I'm currently planning to play a Barbarian Druid who utilises both a greataxe and shillelagh, but don't particularly fancy carrying too many long bulky weapons on my person. So this got me thinking.
The weapons section of the phb contains this note on improvised weapons:
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
With this in mind, I have come to the conclusion that as far as RAI is concerned, there would be no barrier to using the shillelagh spell (usually restricted to use on clubs and quarterstaffs) on other wooden weapons and objects, specifically if held so that the striking side of the weapon is the wooden haft instead of any metal head the weapon possesses. There are some caveats to how I would allow these weapons to be used but as an example, I see this being useable for:
- Standard Improvised clubs & staves (chair legs, tree branches, snooker cues, etc.) - The hafts of certain tools (axes, spades, sledgehammers, rakes & brooms) - The hafts of certain weapons (all forms of axes, hammers & polearms) - Wooden training weapons / toy weapons (perhaps useful if you are attacked during downtime)
I think if this were to be allowed it is important to note that the weapon is not being used as intended so does not necessarily benefit from certain bonuses it usually would (Great weapon master, Reach, greater than d8 damage etc.) beyond the normal capabilities of a shillelagh. Nor would using a heavy or two handed weapon lose either of those properties (the weapons bulk is still the same even if not using the heavy end for striking). Although of course this would all be up for DM interpretation.
Although this is a very D&D problem, it does somewhat have an equivalent in history, where knights would hold their swords by the blade and use the cross-guard as a makeshift hammer to better penetrate armour, or at least transfer more concussive force to it. I see this as the Druid's Magical equivalent.
Does anyone see any issues with this interpretation or problems that may arise because of it?
In general, I want to say that you're mostly right. You absolutely have the right idea about how Improvised Weapons are meant to be handled. That's honestly where most people get tripped up, so good on you!
That said, Shillelagh does not work with Improvised Weapons by RAW. An Improvised Weapon can be (at DM's discretion, so this is already an "if the DM allows it, fine" scenario) wielded as if it were a standard weapon, but it does not actually become that standard weapon. Shillelagh requires an actual club or quarterstaff. That can be circumvented by having a Druidic Focus, yet the spell also requires the target object be an actual club or quarterstaff as well.
I realize many would see that as just splitting hairs (and I would probably break from RAW at my own table if this came up), but that's just how spells work. Just like how Fireball requires bat guano as a component... you wouldn't be able to cast the spell with bird guano, despite the fact that they're both shit from a flying creature. Same for the target distinction.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In the specific context of clubs and staves, I struggle how to see an “improvised club” is even a thing. An improvised club is an actual club.
But even if that weren’t the case , “Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.“ Deciding that you will treat it as an x for SOME spells/features/systems, but not for others, I don’t see support for that in the Improvised Weapons language. It doesn’t say it is treated as such, only for the purpose of attack proficiency and weapon die... nah, “treated as such,” full stop.
Really this is the same issue as in the other thread about whether being “effectively Blinded” is the same as being Blinded. Wishy washy fuzzy 5E language aside, we’re told to treat these weapons AS the weapons they resemble, with no indication of where or if to draw any other line where that stops being correct.
Given the flavor of the Druid class preferring wood over metal objects, my personal rule in this would be an improvised weapon resembling a club made of wood (pool cue, table leg, etc) could be the target of the spell, but a similar metal object would not.
thats just my ruling though, and shouldn’t be taken as anything else
Given the flavor of the Druid class preferring wood over metal objects, my personal rule in this would be an improvised weapon resembling a club made of wood (pool cue, table leg, etc) could be the target of the spell, but a similar metal object would not.
thats just my ruling though, and shouldn’t be taken as anything else
Oh absolutely. Fluff or not the Shillelagh spell specifies that it makes the wood magical, not the metal or any other part. If a Druid had a club made of bone or ivory I'd be more likely to rule it wouldn't work than I would for a wooden chair leg etc.
Maybe I'd allow those specifically if someone asked really nicely & had crafted it themselves out of the leg of a monster they'd slain or something, since they're still kinda druidy materials (even though it breaks RAW & RAI), but I'd have to draw the line at metal.
bird guano, despite the fact that they're both shit from a flying mammal.
flying, yes, mammal, no ;)
This is why I should never post before my second cup of coffee
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As DM, I presented a similiar argument to my players for use as a house rule. (My idea was that Rangers could use Shillelagh on their bowstaves to turn their bows into melee weapons.) My group vetoed the idea.
Their argument is that "shillelagh" is a very specific reference to Irish blackwood walking sticks.
shil·le·lagh
/SHəˈlālē/
noun
a thick stick of blackthorn or oak used in Ireland, typically as a weapon.
On review I concur with my group's decision. D&D Shillelagh is a cantrip and has very specific requirements (wooden club or staff). As a cantrip it is okay for it be limited in application.
A more universal application should probably be a higher level spell. Your group may vary.
That being said, I still like the idea of a ranger version for use on bowstaves. It just won't be called shillelagh, and probably wouldn't be a cantrip. Likewise, you can certainly homebrew or houserule a variant with no issues, but the naming of the spell definitely implies clubs or staffs only.
Another thought:
Mechanically it may not seem like much for the spell to have wider application, but do you really want to start turning sticks, barstools, and pool cues into d8+spellcasting modifier weapons? Part of the implied mechanics of the spell is that it is a small upgrade to the things it works on, again suitable for cantrip magic. Just my interpretation.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's a melee range attack cantrip. Are there other attack cantrips where you must make a Concentration check every round (likely multiple times per round) or risk having your action economy messed up? No.
Shillelagh doesn't let you enchant an item for others to use. It doesn't combo particularly well with Wild Shape. It doesn't scale as well as other attack cantrips (no damage bump at 5, 11, and 17). It isn't particularly forgiving if you need to sheathe your weapon to do something else with your hands, like use a spell focus, or climb.
The spell has a great many limitations, but is adequate at what it does (make Druids less MAD, by not requiring them to invest in Strength or Dexterity). It says it works on wood clubs or quarterstaffs, the Improvised Weapon rules tell us that an object that resembles a weapon should be "treated as" that weapon, and in fact makeshift clubs are specifically listed as one of the best examples of this.
Quit bending over backwards to search for unwritten rules between the lines to deprive players of the benefits of their abilities and spells. It isn't fun, 5E doesn't ask you to do it, and it's a mean spirited and unhelpful way to approach rule interpretation.
Quit bending over backwards to search for unwritten rules between the lines to deprive players of the benefits of their abilities and spells. It isn't fun, 5E doesn't ask you to do it, and it's a mean spirited and unhelpful way to approach rule interpretation.
Soo... does that mean you've reversed your opinion on BA spellcasting & Reaction spells? Awesome, glad to hear it! That totally deprives players of the benefits of their abilities and spells.
I'm not trying to antagonize you, but for real, this is already a very niche spell; it is what it is. I would very likely be more liberal with it if a Druid in a campaign I'm running wanted to use the spell on an improvised club/staff. I would not do so for someone that went out of their way (MC/Feat) to acquire it purely for min/maxing purposes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think it would be pretty great to have a wooden sword (stats for a club) and cast shillelagh on it for super magic powers. That would be fun for a low-level adventurer.
Quit bending over backwards to search for unwritten rules between the lines to deprive players of the benefits of their abilities and spells. It isn't fun, 5E doesn't ask you to do it, and it's a mean spirited and unhelpful way to approach rule interpretation.
Soo... does that mean you've reversed your opinion on BA spellcasting & Reaction spells? Awesome, glad to hear it! That totally deprives players of the benefits of their abilities and spells.
I'm not trying to antagonize you, but for real, this is already a very niche spell; it is what it is. I would very likely be more liberal with it if a Druid in a campaign I'm running wanted to use the spell on an improvised club/staff. I would not do so for someone that went out of their way (MC/Feat) to acquire it purely for min/maxing purposes.
Nah, you've misunderstood me. Rules say what they say, and its wishful thinking to pretend that they don't. Although personally I am quite willing to houserule a different rule about spellcasting for my groups, since its a difficult to remember rule that leads to a lot of bad feelings when their "perfect plan" turns out to be disallowed, it doesn't change that RAW the rules are quite clear that Bonus Action Spell?=only other spell is an Action cantrip. Once you understand the RAW, a DM can then feel free to house rule it differently, in whatever way is most fun for them and their players.
In this scenario, we have precisely the opposite happening. RAW, there's a simple and straightforward rule: holding a wooden club? Shillelagh to make it fun! And instead of accepting that straightforward and uncontroversial language, you are trying to imply an extra unwritten restrictions (well, only certain clubs, purchased from officially licensed ClubTM dealers!), while Ramstin has suggested that anything that doesn't look like a walking stick be disallowed. Then you floated the insinuation that Shillelagh might be better off as a Concentration spell.....!!! None of that is written, none of it is required, and none of it will be fun for players when sprung on them.
I think you misunderstood me Chicken_Champ. I agree that the effects of shillelagh should apply to more than just clubs and staves. I thought it would be interesting to allow it to apply to bows as well. It was my group that vetoed me. And they are correct. A shillelagh is very specific type of Irish walking stick/club that has nothing to do with the shillelagh. My group has house ruled that you can only cast shillelagh on a Shillelagh. It might help to google "shillelagh". Ultimately a cantrip that turns a wooden spoon into a wisdom based flail is fine. Just don't call it "Shillelagh".
So to the OP. Nothing breaks if you allow the spell to work on wooden items in general. Just be aware that the word "shillelagh" has a very specific meaning in the real world and you may encounter people who don't like you misusing the word in a fantasy RPG.
I'd allow a Druid to use the spell on simple wooden items that were sufficiently "club-like" as long as they were made of just wood. Holding an axe backwards? No, maybe because the metal interfers with the spell or some other suitable bs. A large wooden spoon, a branch from a tree or a pirate's peg leg? Yes.
I tried that once. I made the argument that my warlock's rod was very similar to a staff or a club depending on length, and that I should be able to shillelagh it as an improvised club. My DM laughed at me and said not a chance. I can't really fault him.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Yes, the Improvised Weapon rules provide that an improvised weapon doesn't resemble a weapon just because the player wants it to, it is always "At the DM's option." DM can certainly say that a large wooden spoon isn't a club, or an unstrung bow isn't a staff. My point is only that once they say it is a bow or a staff and that you may treat it as such, no other obstacle remains to casting Shillelagh by RAW once that threshold is met.
Given the flavor of the Druid class preferring wood over metal objects, my personal rule in this would be an improvised weapon resembling a club made of wood (pool cue, table leg, etc) could be the target of the spell, but a similar metal object would not.
thats just my ruling though, and shouldn’t be taken as anything else
My ruling as well.
Wooden branch, piece of firewood, broken small tree, broom, mop, chair leg, table leg, pirate's peg leg - all ok for shillelagh.
Hammer, axe, shovel - no, not as long as the hammer or axe head is still attached.
You should also consider that the cantrip does not make the item any more durable. You can cast it on a child's wooden toy sword but after the first good blow the wooden toy is going to break. The same might apply to mops and brooms, as their handles are sometimes thin.
Yes, the Improvised Weapon rules provide that an improvised weapon doesn't resemble a weapon just because the player wants it to, it is always "At the DM's option." DM can certainly say that a large wooden spoon isn't a club, or an unstrung bow isn't a staff. My point is only that once they say it is a bow or a staff and that you may treat it as such, no other obstacle remains to casting Shillelagh by RAW once that threshold is met.
This I totally agree with.
Also to all those saying "the metal will disrupt it" etc. Two things
1) Look up clubs & quarterstaves. You'll find that in almost every case, clubs and quarterstaves used for combat have metal bands or rivets to make them stronger and more dangerous. So what you're saying would be fine if the spell specified the club or quarterstaff had to be a custom druid job made of entirely wood or something but it doesn't. Your interpretation of them having to be entirely wood to count is just that, your interpretation. Even the Irish Shillelagh sometimes had a hollowed out striking head filled with lead to make them hit harder.
2) The wording of the spell is "The wood of the club or quarterstaff...is imbued..." it does not say "the wooden club/ quarterstaff is imbued". Nothing about the spell says the weapons cannot contain other materials and metals, all it specifies is the part that is imbued with the magic is the wood part, hence why I said you must use the wooden part as the striking surface. Funnily enough it then says the weapon itself becomes magical so even if it had metal bands and rivets on a regular quarterstaff / club, or even a whole metal striking head, by RAW they'd still hit for magical bludgeoning damage.
Tbh I agree it's kinda weird specifically cause the phb says druids will not wear metal armour or shields (not "cannot" by the way - it doesn't mechanically affect them it's just sort of against their beliefs, It's not like it's a Paladin tenet or anything). Yet they get proficiency for daggers, scimitars, sickles & maces, in fact the scimitar is a suggested starting item. I don't know of any instance where metal legitimately disrupts their casting or magic. So just know when you guys are saying "Oh Druid magic doesn't work on items with metal" that is 100% your DM call and actually goes against RAW. Druids can use metal items just like anyone else they just choose not to, any supposed effect metal has on their magic goes completely unmentioned in the rules or flavour text.
I think it would be pretty great to have a wooden sword (stats for a club) and cast shillelagh on it for super magic powers. That would be fun for a low-level adventurer.
That just gave me an idea for a battlemaster fighter v.human magic initiate (druid) with wisdom for a main stat instead of strength or dexterity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm currently planning to play a Barbarian Druid who utilises both a greataxe and shillelagh, but don't particularly fancy carrying too many long bulky weapons on my person. So this got me thinking.
The weapons section of the phb contains this note on improvised weapons:
With this in mind, I have come to the conclusion that as far as RAI is concerned, there would be no barrier to using the shillelagh spell (usually restricted to use on clubs and quarterstaffs) on other wooden weapons and objects, specifically if held so that the striking side of the weapon is the wooden haft instead of any metal head the weapon possesses. There are some caveats to how I would allow these weapons to be used but as an example, I see this being useable for:
- Standard Improvised clubs & staves (chair legs, tree branches, snooker cues, etc.)
- The hafts of certain tools (axes, spades, sledgehammers, rakes & brooms)
- The hafts of certain weapons (all forms of axes, hammers & polearms)
- Wooden training weapons / toy weapons (perhaps useful if you are attacked during downtime)
I think if this were to be allowed it is important to note that the weapon is not being used as intended so does not necessarily benefit from certain bonuses it usually would (Great weapon master, Reach, greater than d8 damage etc.) beyond the normal capabilities of a shillelagh. Nor would using a heavy or two handed weapon lose either of those properties (the weapons bulk is still the same even if not using the heavy end for striking). Although of course this would all be up for DM interpretation.
Although this is a very D&D problem, it does somewhat have an equivalent in history, where knights would hold their swords by the blade and use the cross-guard as a makeshift hammer to better penetrate armour, or at least transfer more concussive force to it. I see this as the Druid's Magical equivalent.
Does anyone see any issues with this interpretation or problems that may arise because of it?
In general, I want to say that you're mostly right. You absolutely have the right idea about how Improvised Weapons are meant to be handled. That's honestly where most people get tripped up, so good on you!
That said, Shillelagh does not work with Improvised Weapons by RAW. An Improvised Weapon can be (at DM's discretion, so this is already an "if the DM allows it, fine" scenario) wielded as if it were a standard weapon, but it does not actually become that standard weapon. Shillelagh requires an actual club or quarterstaff. That can be circumvented by having a Druidic Focus, yet the spell also requires the target object be an actual club or quarterstaff as well.
I realize many would see that as just splitting hairs (and I would probably break from RAW at my own table if this came up), but that's just how spells work. Just like how Fireball requires bat guano as a component... you wouldn't be able to cast the spell with bird guano, despite the fact that they're both shit from a flying creature. Same for the target distinction.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
flying, yes, mammal, no ;)
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
In the specific context of clubs and staves, I struggle how to see an “improvised club” is even a thing. An improvised club is an actual club.
But even if that weren’t the case , “Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.“ Deciding that you will treat it as an x for SOME spells/features/systems, but not for others, I don’t see support for that in the Improvised Weapons language. It doesn’t say it is treated as such, only for the purpose of attack proficiency and weapon die... nah, “treated as such,” full stop.
Really this is the same issue as in the other thread about whether being “effectively Blinded” is the same as being Blinded. Wishy washy fuzzy 5E language aside, we’re told to treat these weapons AS the weapons they resemble, with no indication of where or if to draw any other line where that stops being correct.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Given the flavor of the Druid class preferring wood over metal objects, my personal rule in this would be an improvised weapon resembling a club made of wood (pool cue, table leg, etc) could be the target of the spell, but a similar metal object would not.
thats just my ruling though, and shouldn’t be taken as anything else
Oh absolutely. Fluff or not the Shillelagh spell specifies that it makes the wood magical, not the metal or any other part. If a Druid had a club made of bone or ivory I'd be more likely to rule it wouldn't work than I would for a wooden chair leg etc.
Maybe I'd allow those specifically if someone asked really nicely & had crafted it themselves out of the leg of a monster they'd slain or something, since they're still kinda druidy materials (even though it breaks RAW & RAI), but I'd have to draw the line at metal.
This is why I should never post before my second cup of coffee
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As DM, I presented a similiar argument to my players for use as a house rule. (My idea was that Rangers could use Shillelagh on their bowstaves to turn their bows into melee weapons.) My group vetoed the idea.
Their argument is that "shillelagh" is a very specific reference to Irish blackwood walking sticks.
Not to mention that Shillelagh isn't even a Concentration spell either.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's a melee range attack cantrip. Are there other attack cantrips where you must make a Concentration check every round (likely multiple times per round) or risk having your action economy messed up? No.
Shillelagh doesn't let you enchant an item for others to use. It doesn't combo particularly well with Wild Shape. It doesn't scale as well as other attack cantrips (no damage bump at 5, 11, and 17). It isn't particularly forgiving if you need to sheathe your weapon to do something else with your hands, like use a spell focus, or climb.
The spell has a great many limitations, but is adequate at what it does (make Druids less MAD, by not requiring them to invest in Strength or Dexterity). It says it works on wood clubs or quarterstaffs, the Improvised Weapon rules tell us that an object that resembles a weapon should be "treated as" that weapon, and in fact makeshift clubs are specifically listed as one of the best examples of this.
Quit bending over backwards to search for unwritten rules between the lines to deprive players of the benefits of their abilities and spells. It isn't fun, 5E doesn't ask you to do it, and it's a mean spirited and unhelpful way to approach rule interpretation.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Soo... does that mean you've reversed your opinion on BA spellcasting & Reaction spells? Awesome, glad to hear it! That totally deprives players of the benefits of their abilities and spells.
I'm not trying to antagonize you, but for real, this is already a very niche spell; it is what it is. I would very likely be more liberal with it if a Druid in a campaign I'm running wanted to use the spell on an improvised club/staff. I would not do so for someone that went out of their way (MC/Feat) to acquire it purely for min/maxing purposes.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think it would be pretty great to have a wooden sword (stats for a club) and cast shillelagh on it for super magic powers. That would be fun for a low-level adventurer.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Nah, you've misunderstood me. Rules say what they say, and its wishful thinking to pretend that they don't. Although personally I am quite willing to houserule a different rule about spellcasting for my groups, since its a difficult to remember rule that leads to a lot of bad feelings when their "perfect plan" turns out to be disallowed, it doesn't change that RAW the rules are quite clear that Bonus Action Spell?=only other spell is an Action cantrip. Once you understand the RAW, a DM can then feel free to house rule it differently, in whatever way is most fun for them and their players.
In this scenario, we have precisely the opposite happening. RAW, there's a simple and straightforward rule: holding a wooden club? Shillelagh to make it fun! And instead of accepting that straightforward and uncontroversial language, you are trying to imply an extra unwritten restrictions (well, only certain clubs, purchased from officially licensed ClubTM dealers!), while Ramstin has suggested that anything that doesn't look like a walking stick be disallowed. Then you floated the insinuation that Shillelagh might be better off as a Concentration spell.....!!! None of that is written, none of it is required, and none of it will be fun for players when sprung on them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think you misunderstood me Chicken_Champ. I agree that the effects of shillelagh should apply to more than just clubs and staves. I thought it would be interesting to allow it to apply to bows as well. It was my group that vetoed me. And they are correct. A shillelagh is very specific type of Irish walking stick/club that has nothing to do with the shillelagh. My group has house ruled that you can only cast shillelagh on a Shillelagh. It might help to google "shillelagh". Ultimately a cantrip that turns a wooden spoon into a wisdom based flail is fine. Just don't call it "Shillelagh".
So to the OP. Nothing breaks if you allow the spell to work on wooden items in general. Just be aware that the word "shillelagh" has a very specific meaning in the real world and you may encounter people who don't like you misusing the word in a fantasy RPG.
I'd allow a Druid to use the spell on simple wooden items that were sufficiently "club-like" as long as they were made of just wood. Holding an axe backwards? No, maybe because the metal interfers with the spell or some other suitable bs. A large wooden spoon, a branch from a tree or a pirate's peg leg? Yes.
I tried that once. I made the argument that my warlock's rod was very similar to a staff or a club depending on length, and that I should be able to shillelagh it as an improvised club. My DM laughed at me and said not a chance. I can't really fault him.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yes, the Improvised Weapon rules provide that an improvised weapon doesn't resemble a weapon just because the player wants it to, it is always "At the DM's option." DM can certainly say that a large wooden spoon isn't a club, or an unstrung bow isn't a staff. My point is only that once they say it is a bow or a staff and that you may treat it as such, no other obstacle remains to casting Shillelagh by RAW once that threshold is met.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My ruling as well.
Wooden branch, piece of firewood, broken small tree, broom, mop, chair leg, table leg, pirate's peg leg - all ok for shillelagh.
Hammer, axe, shovel - no, not as long as the hammer or axe head is still attached.
You should also consider that the cantrip does not make the item any more durable. You can cast it on a child's wooden toy sword but after the first good blow the wooden toy is going to break. The same might apply to mops and brooms, as their handles are sometimes thin.
This I totally agree with.
Also to all those saying "the metal will disrupt it" etc. Two things
1) Look up clubs & quarterstaves. You'll find that in almost every case, clubs and quarterstaves used for combat have metal bands or rivets to make them stronger and more dangerous. So what you're saying would be fine if the spell specified the club or quarterstaff had to be a custom druid job made of entirely wood or something but it doesn't. Your interpretation of them having to be entirely wood to count is just that, your interpretation. Even the Irish Shillelagh sometimes had a hollowed out striking head filled with lead to make them hit harder.
2) The wording of the spell is "The wood of the club or quarterstaff...is imbued..." it does not say "the wooden club/ quarterstaff is imbued". Nothing about the spell says the weapons cannot contain other materials and metals, all it specifies is the part that is imbued with the magic is the wood part, hence why I said you must use the wooden part as the striking surface. Funnily enough it then says the weapon itself becomes magical so even if it had metal bands and rivets on a regular quarterstaff / club, or even a whole metal striking head, by RAW they'd still hit for magical bludgeoning damage.
Tbh I agree it's kinda weird specifically cause the phb says druids will not wear metal armour or shields (not "cannot" by the way - it doesn't mechanically affect them it's just sort of against their beliefs, It's not like it's a Paladin tenet or anything). Yet they get proficiency for daggers, scimitars, sickles & maces, in fact the scimitar is a suggested starting item. I don't know of any instance where metal legitimately disrupts their casting or magic. So just know when you guys are saying "Oh Druid magic doesn't work on items with metal" that is 100% your DM call and actually goes against RAW. Druids can use metal items just like anyone else they just choose not to, any supposed effect metal has on their magic goes completely unmentioned in the rules or flavour text.
Edit: There's a nice breakdown of this in this post https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-the-druid-metal-restriction-is-poorly-implemented.660179/
That just gave me an idea for a battlemaster fighter v.human magic initiate (druid) with wisdom for a main stat instead of strength or dexterity.