Shillelagh and quarterstaffs

[Femerus the Gnecro]

You should think about detailing these feats as well:

"Can't spell 'Rogue'"

"Improved 1st Grade Grammar"

"Can't spell at all"

"Snotty English Major"



-F

(I picked up that last one with my BA )

 

[kreynolds]

You should think about detailing these feats as well:

"Can't spell 'Rogue'"

"Improved 1st Grade Grammar"

"Can't spell at all"

"Snotty English Major"

Not bad ideas! However, in the case of spelling though, in regards to a message board anyway, incorrect spelling is more often than not attributed to laziness rather than a lack of proper grammar. Still a good idea though! If I make something, I'll make sure to give you the credit.

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

I think you're incorrect on this point. There is no inconsistency - the rules don't actually contradict themselves. If you consider the book to assume that "a (melee) weapon" is defined more as the head that strikes than the whole object, then it's not really inconsistent.

Instead, the inconsistency is between your (fairly reasonable) preconception of what consitutes "a weapon", and what the rules consider (but never actually state) to be "a weapon". Don't confuse a vexing vaguery in definition with inconsistency.

Quite frankly, KarinsDad, you'd run into much less vexation if you allowed for the fact that the authors are, in fact, human beings and that human language and communication frequently relies upon inference on the part of the audience. Sticking to the rules is one thing. Sticking to local minutiae of phrasing without considering other examples to set a pattern is asking for trouble.

Everywhere in the rules where the double-weapons are mentioned, they make special mention that the are used "as if they were two weapons". In the weapon descriptions, in the combat section, in the crafting section - everywhere, it's as if there were two weapons. Yet, when you get to spell descriptions, you insist that since it doesn't specifically state that double weapons are two, that they must be considered as one.

Yes, in disarming and breaking them, you consider them as a single object, but that's because the fact that they are two weapons in one physical object is not relevant.

Yes, it is possible that they could have made the point more clear. However, if they did that in every concievable instance, the document would become ungainly enough to read as to be useless.

The Sage is such a putz.

*sigh*
No, he isn't a putz. He's a busy guy who answers lots of ill-framed questions. As it is, he got his answer to me within three hours of my asking the question. On a Friday afternoon, even. I'd like to see the Sage's detractors manage what he does as well.

It's very easy to criticize and insult, and people are horribly quick to do it. Perhaps, considering the Web spell discussion a little while ago, you ought to reconsider yourself as an appropriate stone-thrower?

 

[KarinsDad]

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

No, he isn't a putz. He's a busy guy who answers lots of ill-framed questions. As it is, he got his answer to me within three hours of my asking the question. On a Friday afternoon, even. I'd like to see the Sage's detractors manage what he does as well.

You have your opinion on him. I have mine.

I have sent him Emails asking a question and he responds X.

So, I'll send back an Email spelling things out and pointing out things he may have missed and he responds back with "Gee, you have a good point. It does say that. But, it's still X." Ask Monty the same thing, he says Y.

I don't have much tolerace for that. It gives me the impression that he is totally inflexible once he has made up his mind (possibly with little thought) and has some form of control issues (kind of like a mega-DM).

I also have problems with answer to questions like you asked: Is it A, B, or C and he answers somewhat vaguely. I did not consider your question ill framed.

That's just poor customer relations in my opinion. Customers are this companies bread and butter and they sometimes barely read the Emails.

Compare the type of answers he gives (and how often and quickly) with those by Steve Long over on the Heros boards and you'll see what I mean. I do not always agree with Steve either, but at least you can tell by his answers that he put in the time to consider the question.

Yes, Skip is only human. But, maybe he isn't the right guy to handle that type of interface with customers. Not everyone is suited to that type of work. IMO. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Macbrea]

It has to enchant one end of a quarterstaff and leave it the weapn type that it is. Otherwise, the spell is absolutely a useless spell to a druid.


Quote from SRD

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, halfspear, longspear, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, and sling. Their spiritual oaths prohibit them from using weapons other than these.

You will note that the Shillelagh is not a druid weapon. Therefor, the use of it would cause them to loss their ability to cast druid spells. This interpetation would seem alittle harsh if you ruled that the weapon is changed. Now, stating that it can enchant one end of the weapon to do +1 enchantement and 1d10 damage isn't unreasonable. And more in line with the way the rest of the system works.

Magic fang cast on a beast enchants one part of the beast not just the beast. You have to choose a part of it. This would seem very similar for Shillelagh.

 

[Caliban]

It has to enchant one end of a quarterstaff and leave it the weapn type that it is. Otherwise, the spell is absolutely a useless spell to a druid.


Quote from SRD


You will note that the Shillelagh is not a druid weapon. Therefor, the use of it would cause them to loss their ability to cast druid spells. This interpetation would seem alittle harsh if you ruled that the weapon is changed. Now, stating that it can enchant one end of the weapon to do +1 enchantement and 1d10 damage isn't unreasonable. And more in line with the way the rest of the system works.

Magic fang cast on a beast enchants one part of the beast not just the beast. You have to choose a part of it. This would seem very similar for Shillelagh.

I agree with the Sages ruling on this issue. It enchants one end of the staff. That was originally how I had ruled it.

It was only when players began insisting that the affected the weapon as a whole instead of one end that I ruled that if it affects the weapon as a whole, it turns from a double weapon into a single weapon weapon. KD had nicely demonstrated the line of debate that lead to this decision.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hopefully not throwing petrol on the bonfire, but...

I notice that the spell specifically affects a club or *unshod* quarterstaff.

Does anyone make any distinction between shod and unshod quarterstaffs? I've not noticed it.

One might presume that masterwork quarterstaffs are shod with metal heads, explaining the cost, and thus enchanted quarterstaffs have two metal heads which are enchanted separately. Thus shillelagh can't be cast on enchanted (shod/masterwork) quarterstaffs... but what is to stop someone simply enchanting the wood? it would have less hit points and hardness, but otherwise... I don't recall seeing anything that clearly answers this question.

To my mind, there is one fundamental distinction between the basic quarterstaff and all the other "double weapons" - the unshod quarterstaff is simply one piece of wood, while the others all *require* separately worked ends.

In my games, I allow shillelagh to provide someone with a double weapon. The worst case scenarion that I can envisage so far is a really strong Druid1/Barb19 who has all the two-weapon fighting feats and rages like mad... and I think it is a cool image, especially that it would only be for a minute - basically one fight.

Most druids won't get the double weapon benefit because they have more important feats than ambidexterity and two weapon fighting, and don't have the armour to regularly get involved in face to face combat.

Cheers

 

[drnuncheon]

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

No, he isn't a putz. He's a busy guy who answers lots of ill-framed questions. As it is, he got his answer to me within three hours of my asking the question. On a Friday afternoon, even.

Wish he'd answer my *(^$ing spellsword question. He even wrote the darn book it was in.

J

 

[kreynolds]

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

Wish he'd answer my *(^$ing spellsword question. He even wrote the darn book it was in.

J

I have a feeling that certain products get priority over others. Remember when MotW first came out? A lot of emails got sent to him right after it's release, and a lot came back as well. I remember sending him a question about a PH spell right after T&B came out. I didn't get a reply for over 2 months, until I sent it again.

Incidentally, what was your question? Is there a thread here on it?

 

[Kai Lord]

Nonsense. D&D has never assumed that individual attack rolls represent individual swings with a weapon, at least in melee combat (ranged combat is something else).

This is 3E bud. A round is six seconds. If you think a warrior swings 1-4 times around plus cleave attacks and attacks of oppurtunity, moves five feet, dodges any number of incoming blows, ducks breath attacks and lightnings bolts in a span of six seconds all in the midst of a flurry of misses that don't count toward the actual attack roll then your games are even more ridiculous than the ones with the dancing leprechauns.

You must have been playing too much Neverwinter Nights, if you actually believe this.

No, actually, I've been reading the Player's Handbook. To make two separate (non-cleaving/hasted or what have you) attacks, you need at least a +6/+1.

I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about.

It seems you aren't sure about a lot of things.