Shillelagh and quarterstaffs

[kreynolds]

Looks like someone pissed in somebody's corn flakes this morning.

 

[Caliban]

Looks like someone pissed in somebody's corn flakes this morning.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[kreynolds]

Thank you for sharing.

You're welcome.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I have a pretty good idea for a feat now...

 

[KarinsDad]

I could see how you could mistakenly make that inference, but it is invalid. (Doesn't sound any better coming from someone else, does it?)

Yeah, I know. I just felt like charging full bore today. You and I haven't had a donnybrook is SO long.

That is "rolls" as in "all damage rolls you make with the weapon over the duration of the spell." This has absolutely nothing to do with how many ends the weapon has, and is thus irrelevent to the discussion.

That could be one meaning of that phrase and probably is. But, it does state that, hence, it can be used to support my position.

It explicitly states that the cudgel or quarterstaff becomes a weapon with a +1 bonus that does 1d10 damage. It is no longer a quarterstaff or cudgel, because it has become a different weapon. (Presumably called a shillelagh, but you seem to have a problem with calling it that.)

…

Yes it does. It states that it turns it into a +1 weapon that does 1d10 damage.

Opps. You keep changing the words. The actual words are:

"becomes a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage"

"damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage"

A D10/D10 weapon is one with "damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage".

Each attack is counted separately on a double weapon. Each attack does X damage, not X/Y.

It does not explicitly state that it "becomes a weapon that does 1D10 damage" which might imply that it becomes a single weapon (like you keep changing the words to).

Rather, it explicitly states that it "becomes a weapon with … damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage" which is just as valid a phrase for a D10/D10 double weapon as it is for a D10 single weapon.

The phrase "a quarterstaff is a weapon with damage rolls that deals 1D6 points of damage" would not conflict with the D6/D6 damage in the chart or the definition of quarterstaff being a double weapon. It merely states what the damage will be, not whether or not it is a double weapon.

Since the phrase used is just as valid for both types of weapons (single and double) and it does not explicitly state that it changes it to a single weapon, it must not.

Your turn.

 

[Caliban]

That could be one meaning of that phrase and probably is. But, it does state that, hence, it can be used to support my position.

Hmm... You agree that it probably means what I said, but you want ignore that and use it for yourself instead.

Whatever.

Opps. You keep changing the words. The actual words are:

"...becomes a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage..."

I fail to see how "becomes a weapon" and "turns into a weapon" are materially different. They mean exactly the same thing.

It is a transformation spell, after all.

"...damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage..."

A D10/D10 weapon is one with "damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage".

That's not what it says. You are snipping part of the sentence and taking it out of context, which changes the apparent meaning.

Each attack is counted separately on a double weapon. Each attack does X damage, not X/Y.

But the damage for the weapon is listed as X/Y, not X. The damage for the shillelagh is stated to be X, not X/Y. Thus, the shillelagh is not a double weapon.

It does not explicitly state that it "becomes a weapon that does 1D10 damage" which might imply that it becomes a single weapon (like you keep changing the words to).

That's exactly what it says, I'm not changing anything.

Rather, it explicitly states that it "becomes a weapon with … damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage" which is just as valid a phrase for a D10/D10 double weapon as it is for a D10 single weapon.

Except that's not what it says. You are changing the meaning by removing only part of the sentence.

The text in question (including the bit you took out) is : "...becomes a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls that deals 1d10 points of damage ..."

The "damage rolls" is part of the +1 enhancement clause.

Broken down properly, it reads:

"...becomes a weapon with a +1 enhancement to attack and damage rolls..."

and

"...becomes a weapon that deals 1d10 points of damage..."

The phrase "a quarterstaff is a weapon with damage rolls that deals 1D6 points of damage" would not conflict with the D6/D6 damage in the chart or the definition of quarterstaff being a double weapon. It merely states what the damage will be, not whether or not it is a double weapon.

Since the phrase used is just as valid for both types of weapons (single and double) and it does not explicitly state that it changes it to a single weapon, it must not.

Your turn.

Since it is a phrase you created by selectively deleting part of the sentence, it is not a valid arguement.

 

[Lord Ben]

Well, I don't see shillelagh on their list of proficient weapons so they must suffer a -4 penalty too...

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Thank you for sharing.

He hasn't really shared yet...

"Want some of my Corn Flakes?"

SNIFF SNIFF... "No thanks."

 

[AuraSeer]

Does the world really need a "Piss In Corn Flakes" feat?

 

[kreynolds]

Does the world really need a "Piss In Corn Flakes" feat?

Ewww! No!! That's gross!!! I was thinking of a feat for something else.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Does the world really need a "Piss In Corn Flakes" feat?

Well, there's already Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot and Far Shot.

Not to mention Quick Draw.