So we know the combo works, and isn't all that difficult to activate.
My question is more about how the damage types play out between them.
Shillelagh seems to give you a choice between bludgeoning and force damage as the damage occurs, and True Strike gives you the choice of "the weapons original damage or Radiant."
Does this mean in regards to the combo, the damage can all be force OR does true strike override the force damage to be "bludgeoning with radiant boost" or "all radiant"?
Related Shillelagh: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Force damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
Related True Strike: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
The former is activated via bonus action, the latter primary action. From my reading, it sounds like _as far as the damage type is concerned_, True Strike2024 would override the damage variables of Shillelagh, meaning the attack would not provide Force Damage, but either a combo of bludgeoning and radiant, or all radiant.
Edit I realize it probably would actually be a case of either all bludgeoning or all radiant given the wording, unless True Strike is to consider Force as the weapons "original damage"
This probably doesn't matter in most circumstances, I just had a hyper fixation about it.
This is tricky to answer definitively due to the imprecision of the English language. “Or” can have two meanings: a more open option and an exclusive sense. Contrast: “Coffee or tea?” “No thanks, - just water please” with “Hot drink?” “Yes please!” “Coffee or tea?” The first sense leaves open the possibility of other choices; the second closes the possibilities to only the two presented. (Finnish has two words for “or”, “vai” and “tai”. Unfortunately, I keep forgetting which one’s which…)
If we use the more open sense of “or”, then using both Shillelagh and True Strike would give you the options of Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage.
If we interpret “or” with the exclusive sense, then I think the “specific beats general” principle applies: Shillelagh would be the general case (being already in place), while True Strike would be specific to that attack only, so the choice then becomes Bludgeoning or Radiant.
Personally, I would favour using the open interpretation.
Shillelagh is a Transmutation spell that "infuses the weapon with nature's power". When you cast True Strike, the "original damage" is "the weapon's original damage or radiant".
Shillelagh is a cantrip that affects the properties of the weapon and lasts for a minute.
"For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8. If the attack deals damage, it can be Force damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
When attacking with a weapon affected by Shillelagh you can choose Force or the weapon's normal damage type. In this case, the "normal" damage type of the specific weapon affected by shillelagh is bludgeoning OR force - whichever the caster decides when the weapon does damage.
True Strike affects the specific attack.
"If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
So ... what is the "weapon's normal damage" in this case. A regular weapon has a normal damage type of bludgeoning in this case. A weapon affected by Shillelagh has a normal damage type of bludgeoning OR Force damage, your choice when it causes damage.
Stacking True Strike on top of that, I would personally rule that the caster could choose bludgeoning, force or radiant as they wish since the "normal" damage of that specific weapon affected by True Strike is either bludgeoning or force damage.
However, I could easily see a different DM deciding that True Strike refers to "the weapon's normal damage type" in a generic rather than specific way so it refers to the weapon's native bludgeoning damage. Personally, I think the specific rules of Shillelagh change the weapon's "normal" damage due to the effects of Shillelagh and True Strike stacks on top of that but a DM could decide either way.
This feels like a single event that is simultaneously triggering two different effects -- one from each spell description. In and of themselves, I do not think that either of these has any priority over the other or "overwrites" the other in any way.
I can't find a slam dunk general rule that clearly states that damage cannot have two types at the same time . . . although there are some hints that this is the case written into the "Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Damage Types". But nothing definitive in my opinion.
It really seems like the result here is that the damage from this attack can have two types. And not in the sense of "ok, 5 points of Force damage plus 5 points of Radiant damage for a total of 10 damage" . . . but instead, more like "ok, 10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)".
The reason is because the Shillelagh spell is ongoing. And the spell description states that the damage resulting from an attack made with the weapon in question has a certain damage type. So, the trigger is the attack doing damage. There is no requirement that this attack had to originate from some sort of Attack action or anything like that. If you make an attack and it does damage, and this spell has not yet expired, then this effect triggers.
It just so happens that in this case the attack originates as part of a spell effect of another spell. But that doesn't matter. It's still an attack with the weapon in question that does damage, so it qualifies and is successfully triggered. Likewise, the effect from True Strike's spell description is also triggered.
I think that the end result here is that this damage can have two types at the same time for the purposes of things like resistances and vulnerabilities.
It really seems like the result here is that the damage from this attack can have two types. And not in the sense of "ok, 5 points of Force damage plus 5 points of Radiant damage for a total of 10 damage" . . . but instead, more like "ok, 10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)".
I don't think there is anything to support this particular take. Shillelagh and True Strike give you the choice of one damage (the weapon's normal type) or another (Radiant or Force).
Since neither spell adds a damage type in addition to the normal types, the potential rulings in my opinion would be:
Shillelagh takes priority and the damage is the normal type (probably bludgeoning) or Force.
True Strike overwrites Shillelagh (partially or in whole) and the damage is the normal type or Radiant.
Both spell effects apply and you have the choice of the normal damage type or Force (Shillelagh) or Radiant (True Strike).
(Unlikely, but for completeness) The effects cancel each other out or only the option available to both spells is selectable and the weapon deals its normal damage type.
Honestly, it will be fairly rare that if you have the option to deal Radiant or Force, you won't want to use Force. Very few creatures will be immune or resistant to it, but even fewer will be vulnerable to it. Radiant resistance and immunity will be more common and radiant vulnerability is still fairly rare. The safe option is generally going to be Force. If anything, I would think you would be more likely to switch to bludgeoning (assuming a basic club or staff), not because many monsters are vulnerable to it, but some of the ones that are, skeletons, are pretty common, especially early on.
Edit: I had the damage types for the spells switched.
It really seems like the result here is that the damage from this attack can have two types. And not in the sense of "ok, 5 points of Force damage plus 5 points of Radiant damage for a total of 10 damage" . . . but instead, more like "ok, 10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)".
I don't think there is anything to support this particular take. Shillelagh and True Strike give you the choice of one damage (the weapon's normal type) or another (Radiant or Force).
Since neither spell adds a damage type in addition to the normal types, the potential rulings in my opinion would be: [...]
Both spell effects apply and you have the choice of the normal damage type or Radiant (Shillelagh) or Force (True Strike). [...]
I would say you could make the attack with the weapons normal damage, force or radiant damage, I don't see any reason to restrict force out of the picture just because True Strike was cast.
It really seems like the result here is that the damage from this attack can have two types. And not in the sense of "ok, 5 points of Force damage plus 5 points of Radiant damage for a total of 10 damage" . . . but instead, more like "ok, 10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)".
I don't think there is anything to support this particular take. Shillelagh and True Strike give you the choice of one damage (the weapon's normal type) or another (Radiant or Force).
True Strike adds Radiant damage from level 5+, this additional damage can only be of type Radiant, irrelevant of what damage type is inflicted in the weapon attack itself.
I would say you could make the attack with the weapons normal damage, force or radiant damage, I don't see any reason to restrict force out of the picture just because True Strike was cast.
It really seems like the result here is that the damage from this attack can have two types. And not in the sense of "ok, 5 points of Force damage plus 5 points of Radiant damage for a total of 10 damage" . . . but instead, more like "ok, 10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)".
I don't think there is anything to support this particular take. Shillelagh and True Strike give you the choice of one damage (the weapon's normal type) or another (Radiant or Force).
True Strike adds Radiant damage from level 5+, this additional damage can only be of type Radiant, irrelevant of what damage type is inflicted in the weapon attack itself.
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
If we are talking the pure weapon damage, then yea, it needs to be of one type.
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
If we are talking the pure weapon damage, then yea, it needs to be of one type.
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
If we are talking the pure weapon damage, then yea, it needs to be of one type.
Why? (Can you quote a rule?)
Maybe no explicit rules, but:
Chapter 1 (page 28) “Damage Types”:
“Each instance of damage has a type, like Fire or Slashing.”
Glossary (page 365) “Damage Types”:
”The Damage Types table offers examples to help a DM assign a type to a new effect.”
Both examples use the singular “a type”, whereas I couldn’t find any quotes in which an instance of damage had “types”.
Further, we might also infer that it is intended that an instance of damage has only one damage type by (1) the absence of any precedent of an instance of damage being simultaneously of two or more types and (2) the absence of any rules for determining how Resistance, Immunity and Vulnerability would be resolved in such situations.
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
If we are talking the pure weapon damage, then yea, it needs to be of one type.
Why? (Can you quote a rule?)
Because both the spells in question swap the damage of the weapon type, it can either be of the original type or that granted by the spell, not both.
So before Shillelagh, the quraterstaff or club deals bludgeoning damage. You cast Shillelagh and now the damage can be the weapons normal type OR Force Damage. So at this point any attacks can be either Bludgeoning or Force, nothing in here says that you can otherwise split the damage.
Then you cast True Strike, True Strike says you can deal the weapons normal damage or Radiant, that means the attack affected by True Strike can be the weapons normal type or Radiant Damage.
Now a very strict reading might be that True Strike overrides Shillelagh and you lose the Force option but the intention of these spells is too add damage types, thus these spells are adding the Force or Radiant option but none of these spells are giving any method to SPLIT the damage types, thus it must be Bludgeoning, Force OR Radiant, not a mixture of those.
Then later one, True Strike's additional damage (level 5+) can only be Radiant damage, but that is separate to the damage of the weapon attack.
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
If we are talking the pure weapon damage, then yea, it needs to be of one type.
Why? (Can you quote a rule?)
Maybe no explicit rules, but:
Chapter 1 (page 28) “Damage Types”:
“Each instance of damage has a type, like Fire or Slashing.”
Glossary (page 365) “Damage Types”:
”The Damage Types table offers examples to help a DM assign a type to a new effect.”
Both examples use the singular “a type”, whereas I couldn’t find any quotes in which an instance of damage had “types”.
Further, we might also infer that it is intended that an instance of damage has only one damage type by (1) the absence of any precedent of an instance of damage being simultaneously of two or more types and (2) the absence of any rules for determining how Resistance, Immunity and Vulnerability would be resolved in such situations.
Yes, these are the sorts of things that I was referring to in an earlier post when I mentioned that there were some hints about the intent in that section but no actual slam dunk rule that makes it so.
Furthermore, features do what they say and both of these features in this thread simultaneously apply a damage type to the same instance of damage.
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
If we are talking the pure weapon damage, then yea, it needs to be of one type.
Why? (Can you quote a rule?)
Because both the spells in question swap the damage of the weapon type, it can either be of the original type or that granted by the spell, not both.
So before Shillelagh, the quraterstaff or club deals bludgeoning damage. You cast Shillelagh and now the damage can be the weapons normal type OR Force Damage. So at this point any attacks can be either Bludgeoning or Force, nothing in here says that you can otherwise split the damage.
Then you cast True Strike, True Strike says you can deal the weapons normal damage or Radiant, that means the attack affected by True Strike can be the weapons normal type or Radiant Damage.
Now a very strict reading might be that True Strike overrides Shillelagh and you lose the Force option but the intention of these spells is too add damage types, thus these spells are adding the Force or Radiant option but none of these spells are giving any method to SPLIT the damage types, thus it must be Bludgeoning, Force OR Radiant, not a mixture of those.
Then later one, True Strike's additional damage (level 5+) can only be Radiant damage, but that is separate to the damage of the weapon attack.
Yeah, I disagree with this entire post.
First, just because each individual feature only assigns one damage type doesn't have anything to do with whether or not an instance of damage can have more than one type. One does not logically follow from the other -- you cannot draw that conclusion from that.
Next, nobody is suggesting anything about "splitting the damage".
Lastly, a strict reading does NOT imply that one feature overrides the other. They are both triggered by the same attack. Literally the same event is simultaneously causing two distinct things to happen. The simultaneous events rule shouldn't matter as far as the order in which these effects are resolved unless there is some actual rule that says that they can't both be applied together.
But if we do use the simultaneous events rule and one must overwrite the other then the choice for which order to apply these features would be whoever's turn it is -- in most cases that will be whoever is casting True Strike.
If we accept that a single instance of damage can have, simultaneously, two types of damage then we have to accept that a creature can simultaneously be resistant and not resistant to the same instance of damage. To me, that looks like a reductio ad absurdum.
Next, nobody is suggesting anything about "splitting the damage".
Re-reading, seems that isn't what you're saying, you're saying the damage can have two types, which it clearly can not since neither spell allows that. If you switch the damage to Force with Shillelagh, the weapon is no longer using the weapons normal damage type for True Strike, similarly if you change the damage type to Radiant with True strike, it no longer has the normal damage type for Shillelagh, so there is nothing left for you to switch in either case if the other has already been used.
Lastly, a strict reading does NOT imply that one feature overrides the other. They are both triggered by the same attack. Literally the same event is simultaneously causing two distinct things to happen. The simultaneous events rule shouldn't matter as far as the order in which these effects are resolved unless there is some actual rule that says that they can't both be applied together.
Specific beats general and True Strike says either the weapons normal damage or Radiant, that would override Shillelagh since the attack is made as part of the True Strike cantipr where Shillelagh is applied. Also I not saying it should be taken this way, but that is how a strict reading would go and some DMs may stick to that, but to me the RAI is that it's meant to only add that damage type option.
If we accept that a single instance of damage can have, simultaneously, two types of damage then we have to accept that a creature can simultaneously be resistant and not resistant to the same instance of damage. To me, that looks like a reductio ad absurdum.
Nah, the rules for how to apply resistances and Vulnerabilities would resolve this sort of thing just fine.
Next, nobody is suggesting anything about "splitting the damage".
Re-reading, seems that isn't what you're saying, you're saying the damage can have two types, which it clearly can not since neither spell allows that. If you switch the damage to Force with Shillelagh, the weapon is no longer using the weapons normal damage type for True Strike, similarly if you change the damage type to Radiant with True strike, it no longer has the normal damage type for Shillelagh, so there is nothing left for you to switch in either case if the other has already been used.
Again, whether ot not either spell that we are looking at allows two types has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not it is allowed or not in general. There's nothing "clear" that can be inferred from that.
And again, you are missing the concept here. It's the same exact trigger with two different consequences.
For example, let's pretend that there was a feature somewhere that said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage and 1d4 poison damage". In that case, you would have 1 single event that is causing two different things to happen: when triggered, there is bludgeoning damage and also, when triggered, there is poison damage. The only difference is that this is defined as two different chunks of damage. But again, there is one single trigger.
Now, if instead the Feature said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 damage that is both bludgeoning damage and poison damage", then you have the same situation as we have here. 1 trigger. Not this happens and then that happens. It doesn't matter when the spells were cast. It's the same trigger.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with specific vs general. That's not how you resolve two different specific spells whose effects are both interacting with something at the same time.
Next, nobody is suggesting anything about "splitting the damage".
Re-reading, seems that isn't what you're saying, you're saying the damage can have two types, which it clearly can not since neither spell allows that. If you switch the damage to Force with Shillelagh, the weapon is no longer using the weapons normal damage type for True Strike, similarly if you change the damage type to Radiant with True strike, it no longer has the normal damage type for Shillelagh, so there is nothing left for you to switch in either case if the other has already been used.
Again, whether ot not either spell that we are looking at allows two types has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not it is allowed or not in general. There's nothing "clear" that can be inferred from that.
And again, you are missing the concept here. It's the same exact trigger with two different consequences.
For example, let's pretend that there was a feature somewhere that said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage and 1d4 poison damage". In that case, you would have 1 single event that is causing two different things to happen: when triggered, there is bludgeoning damage and also, when triggered, there is poison damage. The only difference is that this is defined as two different chunks of damage. But again, there is one single trigger.
Now, if instead the Feature said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 damage that is both bludgeoning damage and poison damage", then you have the same situation as we have here. 1 trigger. Not this happens and then that happens. It doesn't matter when the spells were cast. It's the same trigger.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with specific vs general. That's not how you resolve two different specific spells whose effects are both interacting with something at the same time.
The basic point doesn't change here, if the weapon's damage type has been substituted by one spell then it's not the "normal damage type" for the second and thus can not be substituted. The reason for this is quite simple, Force would become the 'normal damage type' from Shillelagh, when you look to resolve True Strike it's now a choice between Force or Radiant.
If you don't accept that this would be how it works then you have to go with the strict reading in that True Strike over-rides Shillelagh and the options are Bludgeoning or Radiant, there is no force option, in that situation.
If we accept that a single instance of damage can have, simultaneously, two types of damage then we have to accept that a creature can simultaneously be resistant and not resistant to the same instance of damage. To me, that looks like a reductio ad absurdum.
Nah, the rules for how to apply resistances and Vulnerabilities would resolve this sort of thing just fine.
Next, nobody is suggesting anything about "splitting the damage".
Re-reading, seems that isn't what you're saying, you're saying the damage can have two types, which it clearly can not since neither spell allows that. If you switch the damage to Force with Shillelagh, the weapon is no longer using the weapons normal damage type for True Strike, similarly if you change the damage type to Radiant with True strike, it no longer has the normal damage type for Shillelagh, so there is nothing left for you to switch in either case if the other has already been used.
Again, whether ot not either spell that we are looking at allows two types has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not it is allowed or not in general. There's nothing "clear" that can be inferred from that.
And again, you are missing the concept here. It's the same exact trigger with two different consequences.
For example, let's pretend that there was a feature somewhere that said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage and 1d4 poison damage". In that case, you would have 1 single event that is causing two different things to happen: when triggered, there is bludgeoning damage and also, when triggered, there is poison damage. The only difference is that this is defined as two different chunks of damage. But again, there is one single trigger.
Now, if instead the Feature said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 damage that is both bludgeoning damage and poison damage", then you have the same situation as we have here. 1 trigger. Not this happens and then that happens. It doesn't matter when the spells were cast. It's the same trigger.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with specific vs general. That's not how you resolve two different specific spells whose effects are both interacting with something at the same time.
Every point of damage deals one and only one type of damage, in general. Flaming Scimitar? X Slashing + Y Fire. Show me an example established anywhere of a single point of damage having more than one damage type in an official WotC product.
Second, on page 28, Damage Types, "Each instance of damage has a type." Note that "type" is singular.
These establish the General Rule, by precedence and by printed rule.
Now, to have an instance of damage that is multiple damage types simultaneously requires a Specific Rule to overcome the General.
If True Strike said that the damage type became Radiant in addition to its normal damage types or Shillelagh said that the damage type became Force in addition to its normal damage, that would be one thing. That would be the specific overriding the General. But, it doesn't say that.
You cast Shillelagh and you can replace the normal damage type with Force. You cast True Strike and you replace the normal damage type with Radiant. Replacement + replacement never becomes addition.
RAW and RAI does not support the final damage being Radiant + Force at the same time. It only supports the choice of one of the normal type (probably Bludgeoning), Radiant, or Force. It is reasonable that a GM to rule that True Strike partially overwrites Shillelagh and Force is not an option when you cast both.
If you're the GM, do what you want at your table. If you are a player, be aware that this is not supported by the rules and talk to your GM before using it in game.
So we know the combo works, and isn't all that difficult to activate.
My question is more about how the damage types play out between them.
Shillelagh seems to give you a choice between bludgeoning and force damage as the damage occurs, and True Strike gives you the choice of "the weapons original damage or Radiant."
Does this mean in regards to the combo, the damage can all be force OR does true strike override the force damage to be "bludgeoning with radiant boost" or "all radiant"?
Related Shillelagh: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Force damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
Related True Strike: "If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
The former is activated via bonus action, the latter primary action. From my reading, it sounds like _as far as the damage type is concerned_, True Strike2024 would override the damage variables of Shillelagh, meaning the attack would not provide Force Damage, but either a combo of bludgeoning and radiant, or all radiant.
Edit I realize it probably would actually be a case of either all bludgeoning or all radiant given the wording, unless True Strike is to consider Force as the weapons "original damage"
This probably doesn't matter in most circumstances, I just had a hyper fixation about it.
This is tricky to answer definitively due to the imprecision of the English language. “Or” can have two meanings: a more open option and an exclusive sense. Contrast: “Coffee or tea?” “No thanks, - just water please” with “Hot drink?” “Yes please!” “Coffee or tea?” The first sense leaves open the possibility of other choices; the second closes the possibilities to only the two presented. (Finnish has two words for “or”, “vai” and “tai”. Unfortunately, I keep forgetting which one’s which…)
If we use the more open sense of “or”, then using both Shillelagh and True Strike would give you the options of Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage.
If we interpret “or” with the exclusive sense, then I think the “specific beats general” principle applies: Shillelagh would be the general case (being already in place), while True Strike would be specific to that attack only, so the choice then becomes Bludgeoning or Radiant.
Personally, I would favour using the open interpretation.
Shillelagh is a Transmutation spell that "infuses the weapon with nature's power". When you cast True Strike, the "original damage" is "the weapon's original damage or radiant".
How to add Tooltips.
Shillelagh is a cantrip that affects the properties of the weapon and lasts for a minute.
"For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8![]()
. If the attack deals damage, it can be Force damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
When attacking with a weapon affected by Shillelagh you can choose Force or the weapon's normal damage type. In this case, the "normal" damage type of the specific weapon affected by shillelagh is bludgeoning OR force - whichever the caster decides when the weapon does damage.
True Strike affects the specific attack.
"If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice)."
So ... what is the "weapon's normal damage" in this case. A regular weapon has a normal damage type of bludgeoning in this case. A weapon affected by Shillelagh has a normal damage type of bludgeoning OR Force damage, your choice when it causes damage.
Stacking True Strike on top of that, I would personally rule that the caster could choose bludgeoning, force or radiant as they wish since the "normal" damage of that specific weapon affected by True Strike is either bludgeoning or force damage.
However, I could easily see a different DM deciding that True Strike refers to "the weapon's normal damage type" in a generic rather than specific way so it refers to the weapon's native bludgeoning damage. Personally, I think the specific rules of Shillelagh change the weapon's "normal" damage due to the effects of Shillelagh and True Strike stacks on top of that but a DM could decide either way.
This feels like a single event that is simultaneously triggering two different effects -- one from each spell description. In and of themselves, I do not think that either of these has any priority over the other or "overwrites" the other in any way.
I can't find a slam dunk general rule that clearly states that damage cannot have two types at the same time . . . although there are some hints that this is the case written into the "Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Damage Types". But nothing definitive in my opinion.
It really seems like the result here is that the damage from this attack can have two types. And not in the sense of "ok, 5 points of Force damage plus 5 points of Radiant damage for a total of 10 damage" . . . but instead, more like "ok, 10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)".
The reason is because the Shillelagh spell is ongoing. And the spell description states that the damage resulting from an attack made with the weapon in question has a certain damage type. So, the trigger is the attack doing damage. There is no requirement that this attack had to originate from some sort of Attack action or anything like that. If you make an attack and it does damage, and this spell has not yet expired, then this effect triggers.
It just so happens that in this case the attack originates as part of a spell effect of another spell. But that doesn't matter. It's still an attack with the weapon in question that does damage, so it qualifies and is successfully triggered. Likewise, the effect from True Strike's spell description is also triggered.
I think that the end result here is that this damage can have two types at the same time for the purposes of things like resistances and vulnerabilities.
I don't think there is anything to support this particular take. Shillelagh and True Strike give you the choice of one damage (the weapon's normal type) or another (Radiant or Force).
Since neither spell adds a damage type in addition to the normal types, the potential rulings in my opinion would be:
Honestly, it will be fairly rare that if you have the option to deal Radiant or Force, you won't want to use Force. Very few creatures will be immune or resistant to it, but even fewer will be vulnerable to it. Radiant resistance and immunity will be more common and radiant vulnerability is still fairly rare. The safe option is generally going to be Force. If anything, I would think you would be more likely to switch to bludgeoning (assuming a basic club or staff), not because many monsters are vulnerable to it, but some of the ones that are, skeletons, are pretty common, especially early on.
Edit: I had the damage types for the spells switched.
How to add Tooltips.
This is how I'd rule it.
I would say you could make the attack with the weapons normal damage, force or radiant damage, I don't see any reason to restrict force out of the picture just because True Strike was cast.
True Strike adds Radiant damage from level 5+, this additional damage can only be of type Radiant, irrelevant of what damage type is inflicted in the weapon attack itself.
Yeah, in my previous answer, I was only referring to the interaction between the cantrips before level 4.
From level 5+, the extra Radiant damage is inevitable, as Thanos knows well.
Yes, but that is additional damage that is just radiant damage and not the base damage that is both Force and Radiant. As they said, "10 points of Force AND Radiant damage (for a total of 10 damage)"
How to add Tooltips.
If we are talking the pure weapon damage, then yea, it needs to be of one type.
Why? (Can you quote a rule?)
Maybe no explicit rules, but:
Chapter 1 (page 28) “Damage Types”:
“Each instance of damage has a type, like Fire or Slashing.”
Glossary (page 365) “Damage Types”:
”The Damage Types table offers examples to help a DM assign a type to a new effect.”
Both examples use the singular “a type”, whereas I couldn’t find any quotes in which an instance of damage had “types”.
Further, we might also infer that it is intended that an instance of damage has only one damage type by (1) the absence of any precedent of an instance of damage being simultaneously of two or more types and (2) the absence of any rules for determining how Resistance, Immunity and Vulnerability would be resolved in such situations.
Because both the spells in question swap the damage of the weapon type, it can either be of the original type or that granted by the spell, not both.
So before Shillelagh, the quraterstaff or club deals bludgeoning damage. You cast Shillelagh and now the damage can be the weapons normal type OR Force Damage. So at this point any attacks can be either Bludgeoning or Force, nothing in here says that you can otherwise split the damage.
Then you cast True Strike, True Strike says you can deal the weapons normal damage or Radiant, that means the attack affected by True Strike can be the weapons normal type or Radiant Damage.
Now a very strict reading might be that True Strike overrides Shillelagh and you lose the Force option but the intention of these spells is too add damage types, thus these spells are adding the Force or Radiant option but none of these spells are giving any method to SPLIT the damage types, thus it must be Bludgeoning, Force OR Radiant, not a mixture of those.
Then later one, True Strike's additional damage (level 5+) can only be Radiant damage, but that is separate to the damage of the weapon attack.
Yes, these are the sorts of things that I was referring to in an earlier post when I mentioned that there were some hints about the intent in that section but no actual slam dunk rule that makes it so.
Furthermore, features do what they say and both of these features in this thread simultaneously apply a damage type to the same instance of damage.
Yeah, I disagree with this entire post.
First, just because each individual feature only assigns one damage type doesn't have anything to do with whether or not an instance of damage can have more than one type. One does not logically follow from the other -- you cannot draw that conclusion from that.
Next, nobody is suggesting anything about "splitting the damage".
Lastly, a strict reading does NOT imply that one feature overrides the other. They are both triggered by the same attack. Literally the same event is simultaneously causing two distinct things to happen. The simultaneous events rule shouldn't matter as far as the order in which these effects are resolved unless there is some actual rule that says that they can't both be applied together.
But if we do use the simultaneous events rule and one must overwrite the other then the choice for which order to apply these features would be whoever's turn it is -- in most cases that will be whoever is casting True Strike.
If we accept that a single instance of damage can have, simultaneously, two types of damage then we have to accept that a creature can simultaneously be resistant and not resistant to the same instance of damage. To me, that looks like a reductio ad absurdum.
Re-reading, seems that isn't what you're saying, you're saying the damage can have two types, which it clearly can not since neither spell allows that. If you switch the damage to Force with Shillelagh, the weapon is no longer using the weapons normal damage type for True Strike, similarly if you change the damage type to Radiant with True strike, it no longer has the normal damage type for Shillelagh, so there is nothing left for you to switch in either case if the other has already been used.
Specific beats general and True Strike says either the weapons normal damage or Radiant, that would override Shillelagh since the attack is made as part of the True Strike cantipr where Shillelagh is applied. Also I not saying it should be taken this way, but that is how a strict reading would go and some DMs may stick to that, but to me the RAI is that it's meant to only add that damage type option.
Nah, the rules for how to apply resistances and Vulnerabilities would resolve this sort of thing just fine.
Again, whether ot not either spell that we are looking at allows two types has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not it is allowed or not in general. There's nothing "clear" that can be inferred from that.
And again, you are missing the concept here. It's the same exact trigger with two different consequences.
For example, let's pretend that there was a feature somewhere that said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage and 1d4 poison damage". In that case, you would have 1 single event that is causing two different things to happen: when triggered, there is bludgeoning damage and also, when triggered, there is poison damage. The only difference is that this is defined as two different chunks of damage. But again, there is one single trigger.
Now, if instead the Feature said "on a hit, the creature takes 1d6 damage that is both bludgeoning damage and poison damage", then you have the same situation as we have here. 1 trigger. Not this happens and then that happens. It doesn't matter when the spells were cast. It's the same trigger.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with specific vs general. That's not how you resolve two different specific spells whose effects are both interacting with something at the same time.
The basic point doesn't change here, if the weapon's damage type has been substituted by one spell then it's not the "normal damage type" for the second and thus can not be substituted. The reason for this is quite simple, Force would become the 'normal damage type' from Shillelagh, when you look to resolve True Strike it's now a choice between Force or Radiant.
If you don't accept that this would be how it works then you have to go with the strict reading in that True Strike over-rides Shillelagh and the options are Bludgeoning or Radiant, there is no force option, in that situation.
Every point of damage deals one and only one type of damage, in general. Flaming Scimitar? X Slashing + Y Fire. Show me an example established anywhere of a single point of damage having more than one damage type in an official WotC product.
Second, on page 28, Damage Types, "Each instance of damage has a type." Note that "type" is singular.
These establish the General Rule, by precedence and by printed rule.
Now, to have an instance of damage that is multiple damage types simultaneously requires a Specific Rule to overcome the General.
If True Strike said that the damage type became Radiant in addition to its normal damage types or Shillelagh said that the damage type became Force in addition to its normal damage, that would be one thing. That would be the specific overriding the General. But, it doesn't say that.
You cast Shillelagh and you can replace the normal damage type with Force. You cast True Strike and you replace the normal damage type with Radiant. Replacement + replacement never becomes addition.
RAW and RAI does not support the final damage being Radiant + Force at the same time. It only supports the choice of one of the normal type (probably Bludgeoning), Radiant, or Force. It is reasonable that a GM to rule that True Strike partially overwrites Shillelagh and Force is not an option when you cast both.
If you're the GM, do what you want at your table. If you are a player, be aware that this is not supported by the rules and talk to your GM before using it in game.
How to add Tooltips.