greatclub + shillelagh + enlarge person = how many dice?


Rules Questions

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever a spell, feat, or class ability refers to specific weapon entries like [longsword], [bastard sword], [falcion], etc. These are specific, defined weapon entries that can be found on the weapon tables. They could also refer to groups of weapons, in which case they use rules defined terminology.

* Size Category: Small, Medium, Large, etc
* Proficiency: Simple, Martial, Exotic
* Range: Melee, Ranged
* Damage type: Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing
* Handedness(?): Light, One Handed, Two Handed
* Fighter Weapon Groups: Heavy Blades, etc
* Racial Weapons: Orc, Dwarven, etc
etc

Vorpal cites Slashing, Weapon Finesse cites Light, Racial Weapon Proficiencies cite "weapons with (race) in the name". These are the types of terminologies used when more than [specific weapon] is used in the verbiage. "Club" is not a group of weapons just like "sword" is not a group of weapons, it is a descriptor for weapons. There just happens to also be a [Club] weapon that shares the exact wordage. Per RAW and RAI, thanks to John Compton, greatclub is not a valid target. If you want to claim that the spell is using "club" instead of [club] then you need to cite other examples where spells, feats, etc use "descriptor" for a group of weapons and not [specific weapon] or a defined weapon group as above.

Having said all of that, a GM can decide that greatclubs are valid targets for the spell but that falls under homebrew or houserule.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Good job Texas Snyper


considering its an old DnD spell (1st edition) and not one Pathfinder Society team created, im not sure they can speak any more on RAI as any of us. And back then there was no such thing as fighter weapon groups, or even really hard rules for most things. I would not be suprised at all if it was supposed to be used on any oak vaguely club like object, especially since the original wording in 1st edition says club for the area of effect and cudgel in the description.

That said, in Pathfinder we apparently have an unofficial ruling.


Pathfinder can tell you the intended rules for Pathfinder. While it is backwards compatible with 3.5 D&D, it is not backwards compatible with 1st Edition D&D.


agreed. as i said we have an unofficial ruling for Pathfinder. This however is not necessarily the original intended ruling of the spell, just how a Pathfinder dev believes it should work in Pathfinder


Baval wrote:
agreed. as i said we have an unofficial ruling for Pathfinder. This however is not necessarily the original intended ruling of the spell, just how a Pathfinder dev believes it should work in Pathfinder

How it does work not should. Different rules for different game systems. Just because the spell originates from there doesn't mean it has to remain unchanged. Clerics are from 1st edition, does that mean they're not actually allowed their spontaneous castings? It's just a suggested change?


Texas Snyper wrote:

If you want to claim that the spell is using "club" instead of [club] then you need to cite other examples where spells, feats, etc use "descriptor" for a group of weapons and not [specific weapon] or a defined weapon group as above.

While I don't think Great Club was intended as a target for the spell, I did find an example of using a description rather than a specific defined group.

Tengu, Swordtrained wrote:
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).

The description is "sword-like weapons," and while there is an extensive list of examples, it doesn't read to me as an exclusive list. Other "sword-like weapons" would qualify as well.


"Sword-like" not swords.

"Clubs" not club-like.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Lemartes wrote:

"Sword-like" not swords.

"Clubs" not club-like.

+1


James Risner wrote:

The spell doesn't need an update.

Club and quarterstaff are made of wood.
Pathfinder provides no guidance for what wood you use to make clubs, so oak is valid.
At worse the spell requires oak clubs, not cedar clubs.
The entire game system is designed such that club and greatclub are different weapons like long sword and great sword are.
John Compton the Pathfinder Society Lead Developer responded in this thread that the spell was designed with a damage cap so using it with a great club is beyond the design of the spell.

There is no problem here. Nothing needs fixed.

Right the rules don't say you can, so you can't, the whole Pathfinder is exclusive argument. So you have to use a house rule right out of the gate.


Texas Snyper wrote:
Baval wrote:
agreed. as i said we have an unofficial ruling for Pathfinder. This however is not necessarily the original intended ruling of the spell, just how a Pathfinder dev believes it should work in Pathfinder
How it does work not should. Different rules for different game systems. Just because the spell originates from there doesn't mean it has to remain unchanged. Clerics are from 1st edition, does that mean they're not actually allowed their spontaneous castings? It's just a suggested change?

No, how it should. This is not an official ruling. There is no FAQ. The Dev in question did not even make a concrete statement, and even said what he would rule if a player wanted to make it work.

His only concrete statement was his opinion that allowing it to work on a greatclub is more powerful than a first level spell should be.

If you want to extrapolate things I did not say from my comment feel free. I simply said no one in this forum can possibly say what the actual intended target of Shillelagh is. The RAI was decided a long time ago, even if you go by just the 3.0 version of the spell the Pathfinder version copies (which also did not have fighter weapon groups).

Why is it so hard for people to understand that sometimes when things are copied verbatim on obscure spells nobody uses, the intent doesnt get carried across correctly. Especially if rules change and wording doesnt.


Nevan Oaks wrote:
James Risner wrote:

The spell doesn't need an update.

Club and quarterstaff are made of wood.
Pathfinder provides no guidance for what wood you use to make clubs, so oak is valid.
At worse the spell requires oak clubs, not cedar clubs.
The entire game system is designed such that club and greatclub are different weapons like long sword and great sword are.
John Compton the Pathfinder Society Lead Developer responded in this thread that the spell was designed with a damage cap so using it with a great club is beyond the design of the spell.

There is no problem here. Nothing needs fixed.

Right the rules don't say you can, so you can't, the whole Pathfinder is exclusive argument. So you have to use a house rule right out of the gate.

How is that so different from "a great club is not a club because it doesnt say club, it says great club"

literally "a club is not an oak club because it doesnt say oak club, it says club" is the same argument. The only difference is the level of "common sense" you want to apply to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
No, how it should. This is not an official ruling.

There's not an official ruling... Unless you, y'know, look at the Core Rulebook and actually accept that it means exactly what it freaking says. It works on clubs and quarterstaves - specifically THOSE TWO WEAPONS - as long as they're made of oak. That's it.

You can argue RAI all day, but RAW it works on regular clubs - you know, the ones listed in the weapon entry as "club," simple weapon, 1d6 bludgeoning x2 melee with a range of 10 feet if thrown - and makes absolutely zero mention of greatclubs.

What 3.5 did doesn't matter. What 2E did doesn't matter. What Gary Gygax, holy be his name, said or did doesn't matter. We're not playing D&D. We're playing Pathfinder, and in Pathfinder you get to cast the spell on two very specific kinds of sticks.

Houserule it if you want to play with a bigger stick. Or, y'know, just grab a Large Club - and no, that's NOT the same as a Medium Greatclub.


Nevan Oaks wrote:
James Risner wrote:

The spell doesn't need an update.

Club and quarterstaff are made of wood.
Pathfinder provides no guidance for what wood you use to make clubs, so oak is valid.
At worse the spell requires oak clubs, not cedar clubs.
The entire game system is designed such that club and greatclub are different weapons like long sword and great sword are.
John Compton the Pathfinder Society Lead Developer responded in this thread that the spell was designed with a damage cap so using it with a great club is beyond the design of the spell.

There is no problem here. Nothing needs fixed.

Right the rules don't say you can, so you can't, the whole Pathfinder is exclusive argument. So you have to use a house rule right out of the gate.

You're right, guess we have to house rule for it to be made out of any material that isn't special material since the basic material types aren't covered at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:


His only concrete statement was his opinion that allowing it to work on a greatclub is more powerful than a first level spell should be.

going by that logic leaded blades would be to powerful for a 1st level spell if used on a greatsword......


Texas Snyper wrote:
Nevan Oaks wrote:
James Risner wrote:

The spell doesn't need an update.

Club and quarterstaff are made of wood.
Pathfinder provides no guidance for what wood you use to make clubs, so oak is valid.
At worse the spell requires oak clubs, not cedar clubs.
The entire game system is designed such that club and greatclub are different weapons like long sword and great sword are.
John Compton the Pathfinder Society Lead Developer responded in this thread that the spell was designed with a damage cap so using it with a great club is beyond the design of the spell.

There is no problem here. Nothing needs fixed.

Right the rules don't say you can, so you can't, the whole Pathfinder is exclusive argument. So you have to use a house rule right out of the gate.
You're right, guess we have to house rule for it to be made out of any material that isn't special material since the basic material types aren't covered at all.

pretty sure both wood, iron, and all common weapon categories are covered right here:

Common materials


Inlaa wrote:
Quote:
No, how it should. This is not an official ruling.

There's not an official ruling... Unless you, y'know, look at the Core Rulebook and actually accept that it means exactly what it freaking says. It works on clubs and quarterstaves - specifically THOSE TWO WEAPONS - as long as they're made of oak. That's it.

You can argue RAI all day, but RAW it works on regular clubs - you know, the ones listed in the weapon entry as "club," simple weapon, 1d6 bludgeoning x2 melee with a range of 10 feet if thrown - and makes absolutely zero mention of greatclubs.

What 3.5 did doesn't matter. What 2E did doesn't matter. What Gary Gygax, holy be his name, said or did doesn't matter. We're not playing D&D. We're playing Pathfinder, and in Pathfinder you get to cast the spell on two very specific kinds of sticks.

Houserule it if you want to play with a bigger stick. Or, y'know, just grab a Large Club - and no, that's NOT the same as a Medium Greatclub.

right. only it says it works on oak clubs, not "regular" clubs as you put it. Oak being a special material that isnt defined.

Dont know why youre still trying to argue this point honestly. Already said we had an unofficial ruling for how it should work in Pathfinder. That may or may not be the actual RAI for the spell, but its how it has been unnoficially ruled to work.

If I worked for Paizo for a day and made a spell that turned water into cheese and someone official later came along and made an official statement that it was actually only intended to turn water into swiss cheese, it wouldnt matter what I intended it to work on, thats how the spell works now.


Lady-J wrote:
Baval wrote:


His only concrete statement was his opinion that allowing it to work on a greatclub is more powerful than a first level spell should be.
going by that logic leaded blades would be to powerful for a 1st level spell if used on a greatsword......

and this is why, while I love Pathfinder, I ignore its FAQs. Too often we get knee jerk rulings that are meant to limit potential exploits without much consideration. Makes the game less fun when its bogged down with two many corner case rulings that make little logical sense except to try and preserve game balance in an inherently imbalanced game.


That's the thing. It's NOT unofficial - the spell is quite plain about its definition. Off the PRD:

Quote:
Your own nonmagical club or quarterstaff becomes a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.

It also specifies in the valid targets "one touched nonmagical oak club or quarterstaff."

That's specific. There's one club in Pathfinder - the club. The greatclub may be similar to that club, but it's not a club as far as the weapon table and the rules go, just as a spell that specifically targets a longsword can't affect a greatsword, or an effect that targets daggers very specifically doesn't affect punching daggers (katars). Greatclub, for rules definitions, =/= club.

Now, for FLUFF purposes, yes, it's just a big darned club. But it's not a club in the rules. It's a greatclub. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, if I were running a home game and someone wanted to target a greatclub or a non-oaken version of those weapons, I'd say "Sure." I mean, it seems fair to me. But that's a house rule. I'd do that KNOWING I was house ruling it.


Baval wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Baval wrote:


His only concrete statement was his opinion that allowing it to work on a greatclub is more powerful than a first level spell should be.
going by that logic leaded blades would be to powerful for a 1st level spell if used on a greatsword......
and this is why, while I love Pathfinder, I ignore its FAQs. Too often we get knee jerk rulings that are meant to limit potential exploits without much consideration. Makes the game less fun when its bogged down with two many corner case rulings that make little logical sense except to try and preserve game balance in an inherently imbalanced game.

i completly agree considering you can potensially do 36d6+330 damage with a fighter useing a syth at high enough level each round i see little problem with having a great club do a measly 3d8 per attack with the help of this spell

Grand Lodge

Lady-J wrote:
i completly agree considering you can potensially do 36d6+330 damage with a fighter useing a syth at high enough level each round i see little problem with having a great club do a measly 3d8 per attack with the help of this spell

Ummmmm.....You wanna give me that build? Cuz I have a scythe fighter who would love some more damage.


Probably one of those level 19-20 two-handed fighter archetypes that can auto-crit...


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
i completly agree considering you can potensially do 36d6+330 damage with a fighter useing a syth at high enough level each round i see little problem with having a great club do a measly 3d8 per attack with the help of this spell
Ummmmm.....You wanna give me that build? Cuz I have a scythe fighter who would love some more damage.

two handed fighter archetype level 20 with mythic improved critical nets you garanteed crit every round for x6 damage and with a syth that is efectively colossal for damage purposes it nets you 6d6 damage which on a crit is multiplyed by 6 you can do this on non mythic character and at lower level it will just be slightly less damage and no auto criting everything however the static number i gave is on the low side to what the build can achieve depending on what your entire build is you can get it into the 600s before the die rolls just needs some more magic items and some more str


We're not talking and a 20th level mythic character can do though. We're talking about a spell Druids and Hunters can cast at level one.. The level you cast the weakest kinds of spells at.

The spell is specific in what it says. Some people won't accept that, and we can stop trying to convince them. They simply play some things wrongly when it comes to certain rules. I for one thought Mindless creatures didn't get AoOs for example. I just listened to my group and re-read the rules and understood I'd been wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:

"Sword-like" not swords.

"Clubs" not club-like.

Let's look at at what Texas Snyper said again...

Quote:
cite other examples where spells, feats, etc use "descriptor" for a group of weapons and not [specific weapon] or a defined weapon group as above.

"sword-like" is a descriptor and not a [specific weapon] or defined weapon group.

He asked for an example I gave it to him.

I was, very specifically, not making any argument in support of great club = club. Simply that using a descriptor rather than a defined rules element has happened, at least that one time.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

@Samasboy1, I think Lemartes was agreeing with you.

Sword-like isn't them using "swords" or "longswords".
"clubs" is not "club-like".

So the use of club in the rule is referring to the weapon club and not club-like items.


James Risner wrote:

Sword-like isn't them using "swords" or "longswords".

"clubs" is not "club-like".

So the use of club in the rule is referring to the weapon club and not club-like items.

This is what I meant.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
going by that logic leaded blades would be to powerful for a 1st level spell if used on a greatsword......

What character level is typically needed to cast leaded blades vs. shillelagh?


Lemartes wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Sword-like isn't them using "swords" or "longswords".

"clubs" is not "club-like".

So the use of club in the rule is referring to the weapon club and not club-like items.

This is what I meant.

Ah, sorry then. I misread you.


Quote:
What character level is typically needed to cast leaded blades vs. shillelagh?

Isnt Lead Blades ranger 1?

The difference in power here is:
Lead Blades - all melee weapons, one size increase.
Shillelagh - one club or quarterstaff, two size increases.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
What character level is typically needed to cast leaded blades vs. shillelagh?

Isnt Lead Blades ranger 1?

The difference in power here is:
Lead Blades - all melee weapons, one size increase.
Shillelagh - one club or quarterstaff, two size increases.

Yes, my point was lead blades requires character level 4, vs level 1 for shillelagh.


Samasboy1 wrote:
Lemartes wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Sword-like isn't them using "swords" or "longswords".

"clubs" is not "club-like".

So the use of club in the rule is referring to the weapon club and not club-like items.

This is what I meant.
Ah, sorry then. I misread you.

No worries. I thought I was disagreeing with you! lol

Well at least on part of it. I think I don't know what's really going anymore. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Yes, my point was lead blades requires character level 4, vs level 1 for shillelagh.

It's 1st level for hunters. 2nd for spellsage wizards.

The fact that rangers are weak spellcasters should make little difference in the spells's overall effectiveness.


Samasboy1 wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

"Sword-like" not swords.

"Clubs" not club-like.

Let's look at at what Texas Snyper said again...

Quote:
cite other examples where spells, feats, etc use "descriptor" for a group of weapons and not [specific weapon] or a defined weapon group as above.

"sword-like" is a descriptor and not a [specific weapon] or defined weapon group.

He asked for an example I gave it to him.

I was, very specifically, not making any argument in support of great club = club. Simply that using a descriptor rather than a defined rules element has happened, at least that one time.

I did ask for that and this is a good example. It also still further supports the same argument because, as you pointed out, it also gives examples to remove ambiguity. So while it did use the descriptor "sword-like" it then followed it up by defining what "sword-like" meant in this unique case.

Nice find by the way.

Scarab Sages

PFS or home game, I'd be inclined to rule the damage based on the size of your cudgel.

A great club with shillelagh cast on it, would do the same damage as a large club. Arguing about whether a great club should be considered a club or not is immaterial. The spell does not consider a weapon with a base damage different than a club or quarterstaff. So start the extrapolation there.

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / greatclub + shillelagh + enlarge person = how many dice? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.