If I take the PolearmMaster feat and cast Shillelagh while wielding a quarterstaff, what damage die is used for the weapon during the bonus action: "pole strike"?
Pole Strike. Immediately after you take the Attack action and attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon deals Bludgeoning damage, and the weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4.
... A Club or Quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature’s power. 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.
The issue is neither rule specifies which one overrides the other.
So, does player get to choose the highest damage of the two?
The only rules related thing that might have some influence on the outcome is :
PHB: Chapter 1: Playing the Game -> Rhythm of Play -> Exceptions Supersede General Rules.
which says:
The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins.
From there, it would seem that Shillelagh is more of a general rule saying "attacks" lower case increase weapon damage to 1d8, and PolearmMaster seems much more specific, describing a specific "Pole Strike" that the player can do as a bonus action, immediately following a action:attack and that it does 1d4 weapon damage.
I'd say that PAM is more specific than Shillelagh. Also, PAM is already a powerful feat, no need to boost it further by allowing a character to get a better damage die with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The benefit from Polearm Master applies to the opposite end of the weapon and always uses a d4 for damage rather than the weapon’s normal damage die. This is true for a Quarterstaff enhanced with Shillelagh just as it is for a normal one.
I think RAI the damage die should remain a 1d4 for the bonus action attack.
However, RAW, I don't really get how people are saying one is "more specific" than the other. PAM says "the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4", which is exactly as specific as the weapon itself (Quarterstaff) saying it does 1d6 bludgeoning damage. These are both specific values, and specified as "the weapon's damage die".
Shillelagh states that it specifically changes the "weapon's damage die" to a d8. The weapon you have is a quarterstaff, and it has two weapon dice: a d6 and a d4 depending on the attack (if you have PAM). As they are BOTH explicitly the weapon die of the quarterstaff, then the reading of Shillelagh would change both of them, as it does not specify "normal weapon die" or anything like that.
When the game says "specific beats general" it mostly seems to be saying that specific rules from spells and feats override the general rules that you would follow without the spell or feat taking effect. In the case of a spell versus a feat, I think they are both equally as "specific", so I guess at that point it is up to the DM to decide.
WoTC official ruling RAW Polearm Master is more specific than Shillelaghfor this attack. Without Sage Advice though, i think there could be a case for the spell to take precedence.
I think RAI the damage die should remain a 1d4 for the bonus action attack.
However, RAW, I don't really get how people are saying one is "more specific" than the other. PAM says "the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4", which is exactly as specific as the weapon itself (Quarterstaff) saying it does 1d6 bludgeoning damage. These are both specific values, and specified as "the weapon's damage die".
Shillelagh states that it specifically changes the "weapon's damage die" to a d8. The weapon you have is a quarterstaff, and it has two weapon dice: a d6 and a d4 depending on the attack (if you have PAM). As they are BOTH explicitly the weapon die of the quarterstaff, then the reading of Shillelagh would change both of them, as it does not specify "normal weapon die" or anything like that.
When the game says "specific beats general" it mostly seems to be saying that specific rules from spells and feats override the general rules that you would follow without the spell or feat taking effect. In the case of a spell versus a feat, I think they are both equally as "specific", so I guess at that point it is up to the DM to decide.
In this case, it's considered more specific because the spell applies a blanket change to the weapon, but the Pole Strike is a singleton attack that specifies a different damage die, and doesn't even exist without the PAM feat. If pole strikes were an inherent ability of polearms in general, the spell would take precedence.
Technically, the spell ends as soon as you let go of the weapon, so it's just 1d4 without proficiency. (I've seen at least one DM ignore that and let Shillelagh be thrown, but we're talking RAW.)
I think RAI the damage die should remain a 1d4 for the bonus action attack.
However, RAW, I don't really get how people are saying one is "more specific" than the other. PAM says "the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4", which is exactly as specific as the weapon itself (Quarterstaff) saying it does 1d6 bludgeoning damage. These are both specific values, and specified as "the weapon's damage die".
Shillelagh states that it specifically changes the "weapon's damage die" to a d8. The weapon you have is a quarterstaff, and it has two weapon dice: a d6 and a d4 depending on the attack (if you have PAM). As they are BOTH explicitly the weapon die of the quarterstaff, then the reading of Shillelagh would change both of them, as it does not specify "normal weapon die" or anything like that.
When the game says "specific beats general" it mostly seems to be saying that specific rules from spells and feats override the general rules that you would follow without the spell or feat taking effect. In the case of a spell versus a feat, I think they are both equally as "specific", so I guess at that point it is up to the DM to decide.
In this case, it's considered more specific because the spell applies a blanket change to the weapon, but the Pole Strike is a singleton attack that specifies a different damage die, and doesn't even exist without the PAM feat. If pole strikes were an inherent ability of polearms in general, the spell would take precedence.
I get what you're saying, and it makes sense to a certain degree, however it still very much feels like a "guess" or an interpretation (which I think is mostly what we are left to do, as the rules are not that explicit/granular).
However, is there anywhere that more in depth discusses what constitutes "specific" and "general"?
Here's the entire section on it from the 2014 PHB:
Specific Beats General
This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.
From what it says, basically some things (racial traits, spells, abilities, etc) break or alter the general rules of the game, the general rules being things that are assumed to be true of all base characters/abilities without something altering it. Everyone rolls Initiative with their DEX modifier unless you have an ability or magic item that changes that (Weapon of Warning giving you initiative, Ring of Stolen Alacrity [Griffon's Saddlebag] allowing you to steal someone's initiative, etc). You cannot add your proficiency to an attack with a weapon you are not proficient in, however if you are a Hexblade Warlock and have bound the weapon this rule no longer applies. Things like that.
The interpretation you've presented is apparently what the developers thought (with the SAC ruling), however without the SAC ruling I just don't see that it is obvious which is more specific.
It would be helpful if there was guidance on what is considered "specific" or a methodology on ruling for these cases.
I appreciate the SAC for giving rulings, however sometimes the rulings feel more like errata. My classic example is the Twinned Spell fiasco in 2014, where the RAW clearly says something like the spell Dragon's Breath should be twinneable, and the actual Errata for Twinned Spell does not change that, but the SAC regarding it suggests rules to Twinned Spells that don't exist in the rules at all. This feels much the same. The SAC simply says it is a fact the PAM will always grant a d4 as the PAM bonus action attack, but doesn't really give an explanation as to why that rule takes precedence.
I just wish there was a bit more clarification. This is going to be one of those things where some people say "well yeah, obviously this phrase is more specific than this phrase", and others will not see it that way, and nothing in the rules or the SAC gives an actual way to rule similar instances in the future.
Improvised Weapons: On a hit, the weapon deals 1d4 damage.
Shillelagh: the weapon's damage die becomes a d8
With this I would have to assume that Shillelagh would take precedence, as the rules for Improvised Weapons are the "base" rules that are true for characters, and Shillelagh modifies the base rules, but it's hard to tell based on what we do have from the SAC.
Technically, the spell ends as soon as you let go of the weapon, so it's just 1d4 without proficiency. (I've seen at least one DM ignore that and let Shillelagh be thrown, but we're talking RAW.)
I think RAI the damage die should remain a 1d4 for the bonus action attack.
However, RAW, I don't really get how people are saying one is "more specific" than the other. PAM says "the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4", which is exactly as specific as the weapon itself (Quarterstaff) saying it does 1d6 bludgeoning damage. These are both specific values, and specified as "the weapon's damage die".
Shillelagh states that it specifically changes the "weapon's damage die" to a d8. The weapon you have is a quarterstaff, and it has two weapon dice: a d6 and a d4 depending on the attack (if you have PAM). As they are BOTH explicitly the weapon die of the quarterstaff, then the reading of Shillelagh would change both of them, as it does not specify "normal weapon die" or anything like that.
When the game says "specific beats general" it mostly seems to be saying that specific rules from spells and feats override the general rules that you would follow without the spell or feat taking effect. In the case of a spell versus a feat, I think they are both equally as "specific", so I guess at that point it is up to the DM to decide.
In this case, it's considered more specific because the spell applies a blanket change to the weapon, but the Pole Strike is a singleton attack that specifies a different damage die, and doesn't even exist without the PAM feat. If pole strikes were an inherent ability of polearms in general, the spell would take precedence.
I get what you're saying, and it makes sense to a certain degree, however it still very much feels like a "guess" or an interpretation (which I think is mostly what we are left to do, as the rules are not that explicit/granular).
In this particular case, we also have a Sage Advice answer saying it, but as to the more general case:
You're not wrong.
Quite a few things we think of as "the rules" aren't actually written there. Especially when it comes to the interactions of abilities. There's an awful lot of interpretation, guesswork, and shared practice. But, when push comes to shove, it's just vibes. This way "feels right" to most people, and we can justify it with the rules and guidelines we have. Some of us have mental models of how the rules work as an interlocking system, but all of those models are either incomplete, or have parts where, if you look too closely, the entire thing will seize up and fall apart. (or both) Some of us run by instinct, which leaves them with rulings that contradict if you try to generalize them.
Both ways work fine in practice. The causes of extended rules discussions are almost always clashes between different interpretations where at least one side is unwilling to admit that they are interpreting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Normal quarterstaff does 1d6 dmg with one hand
If I take the PolearmMaster feat and cast Shillelagh while wielding a quarterstaff, what damage die is used for the weapon during the bonus action: "pole strike"?
The issue is neither rule specifies which one overrides the other.
So, does player get to choose the highest damage of the two?
The only rules related thing that might have some influence on the outcome is :
PHB: Chapter 1: Playing the Game -> Rhythm of Play ->
Exceptions Supersede General Rules.
which says:
From there, it would seem that Shillelagh is more of a general rule saying "attacks" lower case increase weapon damage to 1d8, and PolearmMaster seems much more specific, describing a specific "Pole Strike" that the player can do as a bonus action, immediately following a action:attack and that it does 1d4 weapon damage.
I'd say that PAM is more specific than Shillelagh. Also, PAM is already a powerful feat, no need to boost it further by allowing a character to get a better damage die with it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Is not this question the same as the one you are discussing here? Shillelagh and Pole-Master, do work together according to RAW
Both the 2014 and 2024 SAC give the same answer:
I think RAI the damage die should remain a 1d4 for the bonus action attack.
However, RAW, I don't really get how people are saying one is "more specific" than the other. PAM says "the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4", which is exactly as specific as the weapon itself (Quarterstaff) saying it does 1d6 bludgeoning damage. These are both specific values, and specified as "the weapon's damage die".
Shillelagh states that it specifically changes the "weapon's damage die" to a d8. The weapon you have is a quarterstaff, and it has two weapon dice: a d6 and a d4 depending on the attack (if you have PAM). As they are BOTH explicitly the weapon die of the quarterstaff, then the reading of Shillelagh would change both of them, as it does not specify "normal weapon die" or anything like that.
When the game says "specific beats general" it mostly seems to be saying that specific rules from spells and feats override the general rules that you would follow without the spell or feat taking effect. In the case of a spell versus a feat, I think they are both equally as "specific", so I guess at that point it is up to the DM to decide.
PAM invents something called a Pole Strike
Shillelagh says it applies to all "attacks".
They are both vaguely worded, and would be improved by clarifying language.
WoTC official ruling RAW Polearm Master is more specific than Shillelagh for this attack. Without Sage Advice though, i think there could be a case for the spell to take precedence.
A good question that relate more to this thread subject that lacks Sage Advice official ruling could be;
If i use a Quarterstaff imbued with Shillelagh spell as an Improvised Weapons and throw it, what damage does it deal?
In this case, it's considered more specific because the spell applies a blanket change to the weapon, but the Pole Strike is a singleton attack that specifies a different damage die, and doesn't even exist without the PAM feat. If pole strikes were an inherent ability of polearms in general, the spell would take precedence.
Technically, the spell ends as soon as you let go of the weapon, so it's just 1d4 without proficiency. (I've seen at least one DM ignore that and let Shillelagh be thrown, but we're talking RAW.)
I get what you're saying, and it makes sense to a certain degree, however it still very much feels like a "guess" or an interpretation (which I think is mostly what we are left to do, as the rules are not that explicit/granular).
However, is there anywhere that more in depth discusses what constitutes "specific" and "general"?
Here's the entire section on it from the 2014 PHB:
Specific Beats General
This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.
From what it says, basically some things (racial traits, spells, abilities, etc) break or alter the general rules of the game, the general rules being things that are assumed to be true of all base characters/abilities without something altering it. Everyone rolls Initiative with their DEX modifier unless you have an ability or magic item that changes that (Weapon of Warning giving you initiative, Ring of Stolen Alacrity [Griffon's Saddlebag] allowing you to steal someone's initiative, etc). You cannot add your proficiency to an attack with a weapon you are not proficient in, however if you are a Hexblade Warlock and have bound the weapon this rule no longer applies. Things like that.
The interpretation you've presented is apparently what the developers thought (with the SAC ruling), however without the SAC ruling I just don't see that it is obvious which is more specific.
It would be helpful if there was guidance on what is considered "specific" or a methodology on ruling for these cases.
I appreciate the SAC for giving rulings, however sometimes the rulings feel more like errata. My classic example is the Twinned Spell fiasco in 2014, where the RAW clearly says something like the spell Dragon's Breath should be twinneable, and the actual Errata for Twinned Spell does not change that, but the SAC regarding it suggests rules to Twinned Spells that don't exist in the rules at all. This feels much the same. The SAC simply says it is a fact the PAM will always grant a d4 as the PAM bonus action attack, but doesn't really give an explanation as to why that rule takes precedence.
I just wish there was a bit more clarification. This is going to be one of those things where some people say "well yeah, obviously this phrase is more specific than this phrase", and others will not see it that way, and nothing in the rules or the SAC gives an actual way to rule similar instances in the future.
With this I would have to assume that Shillelagh would take precedence, as the rules for Improvised Weapons are the "base" rules that are true for characters, and Shillelagh modifies the base rules, but it's hard to tell based on what we do have from the SAC.wrong, as per kenclary.
Oh yeah you're right i forgot that.
In this particular case, we also have a Sage Advice answer saying it, but as to the more general case:
You're not wrong.
Quite a few things we think of as "the rules" aren't actually written there. Especially when it comes to the interactions of abilities. There's an awful lot of interpretation, guesswork, and shared practice. But, when push comes to shove, it's just vibes. This way "feels right" to most people, and we can justify it with the rules and guidelines we have. Some of us have mental models of how the rules work as an interlocking system, but all of those models are either incomplete, or have parts where, if you look too closely, the entire thing will seize up and fall apart. (or both) Some of us run by instinct, which leaves them with rulings that contradict if you try to generalize them.
Both ways work fine in practice. The causes of extended rules discussions are almost always clashes between different interpretations where at least one side is unwilling to admit that they are interpreting.