Shillelagh and quarterstaffs

[Artoomis]

Of course, when using a broken weapon:

1. It's no longer magical, if it was.
2. You are not proficient with it - I'd say you;d need to be proficient with improvised weapons to be procifinet with it.
3. Damage will be limited (d4?).
4. Many feats will no longer apply (Weapon Focus, etc.).

3e is all about letting folks do things - albeit with penalties - rather than simply stating "you can't do that."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can see two reasonable interpretations here:

1) Shilelagh litterally, physically transforms a club or staff into a weapon that does d10 damage (not d10/d10). It doesn't matter whether you start with a club or staff, you get the same 'Shilelagh' when you're done casting.

2) Shilelagh enchants one end of a quarterstaff, leaving the other end normal.

Either of those are reasonable, and each have advantages and disadvantages for the caster. 1) implies some issues with feats - which shouldn't matter much since Druids probably aren't first in line for Weapon Focus and the like 2) is consistent with the way weapons are masterworked and enchanted, which is nice, and doesn't have the feat issues. Both are balanced.

The third interpretation, that Shelelagh on a staff gives you two magic weapons for the price of one, doesn't seem as good, to me. It's not that it's completely illogical, just that it seems like an obvious power-grubbing ploy. For a 1st level spell, making /one/ end of your staff magickal is quite sufficient.

 

[drnuncheon]

Of course, when using a broken weapon:

1. It's no longer magical, if it was.

Sure. (Although magical weapons are harder to break anyway.)

2. You are not proficient with it - I'd say you;d need to be proficient with improvised weapons to be procifinet with it.

I'd say that depends on the nature of the broken weapon. If you snap the haft of a halberd, you're left with an overbalanced axe and a short stick. 'Club' pretty much covers everything from a billy to a jo, so the length isn't much of an issue - I'd probably let someone get away with using it as if it were a club.

3. Damage will be limited (d4?).

I dunno. A club is a club is a club. I'd say 1d6. And the axe end still has a lot more mass to it than any of the 1d4 weapons. I'd probably treat it as a clumsy battleaxe.

A broken sword, on the other hand, might well only do damage as a dagger.

4. Many feats will no longer apply (Weapon Focus, etc.).

Absolutely.

J

 

[Lord Ben]

For Quarterstaffs I think they'd be a d4 if you have a good sized chunk in your hand. A baseball bat is a club, d6. An axe haft isn't as heavy on the end and would probably be d4. But hey, if you don't have a weapon take what the DM offers!

In the case of my player he was pissed because he knew the Rust Monster wasn't going to kill him. So he just enjoyed beating the **** out of it with his mace haft. Hardly overpowering, but quite rewarding to the player while he spent 4 rounds beating it to death... Let the players have fun if they get creative is the main thing.

 

[KarinsDad]

I dunno. A club is a club is a club. I'd say 1d6. And the axe end still has a lot more mass to it than any of the 1d4 weapons. I'd probably treat it as a clumsy battleaxe.

I think you have to look at more than just: It's a round piece of wood, it's a club, it does D6.

Even a club, like every other weapon, is considered to be balanced and crafted.

If not, it should have penalties to hit and/or damage. Just grabbing a dead tree branch, for example, should not result in club damage, or in Weapon Focus Club applying.

Personally, I think sundering a crafted balanced quarterstaff that does D6 into two clubs that both do D6 is a poor ruling. It's unfair to the character that did the sundering, especially if the quarterstaff was not magical in the first place (in other words, zero difference).

 

[hong]

Even a club, like every other weapon, is considered to be balanced and crafted.

If not, it should have penalties to hit and/or damage. Just grabbing a dead tree branch, for example, should not result in club damage, or in Weapon Focus Club applying.

Note that a club costs no money, which would indicate that it is, in fact, not much more than a dead tree branch.

 

[Umbran]

The Sage's Word on the Subject

Quite frankly, unless someone comes up with an actual rule somewhere on it, this is a house rule extrapolated from other similar rules.

Oh, ye of little faith

Well, lacking a FAQ or Errata, I e-mailed the Sage. Got an answer on the same day, even. The results are abundantly clear on one point, not quite so clear on another....

----------------
My question:
The Magic Weapon spell (PHB, pg 225) states, "Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls." When cast upon a double weapon, such as a quarterstaff, does this apply to both heads of the weapon, or only to one?

The Sage's Answer:
Only one end.
----------------

Which is quite clear. For purposes of the Magic Weapon spell, a double weapon is not "a weapon". It is two separate weapons. This is consistent with crafting masterwork and magic weapons, which treat the ends separately.

----------------
My other question:
Similarly, does the spell Shillelagh (PHB pg 251) turn a quarterstaff into a single-headed weapon that does 1d10+1 damage, a double weapon that does 1d10+1/1d6, or a double weapon that does 1d10+1/1d10+1?

The Sage's Answer:
Also only one end.
----------------

Which is not quite so clear. At least, not so clear for we who tear wordings apart with a nitpicker's glee It certainly eliminates the d10+1/d10+1 case. However, since a one-headed weapon has "only one end", and a d10+1/d6 weapon has the spell affect "only one end", we still have room to argue over it.

I think, given the context (the word "also" strongly implying the second answer is much like the first) that the Sage means that the Shillelagh spell works like everything else that deals with double weapons - each head is treated as a separate weapon. This again would be consistent with other rules.

Do we need any more proof, folks?

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: The Sage's Word on the Subject

Do we need any more proof, folks?

Well, this isn't proof at all. The books merely have an inconsistency between crafting rules and what Magic Weapon and Shillelagh indicate straight up. The interpretation problem is that people seeing that inconsistency allow the wording the those spells to be open ended enough in their minds, but only because the double weapon crafting rules exist.

But, if the double weapon crafting rules did not exist (i.e. no mention of double weapons were made at all in the crafting rules, just like no mention of two handed explicit crafting rules exist), I doubt very many people would be on the one end bandwagon. In fact, the concept of it may have never arisen.

The Sage's ruling is, however, consistent with the crafting rules and is a fine (semi-) official resolution to the issue.

I think, given the context (the word "also" strongly implying the second answer is much like the first) that the Sage means that the Shillelagh spell works like everything else that deals with double weapons - each head is treated as a separate weapon. This again would be consistent with other rules.

The Sage is such a putz. I agree with you that he probably meant D10+1/D6, but can he ever just answer the question as asked? Nooooo. Almost every Email he ever answers has something questionable or debatable in it.

 

[kreynolds]

...WWF-style...

Kai Lord? Get the "f" out. It's WWE babe. Don't wanna piss off those panda lovers.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: The Sage's Word on the Subject

The Sage is such a putz. I agree with you that he probably meant D10+1/D6, but can he ever just answer the question as asked? Nooooo. Almost every Email he ever answers has something questionable or debatable in it.

Hey KarinsDad. I made a feat recently, but it looks like you already selected it sometime ago. Was this it? ...

Hate The Sage [General]
You hate Skip Williams more than your own hideous pock-marked reflection.
Prerequisites: Jackass, Piss & Moan, Schmuck, must not have the Grow Up And Live With It feat.
Benefit: You have the uncanny ability to throw temper tantrums like a 4-year old whenever someone shows you a Sage Reply that disproves your argument. You are also quite adept at pointing out that The Sage is only human and can make mistakes, just like some of those really stupid ones that you have made from time to time. Additionally, you have the ability to automatically refute any Sage Reply, claiming that it is not errata, and this is your entire defense against his reply. No longer do you need logic to argue a Sage Reply, nor must you be clear headed, fair minded, even tempered, or mature. Yes, you can finally act like a child and scream at the top of your lungs, or reply in big, bold, fat letters, “I hate the Sage!”.
Normal: Without this feat, you just piss and moan about the Sage as if he tossed you out like a used towel after a one-night stand, “Why doesn’t that bastard call me!?”.
Special: They make special medication for people like you.

...I think a few people on these boards have already selected this feat. (actually, these feats are turning out to be pretty neat, so I should probably post them as a collection when I've got a few more. Hey, there worth a good laugh. That's all their meant to be by the way, just a good laugh)