Also, the versatile damage remains 1d8. But I would house rule that a druid who is not multiclassed would get 1d10 for versatile damage and maybe even 1d6 for the PAM bonus attack damage.
Think of it this way; Shillelagh changes the damage die of the weapon to a d8, but polearm master does not use the damage die of the weapon it uses its own special damage die regardless of the weapon being used. so the quarterstaff damage die would change to a d8, but the extra d4 attack would be unaffected by the change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Learning is power, power corrupts, study hard be Evil.
Also note that Shillelagh makes the weapon magical so d8 primary attack and d4 bonus action attack from PAM but both are magical and both CAN {Edit :) } use the spell casting modifier rather than strength.
Edit: As pointed out later in the thread, Shillelagh can use the spell-casting modifier (usually wisdom - maybe charisma for a tome lock) but it doesn't have to.
Now that shillelagh can be taken with druidic warrior fighting style a pure melee build with WIS and CON primary ability is now possible with the ranger. I think I am gonna make a hunter ranger again
Also, the versatile damage remains 1d8. But I would house rule that a druid who is not multiclassed would get 1d10 for versatile damage and maybe even 1d6 for the PAM bonus attack damage.
Also, the versatile damage remains 1d8. But I would house rule that a druid who is not multiclassed would get 1d10 for versatile damage and maybe even 1d6 for the PAM bonus attack damage.
But why?
Why would I do that or why would I make them lose it by multiclassing?
A single class druid wouldn’t have extra attack. If a player wants to be a melee druid because that’s the character concept they have and feel that the only way to do it was multiclassing but didn’t want to multiclass, I would give them that option. It would only become overpowered for characters with extra attack in my view.
If you need an explanation for why they would lose it if they multiclassed, I would call it a benefit from nature that is withdrawn if a druid isn’t completely devoted to being a druid.
Also, the versatile damage remains 1d8. But I would house rule that a druid who is not multiclassed would get 1d10 for versatile damage and maybe even 1d6 for the PAM bonus attack damage.
But why?
Why would I do that or why would I make them lose it by multiclassing?
A single class druid wouldn’t have extra attack. If a player wants to be a melee druid because that’s the character concept they have and feel that the only way to do it was multiclassing but didn’t want to multiclass, I would give them that option. It would only become overpowered for characters with extra attack in my view.
If you need an explanation for why they would lose it if they multiclassed, I would call it a benefit from nature that is withdrawn if a druid isn’t completely devoted to being a druid.
Why you woulkd give them such a huge bonus without any reason. The cantrip is already balanced for a D6/8 versatile die and the same goes with the D4 for PAM. It's just weird to up them since basically what you are doing is just making a strong class stronger.
A druid using their action to make a melee attack with Shillelagh after level 5 is not making a strong class stronger, it’s making a suboptimal use of action economy. But if that is the character concept you want, as a DM, I would help you make the character you want. I’m not going to allow you a way to use an upgraded homebrew Shillelagh with Extra Attack however.
A druid using their action to make a melee attack with Shillelagh after level 5 is not making a strong class stronger, it’s making a suboptimal use of action economy. But if that is the character concept you want, as a DM, I would help you make the character you want. I’m not going to allow you a way to use an upgraded homebrew Shillelagh with Extra Attack however.
Again, the question is why, not what (as in 'what are you doing'). Do rogues who prefer using daggers instead of rapiers also get a bumped damage die?
A druid using Shillelagh on a staff one-handed can use a shield. A druid using Shillelagh on a staff wielding it two-handed does the same damage but can’t use a shield. If a player comes to me with a druid character that they imagine using a staff but not using a shield, I’m inclined to give them something rather than making them choose between playing with the shield they do not want or playing with a disadvantage to AC but no advantage to damage.
This would give them an advantage casting spells with material components or spells with somatic but no material components. If you are a DM that is strictly enforcing those rules then I don’t expect you to agree with me.
RAW the only way the Druid is casting Shillelagh while wielding a shield is if they happen to be using a Wooden Staff Druidic Focus as the weapon they intend to Shillelagh. Just saying.
RAW the only way the Druid is casting Shillelagh while wielding a shield is if they happen to be using a Wooden Staff Druidic Focus as the weapon they intend to Shillelagh. Just saying.
"Happen to be?" I would think this would be a basic aspect of the build. But you'd lose this ability if you lost your special druid's staff and had to pick up some other stick, so I guess that should be kept in mind.
The wood club or staff is the material component. It doesn’t matter if it’s the druid’s focus or not.
The problem with just holding a non-focus Club and casting Shillelagh while your other hand holds a Shield is that the material components are "a club or quarterstaff" AND "mistletoe" AND "a shamrock leaf." Holding a club would only give you one of three required material components, and leave you no free hand to access your component pouch, spell focus, or raw materials to satisfy the other two. It isn't clear whether its intended that you can handle material components one at a time individually ("I hold my Shield in my left hand, and with my right I grab a sprig of mistletoe and use it, then a shamrock leaf and use it, then finally I draw my club as the final part of casting Shillelagh!"), or if they all have to be in hand (or, replaced by a spell focus or material pouch) at once.
But, there's no problem with just holding a Wooden Staff, so long as your DM is willing to treat the Wooden Staff as an ehanceable Club or Quarterstaff, or with just holding a wooden Quarterstaff, so long as your DM is willing to treat the Quarterstaff as a spell focus Wooden Staff. And if they aren't, I'd challenge them to describe what they think a Druid casting Shillelagh is really supposed to look like, because a Druid walking around carrying two very physically similar but mechanically different big sticks all the time isn't what I think most reasonable people would imagine :)
One hand to hold the material components and the same hand can do the somatic. Adding a inventory management requirement of another free hand is within the DM’s digression but I’m not going to be that DM.
I do agree that the same hand can do the somatic as is used to hold a material component, access a material component pouch, or hold a spell focus. The issue is, if you're starting your turn with your Club in your hand, I wouldn't normally expect that you'd be able to sheathe the club, grab something out of your pouch (mistletoe), grab something out of your pouch (shamrock), and draw your club again. I'm not even certain that you can start with the club sheathed, grab something out of your pouch (mistletoe), grab something out of your pouch (shamrock), and draw your club... I mean, yeah, probably, spell component pouches seem like they need to break the usual free object interaction rules if they're to function... but the fact that the club didn't come out of the pouch is potentially a mechanical stumbling block, because it means you're interacting with at least two objects (club, component pouch) even if we disregard individual material components as individual object interactions.
Far easier to just use a focus. Which is why I'd hope that a DM would accept a wooden Quarterstaff as a Wooden Staff (or, let you cast the spell on your Wooden Staff as if it were a Quarterstaff), so that there's only one object to interact with during the casting.
I certainly wouldn't be "that DM" either getting in the way of Shillelagh, I'm just pointing out that if all you do on your turn is hold the club, you aren't sufficiently accessing the other two material components that the spell requires, there's some kind of weird hand jive required.
I don't have the exact text but,
Shillelagh makes a quarterstaff deal 1d8 damage.
Polearm Master lets you use a bonus action too make an additional attack dealing 1d4 damage.
So my question is whether or not Shillelagh affects the Polearm Master's bonus attack?
And I am aware of the other effects of Shillelagh and Polearm Master but those aren't relevant to the question.
1d4 according to JC Source
dunno if there an erreta for it though
Nox - Adult Oblex - The Trials
Jartrin Ephok - Dragonborn - Zanoliv
Bunol - Grim Angel - The Floating Lands of Goriate
Also, the versatile damage remains 1d8. But I would house rule that a druid who is not multiclassed would get 1d10 for versatile damage and maybe even 1d6 for the PAM bonus attack damage.
Okay, I kind of figured that was the case but I wanted to make sure.
Although, the Polearm Master Feat-Dueling Fighting Style combo with a quarter staff could still be be a decent option even without Shillelagh.
Think of it this way; Shillelagh changes the damage die of the weapon to a d8, but polearm master does not use the damage die of the weapon it uses its own special damage die regardless of the weapon being used. so the quarterstaff damage die would change to a d8, but the extra d4 attack would be unaffected by the change.
Learning is power, power corrupts, study hard be Evil.
Also note that Shillelagh makes the weapon magical so d8 primary attack and d4 bonus action attack from PAM but both are magical and both CAN {Edit :) } use the spell casting modifier rather than strength.
Edit: As pointed out later in the thread, Shillelagh can use the spell-casting modifier (usually wisdom - maybe charisma for a tome lock) but it doesn't have to.
Either way, Polearm Master+Shillelagh sounds great for a Circle of Spores Druid! They add damage to melee weapon attacks.
Now that shillelagh can be taken with druidic warrior fighting style a pure melee build with WIS and CON primary ability is now possible with the ranger. I think I am gonna make a hunter ranger again
But why?
Why would I do that or why would I make them lose it by multiclassing?
A single class druid wouldn’t have extra attack. If a player wants to be a melee druid because that’s the character concept they have and feel that the only way to do it was multiclassing but didn’t want to multiclass, I would give them that option. It would only become overpowered for characters with extra attack in my view.
If you need an explanation for why they would lose it if they multiclassed, I would call it a benefit from nature that is withdrawn if a druid isn’t completely devoted to being a druid.
Why you woulkd give them such a huge bonus without any reason. The cantrip is already balanced for a D6/8 versatile die and the same goes with the D4 for PAM. It's just weird to up them since basically what you are doing is just making a strong class stronger.
A druid using their action to make a melee attack with Shillelagh after level 5 is not making a strong class stronger, it’s making a suboptimal use of action economy. But if that is the character concept you want, as a DM, I would help you make the character you want. I’m not going to allow you a way to use an upgraded homebrew Shillelagh with Extra Attack however.
Again, the question is why, not what (as in 'what are you doing'). Do rogues who prefer using daggers instead of rapiers also get a bumped damage die?
A druid using Shillelagh on a staff one-handed can use a shield. A druid using Shillelagh on a staff wielding it two-handed does the same damage but can’t use a shield. If a player comes to me with a druid character that they imagine using a staff but not using a shield, I’m inclined to give them something rather than making them choose between playing with the shield they do not want or playing with a disadvantage to AC but no advantage to damage.
This would give them an advantage casting spells with material components or spells with somatic but no material components. If you are a DM that is strictly enforcing those rules then I don’t expect you to agree with me.
RAW the only way the Druid is casting Shillelagh while wielding a shield is if they happen to be using a Wooden Staff Druidic Focus as the weapon they intend to Shillelagh. Just saying.
"Happen to be?" I would think this would be a basic aspect of the build. But you'd lose this ability if you lost your special druid's staff and had to pick up some other stick, so I guess that should be kept in mind.
The wood club or staff is the material component. It doesn’t matter if it’s the druid’s focus or not.
The problem with just holding a non-focus Club and casting Shillelagh while your other hand holds a Shield is that the material components are "a club or quarterstaff" AND "mistletoe" AND "a shamrock leaf." Holding a club would only give you one of three required material components, and leave you no free hand to access your component pouch, spell focus, or raw materials to satisfy the other two. It isn't clear whether its intended that you can handle material components one at a time individually ("I hold my Shield in my left hand, and with my right I grab a sprig of mistletoe and use it, then a shamrock leaf and use it, then finally I draw my club as the final part of casting Shillelagh!"), or if they all have to be in hand (or, replaced by a spell focus or material pouch) at once.
But, there's no problem with just holding a Wooden Staff, so long as your DM is willing to treat the Wooden Staff as an ehanceable Club or Quarterstaff, or with just holding a wooden Quarterstaff, so long as your DM is willing to treat the Quarterstaff as a spell focus Wooden Staff. And if they aren't, I'd challenge them to describe what they think a Druid casting Shillelagh is really supposed to look like, because a Druid walking around carrying two very physically similar but mechanically different big sticks all the time isn't what I think most reasonable people would imagine :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
One hand to hold the material components and the same hand can do the somatic. Adding a inventory management requirement of another free hand is within the DM’s digression but I’m not going to be that DM.
I do agree that the same hand can do the somatic as is used to hold a material component, access a material component pouch, or hold a spell focus. The issue is, if you're starting your turn with your Club in your hand, I wouldn't normally expect that you'd be able to sheathe the club, grab something out of your pouch (mistletoe), grab something out of your pouch (shamrock), and draw your club again. I'm not even certain that you can start with the club sheathed, grab something out of your pouch (mistletoe), grab something out of your pouch (shamrock), and draw your club... I mean, yeah, probably, spell component pouches seem like they need to break the usual free object interaction rules if they're to function... but the fact that the club didn't come out of the pouch is potentially a mechanical stumbling block, because it means you're interacting with at least two objects (club, component pouch) even if we disregard individual material components as individual object interactions.
Far easier to just use a focus. Which is why I'd hope that a DM would accept a wooden Quarterstaff as a Wooden Staff (or, let you cast the spell on your Wooden Staff as if it were a Quarterstaff), so that there's only one object to interact with during the casting.
I certainly wouldn't be "that DM" either getting in the way of Shillelagh, I'm just pointing out that if all you do on your turn is hold the club, you aren't sufficiently accessing the other two material components that the spell requires, there's some kind of weird hand jive required.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.