Spear Dancing Spiral
You wield spears with poise and grace.
Prerequisite(s): Dex 15, Spear Dancing Style, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon.
Benefit(s): While using Spear Dancing Style, you gain the benefit of Weapon Finesse with the chosen weapon if it is appropriately sized for a creature of your size category. In addition, you can use any feat or ability that functions with a quarterstaff with your chosen weapon.
Shillelagh
Your own non-magical 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.
The crux of the argument is whether spells count as "feats or abilities", neglecting the issue of requiring an oak club or quarterstaff.
My conclusion is that, no, it would not be possible because spells and abilities are separate as evidenced by the numerous times a rule specifies "spell or ability" rather than just "ability". Someone has pointed out that I might be incorrect.
There is a FAQ that quantifies spells and spellcasting as special abilities, here.
So I'd say it would work.
I don't think it would work myself, but it wouldn't be a huge difference either way.
There is a FAQ that quantifies spells and spellcasting as special abilities, here.
So I'd say it would work.
That FAQ is problematic as an answer because:
1. It defines "special abilities" within the context of the question to aid discussion, not necessarily to define them in rule terms.
2. "Special Abilities" are already defined within the rules, and there is a list of them that does not include "spells", and a note that says "many of which function like spells".
3. "Special Abilities" might be distinct from just "Abilities"
I don't think it works. While YOU might be able to use your spear like a quarterstaff, the SPELL has no idea. Especially if it (the spell) comes from a scroll or an oil.
EDIT: missing verb
I don't remember special abilities having an entry or some other definition, so a citation would be helpful.
That being said, ruling that the spell wouldn't work doesn't make much sense when a Shillelagh spell-like ability would. I fail to see how an SLA would apply in this case when a spell wouldn't, so the idea that an ability that's called out as an ability works, but a spell doesn't, just seems silly to me.
I don't remember special abilities having an entry or some other definition, so a citation would be helpful.
That being said, ruling that the spell wouldn't work doesn't make much sense when a Shillelagh spell-like ability would. I fail to see how an SLA would apply in this case when a spell wouldn't, so the idea that an ability that's called out as an ability works, but a spell doesn't, just seems silly to me.
I'm referring to: Link
And at the bottom of: Link
I don't remember special abilities having an entry or some other definition, so a citation would be helpful.
That being said, ruling that the spell wouldn't work doesn't make much sense when a Shillelagh spell-like ability would. I fail to see how an SLA would apply in this case when a spell wouldn't, so the idea that an ability that's called out as an ability works, but a spell doesn't, just seems silly to me.
I'm referring to: Link
And at the bottom of: Link
"Special Abilities
The following special abilities include rules commonly used by a number of creatures, spells, and traps." Note spell is mentioned under included part.
Even though you can use the spear/polearm as a staff, the feat doesn't make the spear/polearm into a staff. The spell only targets staves.
See examples below:
- If you had an ability to use a staff as if it was one size larger I think Spiral would allow it to work.
- If you had a spell that targeted the caster that allowed the caster to use staves as if they were one size larger then I think Spiral would allow it to work.
- However if the spell targets a staff, like shillelagh, I don't think Spiral would allow it to work.
I don't remember special abilities having an entry or some other definition, so a citation would be helpful.
That being said, ruling that the spell wouldn't work doesn't make much sense when a Shillelagh spell-like ability would. I fail to see how an SLA would apply in this case when a spell wouldn't, so the idea that an ability that's called out as an ability works, but a spell doesn't, just seems silly to me.
I'm referring to: Link
And at the bottom of: Link
"Special Abilities
The following special abilities include rules commonly used by a number of creatures, spells, and traps." Note spell is mentioned under included part.
This supports the notion that spells *aren't* considered "special abilities" but rather can confer or utilize special ability rules. Unless you're saying creatures and traps are considered special abilities.
This supports the notion that spells *aren't* considered "special abilities" but rather can confer or utilize special ability rules. Unless you're saying creatures and traps are considered special abilities.I don't remember special abilities having an entry or some other definition, so a citation would be helpful.
That being said, ruling that the spell wouldn't work doesn't make much sense when a Shillelagh spell-like ability would. I fail to see how an SLA would apply in this case when a spell wouldn't, so the idea that an ability that's called out as an ability works, but a spell doesn't, just seems silly to me.
I'm referring to: Link
And at the bottom of: Link
"Special Abilities
The following special abilities include rules commonly used by a number of creatures, spells, and traps." Note spell is mentioned under included part.
What it supports is that you can't discount it because it's a spell. A spell might give one so it's down to it being 'special'. So would you count Shillelagh as a normal ability or a special one. I know which one I go with.
What it supports is that you can't discount it because it's a spell. A spell might give one so it's down to it being 'special'. So would you count Shillelagh as a normal ability or a special one. I know which one I go with.
Or the third option, which is neither. A spell is a spell and not any kind of ability. Which is a real possibility given the frequency with which the rules say "... spell or ability".
What it supports is that you can't discount it because it's a spell. A spell might give one so it's down to it being 'special'. So would you count Shillelagh as a normal ability or a special one. I know which one I go with.Or the third option, which is neither. A spell is a spell and not any kind of ability. Which is a real possibility given the frequency with which the rules say "... spell or ability".
Special Abilities comes out and says spells can give special abilities so #3 isn't a possibility: it doesn't matter if a spell is or isn't a special ability itself because it's a fact that spells can produce special abilities. Meaning that it's being a spell is moot to the debate.
Special Abilities comes out and says spells can give special abilities so #3 isn't a possibility: it doesn't matter if a spell is or isn't a special ability itself because it's a fact that spells can produce special abilities. Meaning that it's being a spell is moot to the debate.What it supports is that you can't discount it because it's a spell. A spell might give one so it's down to it being 'special'. So would you count Shillelagh as a normal ability or a special one. I know which one I go with.Or the third option, which is neither. A spell is a spell and not any kind of ability. Which is a real possibility given the frequency with which the rules say "... spell or ability".
It says spells can grant special abilities, not that all spells do. The listed special abilities (which, let's be clear, refer primarily to buffs and debuffs a creature can acquire) do not include anything resembling the effects of Shillelagh. Are you saying a spell has to produce either an ability or a special ability?
It says spells can grant special abilities, not that all spells do. The listed special abilities (which, let's be clear, refer primarily to buffs and debuffs a creature can acquire) do not include anything resembling the effects of Shillelagh. Are you saying a spell has to produce either an ability or a special ability?Special Abilities comes out and says spells can give special abilities so #3 isn't a possibility: it doesn't matter if a spell is or isn't a special ability itself because it's a fact that spells can produce special abilities. Meaning that it's being a spell is moot to the debate.What it supports is that you can't discount it because it's a spell. A spell might give one so it's down to it being 'special'. So would you count Shillelagh as a normal ability or a special one. I know which one I go with.Or the third option, which is neither. A spell is a spell and not any kind of ability. Which is a real possibility given the frequency with which the rules say "... spell or ability".
I'm saying that it's being a spell is meaningless: full stop. So everything you said about spells is moot; it doesn't matter in the debate at all.
So what we have to do is look at what the ability does. Is it a normal ability or a special one? THAT is all we have to work with. Talk about spells is a distraction.
If we want to talk about similar abilities then talk about that. Sacred weapon, an ability that grants enhancement bonuses and damage dice boosts, is SU [a special ability]. How is Shillelagh substantially different from sacred weapon in effect?
What it supports is that you can't discount it because it's a spell. A spell might give one so it's down to it being 'special'. So would you count Shillelagh as a normal ability or a special one. I know which one I go with.Or the third option, which is neither. A spell is a spell and not any kind of ability. Which is a real possibility given the frequency with which the rules say "... spell or ability".
That argument makes no sense because it creates the identity that an SLA of Shillelagh works, but a spell of Shillelagh doesn't. SLAs are very similar to how spells function (hence why they're called SPELL-like), so arguing that an SLA would work but a spell wouldn't just because of the source of the effect makes no sense in this case, because the differences between a spell and an SLA are irrelevant here, and SLAs function as Spells except when noted, which makes Spells the general rule that SLAs follow.
However, Bladelock actually gives a solid counterargument, which is that Shillelagh has specific targets (oak clubs and quarterstaves), and the chosen weapon doesn't fall under either, even in the event of the feat taking place, unless you're the one casting the spell. Even if that is the case, the idea that it has to target a wooden weapon (and not a metal weapon) means that Shillelagh wouldn't work, nevermind it being made of Oak and not some other special material (such as Whipwood or Wyrroot), which is technically impossible by the rules since "wood" is really the only material we're allowed to have in relation to this stuff that is consistent within the rules.
It says spells can grant special abilities, not that all spells do. The listed special abilities (which, let's be clear, refer primarily to buffs and debuffs a creature can acquire) do not include anything resembling the effects of Shillelagh. Are you saying a spell has to produce either an ability or a special ability?Special Abilities comes out and says spells can give special abilities so #3 isn't a possibility: it doesn't matter if a spell is or isn't a special ability itself because it's a fact that spells can produce special abilities. Meaning that it's being a spell is moot to the debate.What it supports is that you can't discount it because it's a spell. A spell might give one so it's down to it being 'special'. So would you count Shillelagh as a normal ability or a special one. I know which one I go with.Or the third option, which is neither. A spell is a spell and not any kind of ability. Which is a real possibility given the frequency with which the rules say "... spell or ability".I'm saying that it's being a spell is meaningless: full stop. So everything you said about spells is moot; it doesn't matter in the debate at all.
*So what we have to do is look at what the ability does.* Is it a normal ability or a special one? THAT is all we have to work with. Talk about spells is a distraction.
If we want to talk about similar abilities then talk about that. Sacred weapon, an ability that grants enhancement bonuses and damage dice boosts, is SU [a special ability]. How is Shillelagh substantially different from sacred weapon in effect?
See, the problems I have are:
1. You jump to the conclusion that effect of shillelagh is an ability. Everywhere else, abilities are described as modifications possessed by a creature. Class abilities are something a character possesses, special abilities are things possessed by a creature naturally or granted by some buff or debuff. What are you referencing that makes you believe a spell like Shillelagh (or its effects, which I'm still confused why you separate), which magically alters an object, can be considered an ability?
2. I don't know if it's clear that "special abilities" and "abilities" are distinct or not. The "feats or abilities" line might include both and the question of whether it is special or not would be moot.
3. Your point about its similarity with Sacred Weapon makes plain the need to figure out exactly what abilities are, and whether the spell Shillelagh actually counts as one, because class features like Sacred Weapon are routinely descibed as abilities but Spells (or the effect of spells) only ever are when it confers some effect to a person, and even then, only as special abilities.
Also, to address Darksol, spell-like abilities are very clearly not normal spells. They're described as capabilities of a creature that are similar to spells, but are innate or otherwise tied to the character rather than a spell slot. I don't really have a problem with a person having the inborn ability to magically make sticks act like bigger sticks (as approximated by the Shillelagh spell) deciding through their training that this other type of stick counts for their ability. I do have a concern that a spell granted by the ineffable will of Nature should be able to discern whether your stick counts depending on how the person holding it has trained with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you ever cast the Shillelagh on the spear when it isn’t a valid target for the spell?
Range touch
Target one touched nonmagical oak club or quarterstaff
My understanding is that the style feat allows you to use abilities as if the weapon were a different one, it does not change those abilities nor does it change the weapon.
WatersLethe:
#1 No, I don't. AS I SAID, you can't assume a spell ISN'T an ability because the section on special abilities allows for spells to grant them. I infer it is because a very similar ability IS.
#2 There are SPECIAL abilities and normal abilities. Usually if something does anything remotely interesting, it's special. A normal ability is 'pick up rock'.
#3 You sound note that spells are sometimes listed under special abilities. Look up a Faerie Dragon once.
"Spells
A faerie dragon casts spells as a 3rd-level sorcerer."
Assuming you're not PFS is there a reason you can't just change the rules as you see fit? I mean in the rules there isn't a feat that gives medium range quasi-telepathy but my character still has it.
Assuming you're not PFS is there a reason you can't just change the rules as you see fit? I mean in the rules there isn't a feat that gives medium range quasi-telepathy but my character still has it.
PFS isn't the only place DM's change. It'd be nice to have a default position to know if you even have to talk to the DM about a houserule. At this point it's a issue for EVERYONE and they have to make a ruling on it.
When I submit a character online for a game, I'd like to know if it should work beforehand without having to get it pre-approved before I even start.
Rule 0 is rarely a good answer unless you only ever see a single DM in your life.
How do you ever cast the Shillelagh on the spear when it isn’t a valid target for the spell?
Range touch
Target one touched nonmagical oak club or quarterstaffMy understanding is that the style feat allows you to use abilities as if the weapon were a different one, it does not change those abilities nor does it change the weapon.
It's the same reasoning behind why someone can take Finesse Training with an atypical weapon like a Glaive, for one example. Because a feat circumvents the typical restrictions placed.
The feat treats the weapon wielded as a quarterstaff for other feats and abilities that key off of quarterstaves. So if I could cast Shillelagh, my spear, which is a quarterstaff for such purposes, works.
That being said, the factor that it only works on non-magical weaponry, or weapons made of oak (which isn't a valid material on any piece of equipment) is another hurdle entirely, and is something that probably won't see play by 4th level, so this is a frivolous thing to argue about anyway.
Yeah, the fact that the weapon being magical means that the spell no longer works will keep people from using this for very long.
I still don't think it's a valid target though, even with Spear Dancing Spiral. You the character treat it as a quaterstaff, but the spell doesn't.
WatersLethe:
#1 No, I don't. AS I SAID, you can't assume a spell ISN'T an ability because the section on special abilities allows for spells to grant them. I infer it is because a very similar ability IS.
#2 There are SPECIAL abilities and normal abilities. Usually if something does anything remotely interesting, it's special. A normal ability is 'pick up rock'.
#3 You sound note that spells are sometimes listed under special abilities. Look up a Faerie Dragon once.
"Spells
A faerie dragon casts spells as a 3rd-level sorcerer."
I think I'm stuck on what abilities are and what can or cannot possess abilities. Can you help me sort this out?
Here's my point of view (From my understanding):
Abilities include anything a creature can do innately or through training, or any quality a creature can possess. There is a list of "Special Abilities" which (I have come to think) falls under the more general "Abilities" label. Examples of abilities include: class features, casting a spell (or casting spells as a sorcerer of X level), picking up a rock, movement speeds, damage reduction, spell-like abilities etc.
Inanimate, ordinary objects cannot possess abilities. Traps, magically animated objects, and other things that can take actions can possess abilities.
Spells themselves are not abilities, rather they are an action that has a specified result called an effect. To be clear, the act of casting a spell uses your spellcasting ability, but the spell itself is not an ability you possess. An analogy would be pulling the trigger on a gun (casting) to shoot a bullet (the spell).
Warpriest's Sacred Weapon is a class feature, an ability, a supernatural ability, and a special ability all at once. That ability allows them to change the damage dice of a certain weapon they wield by charging it with the power of their faith.
Shillelagh is a Spell with the effect of increasing the damage dice of the target of the spell. Its effect does not say it grants you the ability to do so (nor are you the target), and therefore does not interact with the Spear Dancing Spiral's "feats or abilities" line.
Things I believe would be required for it to work would include:
-The effect of the spell being placed on the caster rather than the weapon thus granting an ability
-The spell describing the effect as per a "Magic Weapon Special Ability" like Impact
-Changing the feat to say "feats, spells or abilities".
As an aside, I really appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. I really want to be able to take a firm stance on this, particularly because if spells can in the end be considered abilities I want to make a paladin with the shield gauntlet style feats to use spells that require a shield for flavor reasons.
Also, I agree completely that making houserules isn't always the best choice when you come upon a rules clarity issue.
Why stop with this?
A lance is a spear. Spear Dancing style works on lances. Take your shillelagh-enhanced twirling lance and mount up for a massive damage to sense ratio.
Abilities include anything a creature can do innately or through training, or any quality a creature can possess.
that literally covers everything a character can do.
There is a list of "Special Abilities" which (I have come to think) falls under the more general "Abilities" label. Examples of abilities include: class features, casting a spell (or casting spells as a sorcerer of X level), picking up a rock, movement speeds, damage reduction, spell-like abilities etc.
This literally covers just about everything. From the abilities, this is "not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training." So pretty much anything that a creature without a class or feat can't do.
Spells themselves are not abilities, rather they are an action that has a specified result called an effect.
Spells can't be anything other than a special abilities: it takes "extensive training" to use them and they are "not something that just anyone can do". It's either normal or special: which one do you think spells fall under?
To be clear, the act of casting a spell uses your spellcasting ability, but the spell itself is not an ability you possess. An analogy would be pulling the trigger on a gun (casting) to shoot a bullet (the spell).
If we follow this logic, then the ability to use a SLA would be the ability and not the effect it casts, meaning the chart is useless.
Warpriest's Sacred Weapon is a class feature, an ability, a supernatural ability, and a special ability all at once. That ability allows them to change the damage dice of a certain weapon they wield by charging it with the power of their faith.
What about a divine spell differs from what you just said? Not the effect/end result. Remember, you just said we should check the 'bullet' and not the gun.
Shillelagh is a Spell with the effect of increasing the damage dice of the target of the spell. Its effect does not say it grants you the ability to do so (nor are you the target), and therefore does not interact with the Spear Dancing Spiral's "feats or abilities" line.
Note the weapon is tied to YOU and only works for you. It's a personal spell masquerading as a targeted spell. It's not as clear a you make it out to be.
So the spell includes the caster. Magic Weapon Special Ability is meaningless: it's exchangeable for enhancement bonuses and those are granted. As pointed out, spells can grant a "feat or ability" so the addition is meaningless as it's already included: it would make it clearer though.
PS: You're welcome! I'm always happy to have a spirited debate and I'm glad you're getting something out of it.
What about a divine spell differs from what you just said? Not the effect/end result. Remember, you just said we should check the 'bullet' and not the gun.
Sacred Weapon is not a spell, though. It's a supernatural ability. He's not using his Sacred Weapon ability to "cast" Sacred Weapon. He's using his Sacred Weapon supernatural ability directly and instantly to fill his weapon with the power of his faith. If it were a spell there would be a heap of issues to contend with, such as casting time, provoking etc.
If we follow this logic, then the ability to use a SLA would be the ability and not the effect it casts, meaning the chart is useless.
I'm not actually sure what you're saying here. I only ever referenced the special abilities list to show another poster that "special abilities" are already defined in the rules.
A spell-like ability is *not* a spell. They are magical abilities that are very much like spells (as per their description). They co-opt spell blocks to describe what they do, but are meant to represent an ability that is distinct from normal spell-casting.
And I will definitely agree that effect of Shillelagh references the caster and isn't completely cut and dry, but I would argue that's just part of the effect. It doesn't say it grants you the ability to empower your weapon as per the Sacred Weapon language, so I argue it's not an ability. If the target *was* "you" I would be MUCH more willing to interpret it as an ability covered by the feat.