This might be obvious, but can a Druid cast Shillelagh if they have a Wooden Staff in one hand and a shield in the other?
The wooden staff is a Druidic Focus (spellcasting focus) and also counts as a Quarterstaff. Since its a spellcasting focus it can be used in place of a spell's Material component and the same hand holding the focus can be used to perform the somatic components of the spell. (Chapter 7 - PHB)
Am I wrong here? Mind you, I've never even heard of a real DM saying a Druid can't do this, but people online are strange about this sort of stuff so I wanted to check. You forum goers are real RAW lovers and very serious so I figured it was the best place to ask.
That is all correct, as long as they get the spell through a class that allows them to use a focus to cast it, so ranger (with the fighting style) or druid.
If you pick up the cantrip via magic initiate, magical secrets, or some other class feature, you cannot use a focus to cast it because you don't have a feature that allows you to do so. That means these other ways to pick it up still require a free hand to access the material components and a hand to hold the staff, so no shield.
Yeah that's what I thought, but I needed to be sure. It's a bummer spell material components without a cost still exists since it seems they only serve as a weird restriction that most actual spell casters don't care about in most games and adaptations like BG3 prove that DnD doesn't need them at all, but that's my side rant.
Follow-up Question:
If my DM gives me a +2 Quarterstaff (comprised mostly out of wood), can this interaction still work if I use that staff instead? Essentially, what's the official stance on using a Quarterstaff as a spellcasting focus for Druids?
Oh that is a big deal question. According to the rules, a magic item staff is an arcane focus, but not a druidic focus. But a +2 quarterstaff is a weapon anyway, so I think that is different from a magic staff. But as far as RAW goes, a quarterstaff is not a wooden staff. As someone said in another post, the rules consider all staffs quarterstaffs but not all quarterstaffs are staffs (or wooden staffs, for that matter).
I think RAW has some problems when it comes to this stuff. For example, the druidic focus includes wooden staff, but the starting equipment for a druid says you get a quarterstaff as your focus (which a quarterstaff isn't technically a drudic focus).
So I can't really give you advice other than a reasonable DM would probably allow you to use a magical quarterstaff as a focus, even if it isn't strictly one RAW.
Unless there is an errata, i'd say what happens if picked up through magic initiate the game is silent on it.
Now, there is a very and I mean very long, needlessly long discussion on what makes a warlock spell. Lets say you take armor of shadows, you can cast mage armor at will. It does not specify it is now a warlock spell for you. It also dropped the doesn't need a material component part of the invocation in 2024. Therefore, the question is do you need to use a material component as it may or may not be a warlock spell and you can't use your focus for non warlock spells. I think it is blazingly obvious it is intended to be a warlock spell as its gained through a class feature. Magic imitate is gained through a origin feat, is that enough of a difference to rule differently if you think mage armor becomes a warlock spell with the armor of shadows invocation.
But in reality, it is silent on it, just like magic initiate is. I personally fall into the camp that is can be considered a class spell for you, even if you are a wizard or something and taking magic initiate druid. As it seems off to me for it to be in effect a wizard spell in every single way, except whether or not you can use your focus on it or not. It is a layer of needless complexity that does not make the game more fun. That being said they have plenty of rules that add unnecessary complexity for no gain, so it is not unheard of for either answer.
I don't think a MI spell should be a class spell, but whether that makes things needlessly complex is a different game design question separate from the rules question.
I think I probably agree in principle. Except that it might be a balancing tweak that a MI shillelagh fighter can't use a shield whereas if they chose not to use that cantrip they could. Thus the benefit for them to use the cantrip is balanced by the loss of ability to use a shield. But that is probably a topic for a different thread.
Oh that is a big deal question. According to the rules, a magic item staff is an arcane focus, but not a druidic focus. But a +2 quarterstaff is a weapon anyway, so I think that is different from a magic staff. But as far as RAW goes, a quarterstaff is not a wooden staff. As someone said in another post, the rules consider all staffs quarterstaffs but not all quarterstaffs are staffs (or wooden staffs, for that matter).
I think RAW has some problems when it comes to this stuff. For example, the druidic focus includes wooden staff, but the starting equipment for a druid says you get a quarterstaff as your focus (which a quarterstaff isn't technically a drudic focus).
So I can't really give you advice other than a reasonable DM would probably allow you to use a magical quarterstaff as a focus, even if it isn't strictly one RAW.
I was just thinking that under the 2024 description of "Druidic Focus" it lists "Wooden Staff" and says "(also a Quarterstaff)" . Doesn't that mean that any staff that is made of wood counts as a Druidic Focus --> Spellcasting Focus? IT definitely means that all wooden staffs are also quarterstaffs, but what about the other way around? I think it would be weird to classify a wooden quarterstaff as NOT a "Wooden Staff" .
It is really weird. But a quarterstaff is a 2cp item whereas a wooden staff focus is a 5gp item. As has been explained to me particularly in great detail, that line in the "druidic focus" description just means that the wooden staff focus that you buy can be used as a quarterstaff weapon as well.
So even though logically and realistically, any quarterstaff must be made of quarter-sawn wood and therefore be a wooden staff, that is not how 5e views it. As far as the rules go, I guess, it is that all wooden staffs are quarterstaffs but not all quarterstaffs are wooden staffs -- exactly backward from real life. And on top of that, the rules do seem to make a mistake here and there on this too -- like when they give you a quarterstaff as your focus in your druid starting equipment.
But as I said, I would imagine most DMs would probably allow a +2 quarterstaff to be a focus for a druid.
Sometimes I feel like the rules are written by two groups of very different people.
One group is articulate, well read, insightful, and has ample foresight. The other group is drunk. The Drunk group is the one in charge of proofreading.
You can craft a Druidic focus using Woodcarver’s Tools or Painter’s Supplies, so presumably a “wooden staff” that counts as a Druidic focus has been carved or painted in ways that infuse it with primal energy (or something like that), explaining why not all “wooden staffs” are Druidic foci and why they cost more than a simple Quarterstaff.
Comparing the 2014 and 2024 versions of Shillelagh, it appears that the weapon used previously counted as one of the Material components, so the Club and the mistletoe could have been manipulated in the same hand. Now the weapon isn’t included so you need a separate hand for the M component (unless your Quarterstaff is also a Druidic focus).
I wonder if the discrepancy between the Club and the Quarterstaff is intentional?
Yeah that's what I thought, but I needed to be sure. It's a bummer spell material components without a cost still exists since it seems they only serve as a weird restriction that most actual spell casters don't care about in most games and adaptations like BG3 prove that DnD doesn't need them at all, but that's my side rant.
Oh no, this one gets even weirder with Shillelagh, it's material requirement is mistletoe... mistletoe is also a valid druidic focus, so they could have instead just put down the material component as "druidic focus" or just put down the weapon itself as the material component, which would simplify things even more.
It seems material components have some type of theming behind them but unless they have a GP cost, it generally seems people mostly ignore them at most tables.
That is all correct, as long as they get the spell through a class that allows them to use a focus to cast it, so ranger (with the fighting style) or druid.
If you pick up the cantrip via magic initiate, magical secrets, or some other class feature, you cannot use a focus to cast it because you don't have a feature that allows you to do so. That means these other ways to pick it up still require a free hand to access the material components and a hand to hold the staff, so no shield.
As DM you have final say.but i believe RAW is not possible in this case for the PC to be able to cast Shillelagh it must have a Club or Quarterstaff in one hand and Mistletoe or Component Pouch in the other. Here's why;
The physical requirements the spellcaster must meet to cast Shillelagh are spell component Verbal, Somatic and Material (Mistletoe) If the spellcaster can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, the spellcaster can’t cast the spell.
A Somatic component is a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. A spellcaster must use at least one of their hands to perform these movements.
Mistletoe is used in the spell’s casting. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access it, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components. Since the spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them, a spellcaster can use a Component Pouch instead of providing the materials specified in the spell, or the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution. To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it.
A Club or Quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature’s power upon casting the spell.
While as a Ranger you can use a Druidic Focus as a Spellcasting Focus for your Ranger spells, Shillelagh is not a Ranger spell for you but Magic Initiate Feat spell, which has no Spellcasting Focus feature of it's own, so it must have a free hand to handle Mistletoe or Component Pouch and Club or Quarterstaff to be imbued.
Or the Ranger with the Druidic Warrior Fighting Style:
It seems like the scenarios I read the most about do deal with a druid doing this. My ranger has taken Druidic Warrior as a background Fighting Style, not the magic initiate feat, so not sure if that matters when it comes to the issue of druidic focus/somatic components.
Oh yeah that changes everything, the spell wasn't acquired via Background, but from the Fighting Style Ranger feature and when another Ranger feature gives you spells they count as Ranger spells for you and Druidic Warrior also specifically say the chosen cantrips count as Ranger spells for you.
So it could therefore cast Shillelagh iwith a shield in one hand and a Quarterstaff in the other, but not a Club because it's not a spellcasting focus for Rangers.
Yeah that's what I thought, but I needed to be sure. It's a bummer spell material components without a cost still exists since it seems they only serve as a weird restriction that most actual spell casters don't care about in most games and adaptations like BG3 prove that DnD doesn't need them at all, but that's my side rant.
Follow-up Question:
If my DM gives me a +2 Quarterstaff (comprised mostly out of wood), can this interaction still work if I use that staff instead? Essentially, what's the official stance on using a Quarterstaff as a spellcasting focus for Druids?
Oh that is a big deal question. According to the rules, a magic item staff is an arcane focus, but not a druidic focus. But a +2 quarterstaff is a weapon anyway, so I think that is different from a magic staff. But as far as RAW goes, a quarterstaff is not a wooden staff. As someone said in another post, the rules consider all staffs quarterstaffs but not all quarterstaffs are staffs (or wooden staffs, for that matter).
I think RAW has some problems when it comes to this stuff. For example, the druidic focus includes wooden staff, but the starting equipment for a druid says you get a quarterstaff as your focus (which a quarterstaff isn't technically a drudic focus).
So I can't really give you advice other than a reasonable DM would probably allow you to use a magical quarterstaff as a focus, even if it isn't strictly one RAW.
Comparing the 2014 and 2024 versions of Shillelagh, it appears that the weapon used previously counted as one of the Material components, so the Club and the mistletoe could have been manipulated in the same hand. Now the weapon isn’t included so you need a separate hand for the M component (unless your Quarterstaff is also a Druidic focus).
I wonder if the discrepancy between the Club and the Quarterstaff is intentional?
This is the heart of the matter.
A strict, most-correct reading of RAW suggests that they removed the weapon from the material components list to make it so that only Druids and Rangers could effectively combine Shillelagh with a Shield (short of using an equip action after casting). Sure, why not?
However, that that same trick can't be used with a Club, but only with a Druid's focus acting as a Quarterstaff, makes it seem less intentional. It could just be the case that whichever editor did the final pass on the spell expected the weapon to act as an implicit material component, to save a tiny bit of wordcount. I don't think there's any problem at all with a DM ruling in that direction, to let, say, Paladins and Fighters with Magic Initiate (Druid) have a little more fun with the spell. As in 2014, they could just let characters keep a sprig of mistletoe tied to the weapon, near the grip, and otherwise not worry about it.
MyDudeicus, What is this in reference to? I'm confused.
I am talking about the core assumption that after taking magic initiate only a druid or ranger could cast the spell with a focus, as they are the only ones capable of using a druidic focus. I look at similar rules, in this case the warlock and their invocations that add spells from other classes to be cast at will. Pact of the tome specifies it becomes a warlock spell for you. But armor of shadows, misty visions etc do not. So warlock A takes armor of shadows and is using a shield, he is pact of the blade so his sword is his warlock arcane focus, he wants to cast mage armor via armor of shadows as it just got dispelled.(yes it's an out of combat spell normally, but I can't remember the names of other ones and if they have a material component). do you make him carry a spell component pouch, does he drop the sword and root around for it. Or do you let them cast it with their sword as their warlock focus like every other warlock spell.
Now you have an eldritch knight who took this as their origin feat, its nifty but doesn't really push the needle on their damage (see treantmonks charts). Do you make the same call as you did with the warlock, if not why?
I am not saying either decision is right or wrong, as there is no RAW on this as much as people like to argue on it. silence on an issue is not RAW. Best you can do is try to guess RAI, and honestly RAI is far more important in most cases than RAW. And then determine if that is what is best for your table. At some point for their living campaign stuff whatever it is called they will need to make an official ruling but that may or may not be what is best for your table.
Now for this spell when it comes to a single material component instead of a pouch especially when it's something like mistletoe the player can weave it into their weapons grip if need be. Keep a few spares for loss through damage etc. it is not that big of a deal. This discussion is a bit more important for the warlock as they might have 3-4 spells picked up via invocations, which might not have as easy of a work around. When a spell is gained and it is added to your always prepared list, it uses your casting stat, you get free castings or a combination of some or all of these conditions do you want to consider it a spell from its original list or now a spell from the casters list. And do you want to change that decision depending on how its gained or keep a consistent decision. The only wrong answer is the one that makes the game less fun at your table.
As an answer to the other question. A focus(staff) is a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff is not a focus. Not any old stick will do.
It actually doesn't matter what class you are, it matters how you know the spell. Magic Initiate (druid) doesn't tell you that the spells count as druid spells for you, so even if you are a druid, you have no feature that allows you to cast those spells with any focus. Classes that get the use of a focus only get the use of a particular kind of focus for spells for that class. Spells that are not gained through a class don't count as class spells for any class. Magic Initiate (druid) spells are feat spells, not class spells. They qualify for nothing that requires a spell to be of a specific class.
Misrepresenting the problem might indicate you don't have a great grasp of it.
That is all correct, as long as they get the spell through a class that allows them to use a focus to cast it, so ranger (with the fighting style) or druid.
If you pick up the cantrip via magic initiate, magical secrets, or some other class feature, you cannot use a focus to cast it because you don't have a feature that allows you to do so. That means these other ways to pick it up still require a free hand to access the material components and a hand to hold the staff, so no shield.
It actually doesn't matter what class you are, it matters how you know the spell. Magic Initiate (druid) doesn't tell you that the spells count as druid spells for you, so even if you are a druid, you have no feature that allows you to cast those spells with any focus. Classes that get the use of a focus only get the use of a particular kind of focus for spells for that class. Spells that are not gained through a class don't count as class spells for any class. Magic Initiate (druid) spells are feat spells, not class spells. They qualify for nothing that requires a spell to be of a specific class.
Reading both quoted replies again, this is just another example of mixing the two.
Bard's Magical Secrets says: "you can choose any of your new prepared spells from the Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spell lists, and the chosen spells count as Bard spells for you (see a class’s section for its spell list)."
So you could choose Shillelagh and it would become a Bard spell. However, it's true that you couldn't use a Druidic Focus to cast it, only a Musical Instrument.
A spell focus is a special item. It is not just some length of wood sawn from a tree; it is a specially carved piece of wood, removed from the tree by a particular process.
It's not a mgical process, because any crafter can perform it, but it requires time, skill, and possibly special ingredients. This is why a spellcasting focus staff costs 5 gp (and the "quarterstaff" weapon costs 1/25th of that).
It actually doesn't matter what class you are, it matters how you know the spell. Magic Initiate (druid) doesn't tell you that the spells count as druid spells for you, so even if you are a druid, you have no feature that allows you to cast those spells with any focus. Classes that get the use of a focus only get the use of a particular kind of focus for spells for that class. Spells that are not gained through a class don't count as class spells for any class. Magic Initiate (druid) spells are feat spells, not class spells. They qualify for nothing that requires a spell to be of a specific class.
Misrepresenting the problem might indicate you don't have a great grasp of it.
Neither does a warlocks invocations. But I would posit its absurd to make it a non warlock spell;. Consider pointless insulting banter in response to yours inserted here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This might be obvious, but can a Druid cast Shillelagh if they have a Wooden Staff in one hand and a shield in the other?
The wooden staff is a Druidic Focus (spellcasting focus) and also counts as a Quarterstaff. Since its a spellcasting focus it can be used in place of a spell's Material component and the same hand holding the focus can be used to perform the somatic components of the spell. (Chapter 7 - PHB)
Am I wrong here? Mind you, I've never even heard of a real DM saying a Druid can't do this, but people online are strange about this sort of stuff so I wanted to check. You forum goers are real RAW lovers and very serious so I figured it was the best place to ask.
That is all correct, as long as they get the spell through a class that allows them to use a focus to cast it, so ranger (with the fighting style) or druid.
If you pick up the cantrip via magic initiate, magical secrets, or some other class feature, you cannot use a focus to cast it because you don't have a feature that allows you to do so. That means these other ways to pick it up still require a free hand to access the material components and a hand to hold the staff, so no shield.
Yeah that's what I thought, but I needed to be sure. It's a bummer spell material components without a cost still exists since it seems they only serve as a weird restriction that most actual spell casters don't care about in most games and adaptations like BG3 prove that DnD doesn't need them at all, but that's my side rant.
Follow-up Question:
If my DM gives me a +2 Quarterstaff (comprised mostly out of wood), can this interaction still work if I use that staff instead? Essentially, what's the official stance on using a Quarterstaff as a spellcasting focus for Druids?
Oh that is a big deal question. According to the rules, a magic item staff is an arcane focus, but not a druidic focus. But a +2 quarterstaff is a weapon anyway, so I think that is different from a magic staff. But as far as RAW goes, a quarterstaff is not a wooden staff. As someone said in another post, the rules consider all staffs quarterstaffs but not all quarterstaffs are staffs (or wooden staffs, for that matter).
I think RAW has some problems when it comes to this stuff. For example, the druidic focus includes wooden staff, but the starting equipment for a druid says you get a quarterstaff as your focus (which a quarterstaff isn't technically a drudic focus).
So I can't really give you advice other than a reasonable DM would probably allow you to use a magical quarterstaff as a focus, even if it isn't strictly one RAW.
Unless there is an errata, i'd say what happens if picked up through magic initiate the game is silent on it.
Now, there is a very and I mean very long, needlessly long discussion on what makes a warlock spell. Lets say you take armor of shadows, you can cast mage armor at will. It does not specify it is now a warlock spell for you. It also dropped the doesn't need a material component part of the invocation in 2024. Therefore, the question is do you need to use a material component as it may or may not be a warlock spell and you can't use your focus for non warlock spells. I think it is blazingly obvious it is intended to be a warlock spell as its gained through a class feature. Magic imitate is gained through a origin feat, is that enough of a difference to rule differently if you think mage armor becomes a warlock spell with the armor of shadows invocation.
But in reality, it is silent on it, just like magic initiate is. I personally fall into the camp that is can be considered a class spell for you, even if you are a wizard or something and taking magic initiate druid. As it seems off to me for it to be in effect a wizard spell in every single way, except whether or not you can use your focus on it or not. It is a layer of needless complexity that does not make the game more fun. That being said they have plenty of rules that add unnecessary complexity for no gain, so it is not unheard of for either answer.
I don't think a MI spell should be a class spell, but whether that makes things needlessly complex is a different game design question separate from the rules question.
I think I probably agree in principle. Except that it might be a balancing tweak that a MI shillelagh fighter can't use a shield whereas if they chose not to use that cantrip they could. Thus the benefit for them to use the cantrip is balanced by the loss of ability to use a shield. But that is probably a topic for a different thread.
I was just thinking that under the 2024 description of "Druidic Focus" it lists "Wooden Staff" and says "(also a Quarterstaff)" . Doesn't that mean that any staff that is made of wood counts as a Druidic Focus --> Spellcasting Focus? IT definitely means that all wooden staffs are also quarterstaffs, but what about the other way around? I think it would be weird to classify a wooden quarterstaff as NOT a "Wooden Staff" .
It's really weird.
MyDudeicus, What is this in reference to? I'm confused.
It is really weird. But a quarterstaff is a 2cp item whereas a wooden staff focus is a 5gp item. As has been explained to me particularly in great detail, that line in the "druidic focus" description just means that the wooden staff focus that you buy can be used as a quarterstaff weapon as well.
So even though logically and realistically, any quarterstaff must be made of quarter-sawn wood and therefore be a wooden staff, that is not how 5e views it. As far as the rules go, I guess, it is that all wooden staffs are quarterstaffs but not all quarterstaffs are wooden staffs -- exactly backward from real life. And on top of that, the rules do seem to make a mistake here and there on this too -- like when they give you a quarterstaff as your focus in your druid starting equipment.
But as I said, I would imagine most DMs would probably allow a +2 quarterstaff to be a focus for a druid.
Sometimes I feel like the rules are written by two groups of very different people.
One group is articulate, well read, insightful, and has ample foresight. The other group is drunk. The Drunk group is the one in charge of proofreading.
You can craft a Druidic focus using Woodcarver’s Tools or Painter’s Supplies, so presumably a “wooden staff” that counts as a Druidic focus has been carved or painted in ways that infuse it with primal energy (or something like that), explaining why not all “wooden staffs” are Druidic foci and why they cost more than a simple Quarterstaff.
Comparing the 2014 and 2024 versions of Shillelagh, it appears that the weapon used previously counted as one of the Material components, so the Club and the mistletoe could have been manipulated in the same hand. Now the weapon isn’t included so you need a separate hand for the M component (unless your Quarterstaff is also a Druidic focus).
I wonder if the discrepancy between the Club and the Quarterstaff is intentional?
Oh no, this one gets even weirder with Shillelagh, it's material requirement is mistletoe... mistletoe is also a valid druidic focus, so they could have instead just put down the material component as "druidic focus" or just put down the weapon itself as the material component, which would simplify things even more.
It seems material components have some type of theming behind them but unless they have a GP cost, it generally seems people mostly ignore them at most tables.
I agree with all of this.
Plaguescarred left a similar explanation in a recent thread about a Ranger with Magic Initiate:
Or the Ranger with the Druidic Warrior Fighting Style:
WolfOfTheBees already answered, but the thread Staff - Arcane Focus is related to the next comment from WolfOfTheBees, in case you'd like to read more opinions.
This is the heart of the matter.
A strict, most-correct reading of RAW suggests that they removed the weapon from the material components list to make it so that only Druids and Rangers could effectively combine Shillelagh with a Shield (short of using an equip action after casting). Sure, why not?
However, that that same trick can't be used with a Club, but only with a Druid's focus acting as a Quarterstaff, makes it seem less intentional. It could just be the case that whichever editor did the final pass on the spell expected the weapon to act as an implicit material component, to save a tiny bit of wordcount. I don't think there's any problem at all with a DM ruling in that direction, to let, say, Paladins and Fighters with Magic Initiate (Druid) have a little more fun with the spell. As in 2014, they could just let characters keep a sprig of mistletoe tied to the weapon, near the grip, and otherwise not worry about it.
I am talking about the core assumption that after taking magic initiate only a druid or ranger could cast the spell with a focus, as they are the only ones capable of using a druidic focus. I look at similar rules, in this case the warlock and their invocations that add spells from other classes to be cast at will. Pact of the tome specifies it becomes a warlock spell for you. But armor of shadows, misty visions etc do not. So warlock A takes armor of shadows and is using a shield, he is pact of the blade so his sword is his warlock arcane focus, he wants to cast mage armor via armor of shadows as it just got dispelled.(yes it's an out of combat spell normally, but I can't remember the names of other ones and if they have a material component). do you make him carry a spell component pouch, does he drop the sword and root around for it. Or do you let them cast it with their sword as their warlock focus like every other warlock spell.
Now you have an eldritch knight who took this as their origin feat, its nifty but doesn't really push the needle on their damage (see treantmonks charts). Do you make the same call as you did with the warlock, if not why?
I am not saying either decision is right or wrong, as there is no RAW on this as much as people like to argue on it. silence on an issue is not RAW. Best you can do is try to guess RAI, and honestly RAI is far more important in most cases than RAW. And then determine if that is what is best for your table. At some point for their living campaign stuff whatever it is called they will need to make an official ruling but that may or may not be what is best for your table.
Now for this spell when it comes to a single material component instead of a pouch especially when it's something like mistletoe the player can weave it into their weapons grip if need be. Keep a few spares for loss through damage etc. it is not that big of a deal. This discussion is a bit more important for the warlock as they might have 3-4 spells picked up via invocations, which might not have as easy of a work around. When a spell is gained and it is added to your always prepared list, it uses your casting stat, you get free castings or a combination of some or all of these conditions do you want to consider it a spell from its original list or now a spell from the casters list. And do you want to change that decision depending on how its gained or keep a consistent decision. The only wrong answer is the one that makes the game less fun at your table.
As an answer to the other question. A focus(staff) is a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff is not a focus. Not any old stick will do.
It actually doesn't matter what class you are, it matters how you know the spell. Magic Initiate (druid) doesn't tell you that the spells count as druid spells for you, so even if you are a druid, you have no feature that allows you to cast those spells with any focus. Classes that get the use of a focus only get the use of a particular kind of focus for spells for that class. Spells that are not gained through a class don't count as class spells for any class. Magic Initiate (druid) spells are feat spells, not class spells. They qualify for nothing that requires a spell to be of a specific class.
Misrepresenting the problem might indicate you don't have a great grasp of it.
Reading both quoted replies again, this is just another example of mixing the two.
Bard's Magical Secrets says: "you can choose any of your new prepared spells from the Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spell lists, and the chosen spells count as Bard spells for you (see a class’s section for its spell list)."
So you could choose Shillelagh and it would become a Bard spell. However, it's true that you couldn't use a Druidic Focus to cast it, only a Musical Instrument.
A spell focus is a special item. It is not just some length of wood sawn from a tree; it is a specially carved piece of wood, removed from the tree by a particular process.
It's not a mgical process, because any crafter can perform it, but it requires time, skill, and possibly special ingredients. This is why a spellcasting focus staff costs 5 gp (and the "quarterstaff" weapon costs 1/25th of that).
Neither does a warlocks invocations. But I would posit its absurd to make it a non warlock spell;. Consider pointless insulting banter in response to yours inserted here.