a Wizard because it allows him to fight like a Fighter for some period of time.

Whatever Caliban. I won't argue it though (but you did tell me to disagree ).

If that's a house rule, so be it.

Fine. It's a house rule. Try to distinguish between your house rules and the game rules if possible.

 

[Caliban]

It also does not become a two handed weapon, a missile weapon, a one handed weapon, or a single weapon.

The text does not change the type of weapon it is.

I believe it does. Nothing you have stated has been sufficient to convince me otherwise.

With a duration of one ENTIRE minute at first level or one combat using up one first level spell out of the Druid's possible two.

Most first level combats don't last past 10 rounds.

With an average damage of 6.5 w/o the Druid's Strength (maybe 12) compared to the Ranger with two weapons doing an average damage of 4 (one weapon at 4.5, one at 3.5) w/o the Ranger's Strength (maybe 16) where the Ranger can do it all day long, but the Druid can only beef it up for a minute?

Several minutes, potentially. And if you are making a druid who plans on using this spell and a quarterstaff in this fashion, then druid will likely have a strength bonus comparable to the rangers.

Hmmm. That's like saying that Tensor's Transformation is too powerful for a Wizard because it allows him to fight like a Fighter for some period of time.

If Tensers Transformation was a 1st level spell, that's exactly what I would be saying.

Fine. It's a house rule. Try to distinguish between your house rules and the game rules if possible.

I don't consider it a house rule, but if will make you happy, I'll call it that.