| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes.
The "Blades, heavy" weapon group for fighters includes the greatsword and the longsword for example.
The "Axes" group includes pretty much all axes from handaxe to greataxe.
Clubs would be "Hammers" by that definition then.
That's maybe the closest you will get by the rules, not sure why you need it though
The club is a particular weapon in the core rulebook weapon charts. There is no generic "sword" entry in any Paizo weapon rules that I'm aware of. Using a semantical argument to draw an analogy from sword-greatsword to club-greatclub for arguments involving the shillelagh spell doesn't fly RAW.
If they wanted shillelagh to work with iron-shod greatclubs and tetsubo, they would have used verbage in the spell like, "clublike weapons," or something similar. For example, see the tengu's Swordtrained racial trait. That's not what the core rules do; they mention the club and quarterstaff, two specific weapon entries on the weapon tables.
Yes for effect of that spell, club and quarterstaff specifically refer to the weapons printed in the rulebook. Sorry there.
Generally when specific weapons are called out it only works for them. If it works for others as well it will call out the weapon groups, or name more than one weapon etc.
Or the weapon itself will say "for purposes of feats etc this weapon counts as Bla too"
If this is about shillelagh and a club doing damage as if it were two sizes higher, I would say that doesn't work. A greatclub is a martial weapon, a club is a simple weapon. The spell indicates that simple, wooden weapons are the target (i.e. quarterstaves and clubs).
Of course, rule how you wish.
But as blackbloodtroll commented, you really need to explain the question you're asking.
The spell indicates that simple, wooden weapons are the target (i.e. quarterstaves and clubs).
The word simple does not appear in the spells description, so how is the spell indicating that simple weapons are the target?
Your own nonmagical club or quarterstaff becomes a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. A quarterstaff gains this enhancement for both ends of the weapon. It deals damage as if it were two size categories larger (a Small club or quarterstaff so transmuted deals 1d8 points of damage, a Medium 2d6, and a Large 3d6), +1 for its enhancement bonus. These effects only occur when the weapon is wielded by you. If you do not wield it, the weapon behaves as if unaffected by this spell.
Shillelagh is what I'm originally looking at.
However, if a greatclub isn't a club, then I'm wondering how, ontologically speaking, words such as club, sword, axe, etc, work in RAW.
Richard
Do you have an example of "sword" or "axe" being used in RAW? I've seen "all swords" and "all axes", but I don't recall any uses of "sword" or "axe" that aren't in that context. They probably exist, but I don't remember them, and I want an example before I answer the question.
If you don't like completely disallowing the greatclub, a reasonable alternative (though not RAW) is allowing it but changing the weapon into a club for the spell's duration. Use the stats of a club for the result; basically, they'd get a huge club +1, which they could wield in one hand and so forth.
Do you have an example of "sword" or "axe" being used in RAW? I've seen "all swords" and "all axes", but I don't recall any uses of "sword" or "axe" that aren't in that context. They probably exist, but I don't remember them, and I want an example before I answer the question.Shillelagh is what I'm originally looking at.
However, if a greatclub isn't a club, then I'm wondering how, ontologically speaking, words such as club, sword, axe, etc, work in RAW.
Richard
The closes I've seen is the tengu racial stats:
# Swordtrained: Tengus are trained from birth in swordplay, and as a result are automatically proficient with sword-like weapons (including bastard swords, daggers, elven curve blades, falchions, greatswords, kukris, longswords, punching daggers, rapiers, scimitars, short swords, and two-bladed swords).
They use "sword-like weapons", which is even vaguer than "sword". The list is prefaced with "including", which does not imply that the list is exhaustive. So they should be proficient in, e.g., sawtooth saber, if one feels that sawtooth saber is a sword-like weapon.
|
Well then a club should be just a club, shouldn't it.
I mean, if a club is just a wooden stick that you hit people with, then why does it matter how big the thing is or whether you swing it with one hand or two.
I think a GreatClub is just a big club, and I think Shillelagh should work with it quite happily. Indeed, if a storm giant druid wants to hit you with a treetrunk, I would call that a club too and let him use Shillelagh with it.
The problem as far as I can see is that using Shillelagh with a GreatClub is a bit more powerful than was probably intended with the spell. So we find ourselves jumping through semantic hoops - a "club" is not a general term any more than "axe" or "sword", but a specific one referring only to the one handed version.
Richard
|
If the spell description only stated "club" I may have agreed that a greatclub could be included. But since spell description calls out club and quarterstaff, it seems clear that the spell affects only those two specific weapons.
This issue reiterates the argument for using keywords in PF. It would define a few things better, I think.
The problem is that a club is a specific defined weapon.
A sword is not.
An axe is not.
there is not "a sword"
there is not "an axe"
there is "a club".
So if they want "club" to mean the category rather than the specific weapon, they need to say so specifically.
Likewise if sword refers to a specific one rather than to all swords, they have to call it out. (like that scimitar dervish thingie they have).
So for the druid spell to work on anything other than a regular ole club it needs to specifically call that out.
But if it had said "sword" instead of "club" then it would apply to anything with sword in the name.. because sword is a category not a specific weapon.
-S
|
|
I understand the argument, though I think is a little weak.
Additionally, the concept of a club is basically something that hasn't been specifically constructed to use as a weapon.
So it's difficult to see what the difference is between a greatclub and an oversized club that I wield two-handed.
I think greatclub should be renamed "maul" to make it clear that it isn't just a big stick - it's something that has been specifically constructed to be used two-handed and weighted that way.
And I think a greatclub should be a simple two-handed version of a club which does 1d8 damage and which works with shillelagh.
That way, shillelagh works only with simple clubs, but there's a one-handed, double and two-handed version you can use.
Richard
P.S. Another way of achieving the same thing would be to say that you can use oversized clubs without the -2 cumulative penalty (which doesn't make sense with sticks)
Nothing stops you from taking a large sized club and casting shillelag on it. Of course you take the -2 for wrong-sized weapons.
The argument is not weak. The spell specifically calls out two existing weapons, a club and a quarterstaff. It does not call out "club-like weapons and staff-like weapons" or anything that can be interpreted that way.
So stop trying to rules-weasel your way into casting the spell on a weapon it was not meant for. In the end it's your GMs call anyway. Just talk to him if you want it and think it should work. (unless it's PFS but then I doubt you'll have much success)
|
|
I am the GM, actually, and I would allow it. I would rather change a rule that doesn't make sense rather than rigidly stick to the book. That's how rules evolve, after all.
Furthermore, I don't think that a two handed club that does 1d8 damage unbalances anything, which is the other side of the coin to rules making sense.
Richard
If a word is a game term, it should be assumed any usage where it could be that term, it is. Any "club" noun can be assumed to refer to the specific weapon entry, unless in a section on music and taverns, since club has a specific in-game meaning. Likewise "attack" refers to something involving an attack roll unless otherwise mentioned; sanctuary doesn't shield you from offensive language no matter how attacked you feel.
If a word is not a game term, such as "submarine" we are to refer to a common dictionary. Sword is not a defined game term, so the common meaning of the word holds.
I could perhaps see me ruling that a greatclub (being large) could be affected as a large club would, thus dealing 3d6.
But never would I accept it dealing the two steps larger from 1d10 thus becoming 3d8.
But that would be a HR. And as this is the rules question forum the simple answer is: no.
Furthermore, I don't think that a two handed club that does 1d8 damage unbalances anything, which is the other side of the coin to rules making sense.
Why 1d8?
The normal greatclub for medium sized already does 1d10.Did you mean 3d8 for the shillelag enhanced greatclub or are we talking about a weapon for a small pc?
|
|
I think a 1d10 two-handed bludgeoning weapon is martial, whereas 1d8 would be the simple version.
I found another example, BTW.
Pole arm master - steadfast pike refers to a "spear".
"Spear" appears as an individual weapon just like "club" does.
Therefore, if we follow (whichever) logic that a greatclub is not a club, then a longspear cannot be a spear.
(And it's not a polearm)
So we can't use steadfast pike with a longspear !!
You might, however, use the argument that spear is defined by the term "spears" in the figther weapon categories definitions, which would then mean we can use steadfast pike with a trident.
Richard
A 1d8 weapon would turn into a 3d6 with shillelagh and a 1d10 would even turn into a 3d8.
Remember it also gives a +1 enhancement bonus.
I think there's a reason the two weapons it allows for both have 1d6 damage and turn into 2d6.
The club is a 1-hd weapon so you can two-hand wield it, and the quarterstaff just as well, for the higher str and PA bonus.
Essentially it allows you to turn a stick into a +1 greatsword for the cost of a level 1 spell.
Or if you have TWF it allows you to TWF with two +1 greatswords treating one of them as a light weapon.
All that would be accomplished by allowing a greatclub to be used is increase the base damage. Everything else you can do with it you can already do.
So, question is, do you really want to make that spell even more powerful?
|
|
A large-sized club (1d8 damage), wielded two-handed, with shillelagh, does 3d6 damage.
So actually all we're really arguing about is the -2 oversized weapon penalty.
I, as GM, am quite happy to wave this for the sake of logic, and because I don't think it overpowers the spell. You either do 2d6 + shield, 3d6, or 2d6/2d6 (-2 to hit) with TWF.
Richard
Interesting note on the polearm fighter. I agree that raw a longspear can't be used.
Yeah, you can make a 3d6 weapon and take a -2 to hit with it. I dont think house ruling away the penalty will break anything, but remember how additional size increases from enlarge person and so on might work. A hill giant druid casting shillelagh and downing a potion of enlarge person on a one size too large club is going to be one mean frakker.