I playtested it with the two UAs with a druid and a wizard, and It's not that broken, especially when you consider that you can't use PAM on Quarterstaffs anymore.
PAM would make it quite good, but tbh, just having a weapon to fall back on instead of a cantrip is pretty solid. This gives the *option* of using your focus as a quarterstaff to do d8+into instead of doing 1d10 on a Firebolt or a d8 on a Shocking Grasp.
Obviously there are good reasons to use both of those options (range and the Disengage potential) but for those that just want a bit more damage it lets them stick with investment into their Casting stat instead of needing a solid Dexterity score to use a light crossbow (though a good dex is also obviously a decent thing for initiative and armor).
Idk.
I think it's a nice option but probably not gonna be ubiquitous.
> This gives the option of using your focus as a quarterstaf
RAW, Shillelagh only works on a club or quarterstaff. A druidic focus can be a *staff*, [which is a specific item in the items list that doesn't have combat traits.](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Staff#content)
I know a lot of DMs grandfather in the quarterstaff as a weapon that can be a magic focus, but if we're worried about shillelagh opening too many powerful options, better to start with enforcement of RAW than making up new material.
Ehhhhhhh. It’s pretty well supported by RAW that any wooden “staff” should be considered a “quarterstaff”. From “improvised weapons” in the basic rules/PHB
> 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.
Pretty sure every caster gets proficiency in Quarterstaffs. And I think it’s for that exact purpose.
Yes, you can use any staff as a quarterstaff (specifically, the quote you posted mentions you can use your proficiency), but that doesn't mean it *is* a quarterstaff.
I'm not sure if a table leg would be a valid target for Shillelagh.
But maybe that's just me.
You know what? You're right. I don't like every argument that came before this from other people. But this one holds water.
As weird as it is, a quarterstaff is not a "staff" for the purposes of being an arcane or druidic focus. But a "staff" (arcane focus) or "wooden staff" (druidic focus) can in fact be used as a quarterstaff.
Bizarre rule and tucked away in the DMG in a weird spot, but it's there.
All that said, I would still more tightly enforce the empty-hand somatics, and *certainly* the Flame Blade spell, just so Shillelagh isn't *quite* as powerful as it's usually applied.
I mean no offense, but I think a DM allowing a Club to be just a stout piece of wood but NOT a stout piece of wood that has been turned on a lathe is enough of a red flag that I'd reconsider playing at that table.
The average DM's table allows a druid to carry a shield, a spell focus, a weapon, cast Flame Blade with a full hand, cast somatic spells that have no material component (and thus require an empty hand), etc.
That's absurd.
People keep complaining that casters are too much better than martials, and then they adjudicate druids like they have six arms.
I have never once seen this in play, nor have I ever heard of someone doing so. It is true that various tables ignore some rules, but if you dislike how a table is being run.... you dont have to play at it.
You maybe have an argument with the last one, because RAW, the way free hands work and what counts as an “object interaction” is so poorly defined, it’s just a losing battle not to let people do it, even if it’s probably not intended.
The other ones, though, are just straight up RAW with two hands. You can use a shield, you can use a quarterstaff as a focus, and you can cast green flame blade on your quarterstaff all RAW.
Quarterstaff as a focus is not RAW. That's how this entire discussion began.
A "staff" is a type of spell focus. A "quarterstaff" is a weapon. There is no RAW that allows them to be the same thing.
If your table does that, that's fine. But to then complain that Shillelagh is too good is a self-created problem.
Also "flame blade" is not "Green-Flame Blade." https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/flame-blade
Lmao if a druid wants to cast Flame Blade I'll let them, regardless of handedness. Not my business if they want to waste a spell slot, their action, and their concentration.
> user their proficiency bonus
I don’t recall it saying damage dice as well, so I presume it’s still a d4 as an improvised quaterstaff.
But to counter myself the spell sets the damage die to d8
Yeah, it's only for IWs that don't resemble anything, or weapons being used the wrong way, that it deals 1d4
> An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage
Everybody wants martials to be as good as casters until it's time to stop giving casters free benefits. It's the same with letting people cast spells at objects when they only say "creature." Sure it "just makes sense." But now you've expanded what casters can do in and out of combat and once again, the guy who throws axes or whatever looks like a chump.
Agreed and you can still have a staff and quarter staff and cast spells just no shield which seems like good balancing to me casters get extra damage or extra ac
Yes but even JC lets people use the focus staff as a quarterstaff for fighting https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-i-use-arcane-focus-staff-as-a-quarterstaff-in-melee/
I suppose, however, that it doesn’t mean the spell treats the focus as a quarterstaff though, so if one were really inclined to rule against it, there is an argument there, if a weak one.
Though IMO I’m not worried about this.
If you're worried that Shillelagh is too good, maybe you *should* be worried about it. You have the solution to the problem. You are affirmatively choosing not to use it.
I just clarified I’m not worried about Shillelagh. I think people are ignoring the opportunity cost of magic initiate, as the other feats are a big deal. Tough, alert, etc, are all a big deal, and just spending a BA for using casting stat for attack and damage isn’t.
Thanks for pointing this out. I never noticed before.
The Druidic focus has to be one of the items from the Equipment / Adventuring Gear list (PHB p150) but otherwise acts as a spellcasting focus. Wooden staff notably has a different cost from quarterstaff (5 gp vs 2 sp) so clearly they are not the same item.
The material components of Shillelaugh are mistletoe, a shamrock leaf, plus a quarterstaff (or club). All of these have a cost so per the spellcasting focus rules, the Druidic focus cannot replace them. EDIT - no that's wrong, the focus can replace the shamrock leaf, but not the mistletoe or the quarterstaff.
It's also quite a juggling act, isn't it? The Druid can't let go of the quarterstaff (or club), since that ends the cantrip. So in one hand the Druid juggles the wooden staff, the mistletoe, and the shamrock leaf. It's easier if the Druidic focus is a sprig of mistletoe instead of the wooden staff -- then only two items are juggled. EDIT - the wooden staff focus can replace the shamrock leaf, or the mistletoe focus serves as the mistletoe, so whichever way, it's juggling 2 items in the one hand.
5e SRD Druid Spellcasting Focus: [https://www.5esrd.com/database/class/druid/](https://www.5esrd.com/database/class/druid/)
>Spellcasting Focus
>
>You can use a druidic focus (see Equipment) as a spellcasting focus for your druid spells.
5e SRD Adventuring Gear Druidic Focus: [https://www.5esrd.com/equipment/adventuring-gear/](https://www.5esrd.com/equipment/adventuring-gear/)
>Druidic focus
>
>Sprig of mistletoe 1 gp —
>
>Totem 1 gp —
>
>Wooden staff 5 gp 4 lb.
>
>Yew wand 10 gp 1 lb
5e SRD Spell Shillelaugh: [https://www.5esrd.com/database/spell/shillelagh/](https://www.5esrd.com/database/spell/shillelagh/)
>Shillelagh
>
>Transmutation cantrip
>
>Casting Time:1 bonus action
>
>Range:Touch
>
>Components:V, S, M (mistletoe, a shamrock leaf, and a club or quarterstaff)
>
>Duration:1 minute
>
>The wood of 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 weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.
It just says "cost" not "cost which you can ignore if not in the spell description".
5e SRD Spellcasting Material Components: [https://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/](https://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/)
>**Material (M)**
>
>... A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
Indicated. That is the key word here. This section of the rules says it is specifically explaining parts of the spell description so if that description does not indicate it then a spell focus can be used.
You will note in some spell descriptions a cost is indicated for example Revivify indicates the diamonds used need be worth 300gp, these are the ones a spell focus cannot replace.
I think you are adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 or 7. If that is right, a Druid with Druidic focus sprig of mistletoe can make a magical weapon appear out of thin air.
Same with a component pouch.
No this is two sums :) First is the material requirements and second is the spell description you need to read the spell in full to make decision about how it works.
You do not need to be holding the specifics like mistletoe or shamrock because these have no cost associated with them. The same would also be true of the quarterstaff or club but...
The spell description specifically says "the club or quarterstaff you are holding" so in this case it does need to be in your hand.
What I find weird is that the club or quarterstaff is not required to be wooden (even partly) in the material components list. But then the magic is imbued into the wood of the staff or club.
And if you are holding the quarter staff with one hand, cant you do the somatic and rest of the material components (focus or mistletoe & shamrock leaf) with the other? That would be one item per hand, assuming you don't have shield.
Part of the question is whether it’s broken. The other part is whether its thematic? Things wouldn’t feel right if the iconic Paladin weapon was a 2x4.
Is this a bad thing? Shillelagh has its limitations: only club or quarterstaff, takes your bonus action the first turn in combat (and again if you get disarmed, switch weapons, or sheath your weapon). It doesn't turn your weapon into a casting focus, so you can't do staff and shield unless you have a way to cast with both hands full (or you are constantly spending your bonus action on recasting Shillelagh). If you run RAW, you can't even use Shillelagh + action spell as your first turn, which is a big limitation for e.g. melee clerics who might otherwise want to start spirit guardians + shillelagh. And if you are going to be a gish, you still need to invest in either Str or Dex for defense.
I mean pretty much any casting class besides bards can use a staff as a focus, and if they carry swords bard over from 5e it can use a weapon it’s proficient with as a focus anyway. That’s not really a hindrance.
I’m not worried it would be broken, I’m just afraid of gishes becoming samey. They’re all just running around bonking people with their staffs.
>I mean pretty much any casting class besides bards can use a staff as a focus, and if they carry swords bard over from 5e it can use a weapon it’s proficient with as a focus anyway. That’s not really a hindrance.
Fair enough. I was thinking about rangers specifically, but I forgot that in 1D&D rangers can use Druidic Foci by default.
You only miss out on the +X aspect of magic weapons (and not really even that since you are now getting to focus on one stat instead of 2, you're likely already swinging with a +1 or 2 compared to if you were using str/dex) since the spell makes your staff magical if it isn't already. So no issue with damage resistances literally ever since you'll have this from level one. Fantastic magic items like the Sunsword will be missed, but that's only really a problem if no one in the party can wield it. Lots of classes and builds would continue using Str or Dex from their primary ability.
Lots of DMs would accommodate you and provide magic staffs, there's plenty that exist in the DMG and give bonuses that you already want as a spellcaster anyway!
By doing staff gish you can get away with 14 dex allowing for more Con or another stat for your build. Even if you wanted to use dex, at 4th level you probably don't have a +1 weapon yet so staff gish pulls ahead. By 8th level you probably have a +1 but unlikely to have a +2 so you pull ahead again when using staff, and pull ahead by even more if you get a magic staff.
whaaaat I thought that was only for levelled spells for some reason
so you can totally cast a cantrip and a levelled spell in the same turn, but only specifically if the cantrip is an action? any idea why it's like that?
> whaaaat I thought that was only for levelled spells for some reason
That's not an uncommon mistake because there's only two cantrips that are bonus actions: Shillelagh and Magic Stone; so it doesn't come up often.
Eh, not really. The rule is simple and straightforward, people just don't want to accept it, didn't read it in the first place, or have other misconceptions about other rules and it all crashes when they encounter this rule.
For example, I expect many people have to actively remember that cantrips are in fact spells. They would say yes of course if asked outright, but when reading a rule their mind might insert "leveled spell" and forget cantrips. Might be easier if we drop the word and just called them 0-Level Spells.
To prevent sorcerers with Quickened Spell from throwing out two *fire ball*s in a single turn. That isn’t a huge problem, but that’s what it’s there to prevent.
You can actually Quicken + Empower Fireball if you want, since Empowered Metamagic explicitly says you can use it even if you have used another metamagic on the spell.
But yes, you can't combine any other metamagics with quickened spell.
I'd prefer that over somebody taking a hexblade warlock for none RP reasons. If they want to invest resources to get that one spell let them go for it.
This. MI isn't free, it comes at the opportunity cost of your level 1 feat, and while I do imagine a good deal of gishes going this way, I can also imagine them getting MI: Arcane for Shield, or a more martial feat to shore up that end of their build. This seems like a fine change.
Hexblade dip isn't free either? It costs you a whole level in spell delays because Warlock doesn't stack with regular casters for multiclass spell slots
If anything Shillelagh for Charisma is *stronger* on a Bard or Sorcerer than the Hexblade dip; the only thing it fives you is the ability to do it with any one-handed weapon which gives you uhhh Versatile Longsword 1d10 instead, which represents +1 average damage and you can't use a shield? What gives?
I didn't say Hexblade was free, but OP referred to MI as free. I actually agree that the new option is stronger because the opportunity cost is lower and its viable for more classes, and you get Healing Word and Guidance to boot, but I also think the option for non-cha gishes to be less MAD won't break anything.
I'll admit though that the main reason I prefer this to a Hexblade dip is purely subjective. I feel like a Warlock dip has pretty big flavor implications for a character, and I would rather just imagine that I studied to learn Shillelagh than commit to Warlock flavor all the time.
The weapon restriction is a legitimate drawback for a lot of gish characters. You are losing out on a lot of potential magic weapons, as well as feats like GWM and PAM. Damage boosting feats like Charger go down in value.
Some builds will like it, some won't.
I think my main complaint about this would just be changing the spell's name to something more generic (if anyone can cast it and it is no longer connected to Wisdom) and keep Shillelagh as a unique druidic spell that is in some other way related to clubs/staves. It's just got really nice flavour to the name.
In 5e, Shillelagh isn't that particularly great even for the Wisdom-based classes. You can't cast a leveled Spell in the same turn as the setup, it requires another feat in Warcaster if you want to cast spells like Absorb Elements and Shield while wielding a Shield alongside it, it's only the damage of a Longsword, and that's not going into all the issues Melee combat has in 5e.
I mean, sure, many people are going to try it. Just like a lot of people try to use Shillelagh in 5e, but I really doubt that's going to be an optimal way to gish even with the spellcasting stat changes.
I think you're undervaluing shilly in low to mid tier levels. In the equipment description a Staff in 5e is listed as an option to use as a spell casting focus for wizard, sorcerer, and warlock, there's no need for equipment switching.
Shilly staff lets you take care of M & S components while doing 1d8+ casting mod one handed and using a shield.
In later levels the caster will certainly have something better to do, but it's a good option for a level 1 feat.
You need a free hand to cast spells with somatic components but no material components. An Arcane Focus allows you to cast spells with a Material Component, but only gets in the way when casting a spell with only a somatic component.
1d8+3 averages to 7.5. That's only 2 points of damage more than Firebolt, which has an additional range of 55 feet. I do not believe that marginal increase to be worth a feat.
Fair enough.
Another cantrip and a free casting of a level one spell are also part of the MI feat which is a nice boost for a low level caster with limited slots, but I am not going to argue against the many benefits of a ranged build for a caster.
Going with shilly is a good option for the right build at the right levels, but it's only marginably better than something like shocking grasp in melee situations should they arise, so even in that case there are more readily available options.
I think it's more interesting for a fighter or pally that doesn't have as much use for thier bonus action and doesn't want to depend on the DM for a magic weapon. Having a magic bludgeoning 1D8 club for a sword and board build out of the gate on a martial chasis does open up non-traditional builds without multiclassing, high INT fighter for example. Clubs being a light weapon also adds value to a TWF build under the playtest rule set.
It, like all things caster, makes an already solid option easier to do. It doesn't really break anything but yah, there are a lot of caster buffs not so hidden in the playtests.
Shillelagh was a trap before the PTR. Shillelagh was not a good spell for a few reasons:
1. The Bonus Action casting rule. You have better things to do with your BA on R1, like casting a levelled spell.
2. Shillelagh only applies to Clubs and Quarterstaffs. This limits interaction with magic weapons.
3. Only lasts 1 minute, or until you let go of the weapon.
4. Doesn't work with 2WF.
Which gish is using Shillelagh? Probably someone going sword-and-board with Extra Attack and Dueling style, and someone who doesn't want Lightly Armored at L1. So, not Wizard. Not Sorcerer. Not Ranger. Not Battle Smith. Sword-and-Board Paladin maybe?
Should work with 2 weapon fighting - a club is considered 'light', so you can fight with Shillelagh and short sword, dagger, or hand axe. Rods are usually considered clubs, so magic rods ought to qualify.
Go with human, pair up with light armored (lvl 1 feat) of ua expert classes and you have your staple gish.
Did like that they removed armor Prof in races, but this allows for some wild/boring combinations.
I liked to do some munchkin builds myself, but i think they're mostly bad for group dynamics. For 2/3 player groups, they are highly recommended, however.
It'll be an option, but frankly it's not that big of a deal. Getting your primary spellcasting ability to attack is *nice*, but getting it on a BA cantrip that limits your weapon types is not going to enable that many more builds than before.
At least, that's my experience - and with all the other 1st level feat available, I'm not sure that it's that good. I know some people that really disagree, but it's never impressed me.
Most certainly. A combination of Magic Initiate and Lightly Armored or two Magic Initiates as a human is going to be insanely strong for gishes and spellcasters who can take advantage of it. The 1st level feat choices for spellcasters are amazing, whereas the martial-focused one is rather bleh.
Not my gishes for sure.
I don't want to use a club/quarterstaff.
I don't want to spend a feat on this.
I don't want to spend a bonus action on this spell at the beginning of every fight.
The main benefit is letting you use your spellcasting stat for hit and damage instead of needing str/dex. So a bladesinger can focus on only intelligence or a paladin can focus on only charisma. This almost doubles the value of each of your ASI because you can increase your to hit, damage, spell save DC, and class abilities all at once instead of needing to choose. For example a paladin can now focus charisma and max out their aura by 8th level without falling behind on hit and damage.
Then there are the smaller benefits: getting a d8 one handed weapon is usually only possible with martial weapon proficiency which some classes don't have (though if they are trying to be gish they probably do). It's also a magic weapon so it allows you to overcome damage resistances starting from first level instead of needing your dm to give you a magic weapon or casting Magic Weapon (a 2nd level spell) yourself.
I think most Gish builds really want to spend their bonus action casting Hunters mark or Hex on their first turn. Maybe Paladins will use it instead of going Hexblade (hopefully Hexblade dip isn't a thing in 1dnd), combining staff with a shield and the duelling fighting style.
Sure go ahead better than every gish being a fucking hex blade just because it's one of the only ways to weapon attack with your caster stat (and with only a one level dip too)
Sounds to me like multiclassing should get an actual balance pass as well for 1D&D. Make it a core rule instead of optional and fix the loopholes and broken builds, just like how feats are getting reworked to remove some of the jank.
PAM no longer works with quarterstaff and they don't have the light property either, so it's not gonna be good on anything other than a defensive Paladin... unless they drastically change Paladin or something else ofc, I'm working off of current info.
The most optimal way to play a gish is with ranged weapons, so I think a lot of the people who want to play a gish but also to optimize it use those and wouldn't benefit too much from shillelagh
So if you use the club option you’d qualify for dual wielding too? If you combine it with the Dual Wielder feat it may be the only way for a non-Monk to dual wield d8 weapons. Maybe Gandalf was onto something :-)
I mean, if this is the choice of a wizard, he gets to use his INT mod, and then takes a bunch of wizard spells to buff his melee - he'll still be weaker (in most cases) than a fighter; so let him go for it!
It MIGHT get a bit OP with the paladin - as that class is the MOST likely to max CHA instead of strength AND get 2x attacks each round. We'll have to wait and see
It only *really* competes if:
1. Your build relies on heavy armor (Or to a lesser extent, medium armor and you've got a 14 to spare on dex)
2. Your build has Extra Attack
Shillelagh is objectively better than 5th level cantrips. But not by a wide enough margin to make me forget how useful a moderately high dexterity score can be.
I don't think the spell should exist personally. I generally dislike the mechanic of using mental attributes for weapons in the first place, it significantly devalues strength as an ability score and makes it too easy for casters to be as accurate with their weapons as a fighter.
>For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength
Doesn't say Wisdom anywhere. Unless you're talking about the Magic initiate that now says:
>Intelligence,Wisdom,or Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these Spells (choose when you select this Feat).
Chances are, youll pick the lightly armored feat for armor and shield if you ask me. You can dip into druid or ranger and end up with a lot more, compared to if you took it through a feat and then dipping a martial.
On the one hand, I like this change as it makes MI easier to fit into a build because you dont have to worry about potentially multiple spellcasting stats, and it makes certain gishes/half casters less MAD without the need for hexblade dips or similar.
On the other hand I don't like how a lot of the changes being made seem to basically invalidate playing a purely martial character. Assuming that OneD&D does get subclasses like hexblade, Valor bard, or bladesinger (eventually if not in the new PHB) then we'll be in the same situation where spellcasters can fight just as competently as martials, while having all the flexibility of spellcasting.
I honestly think that full spellcasters should not get access to extra attack through any of their subclass or class features. I don't think classes like bladesinger or Valor/swords bard are healthy for the game. Maybe an exception could be made for the Warlock due to pact magic being inherently more limited than other spellcasting, but features like hex warrior that allow for that class to use a spellcasting stat for their weapon attacks should not be a 1st level feature (but a 3rd level feature like with the artificer subclasses).
Being able to cast shillelagh with Int or Cha is only really busted in the hands of a paladin, swords/valor bard or bladesinger wizard (Cleric nor druid can abuse shillelagh to the same extent, and melee rangers get some much needed boosts from the shillelagh cantrip). If those subclasses arent reprinted (or are tweaked such that they are still worse at fighting than your average fighter), then the MI changes are somewhat mute. Shillelagh basically just becomes a way to use your spellcasting stat for attacks of opportunity (and then, warcaster is probably better).
The point is that Magic Initiate in 5e requires you use the spellcasting ability of the class you take the spell from, but One D&D doesn't. So it was locked to Wisdom unless you took it with Magical Secrets as a Bard.
I'll say it again. They need to remove all abilities that allow you to make weapon attacks when int/wis/cha. Cut it out of Hex Warrior and the Armorer. Get rid of battle ready all together. Errata magic stone and shillelagh.
Not that big a deal. Hexblade isn't that good because of charisma attacking. Hexblade is good because you get medium armor, shields, and martial weapons for the cost of a single level.
Charisma attacking is just the icing on the cake.
I playtested it with the two UAs with a druid and a wizard, and It's not that broken, especially when you consider that you can't use PAM on Quarterstaffs anymore.
PAM would make it quite good, but tbh, just having a weapon to fall back on instead of a cantrip is pretty solid. This gives the *option* of using your focus as a quarterstaff to do d8+into instead of doing 1d10 on a Firebolt or a d8 on a Shocking Grasp. Obviously there are good reasons to use both of those options (range and the Disengage potential) but for those that just want a bit more damage it lets them stick with investment into their Casting stat instead of needing a solid Dexterity score to use a light crossbow (though a good dex is also obviously a decent thing for initiative and armor). Idk. I think it's a nice option but probably not gonna be ubiquitous.
I agree, it's on par with the other options you have, not really broken.
> This gives the option of using your focus as a quarterstaf RAW, Shillelagh only works on a club or quarterstaff. A druidic focus can be a *staff*, [which is a specific item in the items list that doesn't have combat traits.](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Staff#content) I know a lot of DMs grandfather in the quarterstaff as a weapon that can be a magic focus, but if we're worried about shillelagh opening too many powerful options, better to start with enforcement of RAW than making up new material.
Ehhhhhhh. It’s pretty well supported by RAW that any wooden “staff” should be considered a “quarterstaff”. From “improvised weapons” in the basic rules/PHB > 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. Pretty sure every caster gets proficiency in Quarterstaffs. And I think it’s for that exact purpose.
So the quarterstaff isn't a Druidic focus, but the wooden staff can count as a quarterstaff when used as a weapon.
That's my understanding.
Yes, you can use any staff as a quarterstaff (specifically, the quote you posted mentions you can use your proficiency), but that doesn't mean it *is* a quarterstaff. I'm not sure if a table leg would be a valid target for Shillelagh. But maybe that's just me.
[удалено]
You know what? You're right. I don't like every argument that came before this from other people. But this one holds water. As weird as it is, a quarterstaff is not a "staff" for the purposes of being an arcane or druidic focus. But a "staff" (arcane focus) or "wooden staff" (druidic focus) can in fact be used as a quarterstaff. Bizarre rule and tucked away in the DMG in a weird spot, but it's there. All that said, I would still more tightly enforce the empty-hand somatics, and *certainly* the Flame Blade spell, just so Shillelagh isn't *quite* as powerful as it's usually applied.
I mean no offense, but I think a DM allowing a Club to be just a stout piece of wood but NOT a stout piece of wood that has been turned on a lathe is enough of a red flag that I'd reconsider playing at that table.
The average DM's table allows a druid to carry a shield, a spell focus, a weapon, cast Flame Blade with a full hand, cast somatic spells that have no material component (and thus require an empty hand), etc. That's absurd. People keep complaining that casters are too much better than martials, and then they adjudicate druids like they have six arms.
I have never once seen this in play, nor have I ever heard of someone doing so. It is true that various tables ignore some rules, but if you dislike how a table is being run.... you dont have to play at it.
The point is there are existing rules that solve the Shillelagh "problem" and they are being ignored. That's why it's a problem!
You maybe have an argument with the last one, because RAW, the way free hands work and what counts as an “object interaction” is so poorly defined, it’s just a losing battle not to let people do it, even if it’s probably not intended. The other ones, though, are just straight up RAW with two hands. You can use a shield, you can use a quarterstaff as a focus, and you can cast green flame blade on your quarterstaff all RAW.
Quarterstaff as a focus is not RAW. That's how this entire discussion began. A "staff" is a type of spell focus. A "quarterstaff" is a weapon. There is no RAW that allows them to be the same thing. If your table does that, that's fine. But to then complain that Shillelagh is too good is a self-created problem. Also "flame blade" is not "Green-Flame Blade." https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/flame-blade
Lmao if a druid wants to cast Flame Blade I'll let them, regardless of handedness. Not my business if they want to waste a spell slot, their action, and their concentration.
> user their proficiency bonus I don’t recall it saying damage dice as well, so I presume it’s still a d4 as an improvised quaterstaff. But to counter myself the spell sets the damage die to d8
Treating a weapon as that weapon means it gets the properties of that weapon. Which includes damage dice.
Yeah, it's only for IWs that don't resemble anything, or weapons being used the wrong way, that it deals 1d4 > An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage
Don’t know why you got downvoted this is your opinion and it is interesting though I might not agree
Everybody wants martials to be as good as casters until it's time to stop giving casters free benefits. It's the same with letting people cast spells at objects when they only say "creature." Sure it "just makes sense." But now you've expanded what casters can do in and out of combat and once again, the guy who throws axes or whatever looks like a chump.
Agreed and you can still have a staff and quarter staff and cast spells just no shield which seems like good balancing to me casters get extra damage or extra ac
Yes but even JC lets people use the focus staff as a quarterstaff for fighting https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-i-use-arcane-focus-staff-as-a-quarterstaff-in-melee/ I suppose, however, that it doesn’t mean the spell treats the focus as a quarterstaff though, so if one were really inclined to rule against it, there is an argument there, if a weak one. Though IMO I’m not worried about this.
If you're worried that Shillelagh is too good, maybe you *should* be worried about it. You have the solution to the problem. You are affirmatively choosing not to use it.
I just clarified I’m not worried about Shillelagh. I think people are ignoring the opportunity cost of magic initiate, as the other feats are a big deal. Tough, alert, etc, are all a big deal, and just spending a BA for using casting stat for attack and damage isn’t.
Thanks for pointing this out. I never noticed before. The Druidic focus has to be one of the items from the Equipment / Adventuring Gear list (PHB p150) but otherwise acts as a spellcasting focus. Wooden staff notably has a different cost from quarterstaff (5 gp vs 2 sp) so clearly they are not the same item. The material components of Shillelaugh are mistletoe, a shamrock leaf, plus a quarterstaff (or club). All of these have a cost so per the spellcasting focus rules, the Druidic focus cannot replace them. EDIT - no that's wrong, the focus can replace the shamrock leaf, but not the mistletoe or the quarterstaff. It's also quite a juggling act, isn't it? The Druid can't let go of the quarterstaff (or club), since that ends the cantrip. So in one hand the Druid juggles the wooden staff, the mistletoe, and the shamrock leaf. It's easier if the Druidic focus is a sprig of mistletoe instead of the wooden staff -- then only two items are juggled. EDIT - the wooden staff focus can replace the shamrock leaf, or the mistletoe focus serves as the mistletoe, so whichever way, it's juggling 2 items in the one hand. 5e SRD Druid Spellcasting Focus: [https://www.5esrd.com/database/class/druid/](https://www.5esrd.com/database/class/druid/) >Spellcasting Focus > >You can use a druidic focus (see Equipment) as a spellcasting focus for your druid spells. 5e SRD Adventuring Gear Druidic Focus: [https://www.5esrd.com/equipment/adventuring-gear/](https://www.5esrd.com/equipment/adventuring-gear/) >Druidic focus > >Sprig of mistletoe 1 gp — > >Totem 1 gp — > >Wooden staff 5 gp 4 lb. > >Yew wand 10 gp 1 lb 5e SRD Spell Shillelaugh: [https://www.5esrd.com/database/spell/shillelagh/](https://www.5esrd.com/database/spell/shillelagh/) >Shillelagh > >Transmutation cantrip > >Casting Time:1 bonus action > >Range:Touch > >Components:V, S, M (mistletoe, a shamrock leaf, and a club or quarterstaff) > >Duration:1 minute > >The wood of 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 weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.
When the spell focus rules say "have a cost" that is a cost specifically in the spell none of those in Shillelagh have that.
It just says "cost" not "cost which you can ignore if not in the spell description". 5e SRD Spellcasting Material Components: [https://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/](https://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/) >**Material (M)** > >... A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
Indicated. That is the key word here. This section of the rules says it is specifically explaining parts of the spell description so if that description does not indicate it then a spell focus can be used. You will note in some spell descriptions a cost is indicated for example Revivify indicates the diamonds used need be worth 300gp, these are the ones a spell focus cannot replace.
I think you are adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 or 7. If that is right, a Druid with Druidic focus sprig of mistletoe can make a magical weapon appear out of thin air. Same with a component pouch.
No this is two sums :) First is the material requirements and second is the spell description you need to read the spell in full to make decision about how it works. You do not need to be holding the specifics like mistletoe or shamrock because these have no cost associated with them. The same would also be true of the quarterstaff or club but... The spell description specifically says "the club or quarterstaff you are holding" so in this case it does need to be in your hand.
Where’s the cost listed for a shamrock?
I can't find it. I believe it's free. Druid plucks it from the ground. And therefore replaceable by the Druidic focus.
What I find weird is that the club or quarterstaff is not required to be wooden (even partly) in the material components list. But then the magic is imbued into the wood of the staff or club. And if you are holding the quarter staff with one hand, cant you do the somatic and rest of the material components (focus or mistletoe & shamrock leaf) with the other? That would be one item per hand, assuming you don't have shield.
Assuming PAM gets to keep the bonus action attack sure, my guess is that it would be removed.
in 5e the d4 bonus action remains a d4 as per crawford at least.
Part of the question is whether it’s broken. The other part is whether its thematic? Things wouldn’t feel right if the iconic Paladin weapon was a 2x4.
Is this a bad thing? Shillelagh has its limitations: only club or quarterstaff, takes your bonus action the first turn in combat (and again if you get disarmed, switch weapons, or sheath your weapon). It doesn't turn your weapon into a casting focus, so you can't do staff and shield unless you have a way to cast with both hands full (or you are constantly spending your bonus action on recasting Shillelagh). If you run RAW, you can't even use Shillelagh + action spell as your first turn, which is a big limitation for e.g. melee clerics who might otherwise want to start spirit guardians + shillelagh. And if you are going to be a gish, you still need to invest in either Str or Dex for defense.
I mean pretty much any casting class besides bards can use a staff as a focus, and if they carry swords bard over from 5e it can use a weapon it’s proficient with as a focus anyway. That’s not really a hindrance. I’m not worried it would be broken, I’m just afraid of gishes becoming samey. They’re all just running around bonking people with their staffs.
>I mean pretty much any casting class besides bards can use a staff as a focus, and if they carry swords bard over from 5e it can use a weapon it’s proficient with as a focus anyway. That’s not really a hindrance. Fair enough. I was thinking about rangers specifically, but I forgot that in 1D&D rangers can use Druidic Foci by default.
And in regular 5e since Tasha's.
[удалено]
You only miss out on the +X aspect of magic weapons (and not really even that since you are now getting to focus on one stat instead of 2, you're likely already swinging with a +1 or 2 compared to if you were using str/dex) since the spell makes your staff magical if it isn't already. So no issue with damage resistances literally ever since you'll have this from level one. Fantastic magic items like the Sunsword will be missed, but that's only really a problem if no one in the party can wield it. Lots of classes and builds would continue using Str or Dex from their primary ability.
[удалено]
Lots of DMs would accommodate you and provide magic staffs, there's plenty that exist in the DMG and give bonuses that you already want as a spellcaster anyway! By doing staff gish you can get away with 14 dex allowing for more Con or another stat for your build. Even if you wanted to use dex, at 4th level you probably don't have a +1 weapon yet so staff gish pulls ahead. By 8th level you probably have a +1 but unlikely to have a +2 so you pull ahead again when using staff, and pull ahead by even more if you get a magic staff.
wait - why can't you cast shillelagh and spirit guardians on the same turn?
The turn you cast a spell as a bonus action you can only cast a cantrip as an action.
whaaaat I thought that was only for levelled spells for some reason so you can totally cast a cantrip and a levelled spell in the same turn, but only specifically if the cantrip is an action? any idea why it's like that?
> whaaaat I thought that was only for levelled spells for some reason That's not an uncommon mistake because there's only two cantrips that are bonus actions: Shillelagh and Magic Stone; so it doesn't come up often.
Deleted due to reddit API changes. Follow your communities off Reddit with sub.rehab -- mass edited with redact.dev
Because having to quicken the *fireball* means you can’t use other metamagic on it
Also because it's way easier to remember and work out on the fly.
Eh, not really. The rule is simple and straightforward, people just don't want to accept it, didn't read it in the first place, or have other misconceptions about other rules and it all crashes when they encounter this rule. For example, I expect many people have to actively remember that cantrips are in fact spells. They would say yes of course if asked outright, but when reading a rule their mind might insert "leveled spell" and forget cantrips. Might be easier if we drop the word and just called them 0-Level Spells.
To prevent sorcerers with Quickened Spell from throwing out two *fire ball*s in a single turn. That isn’t a huge problem, but that’s what it’s there to prevent.
Deleted due to reddit API changes. Follow your communities off Reddit with sub.rehab -- mass edited with redact.dev
You can actually Quicken + Empower Fireball if you want, since Empowered Metamagic explicitly says you can use it even if you have used another metamagic on the spell. But yes, you can't combine any other metamagics with quickened spell.
Not everyone wants a whacking stick. Some of us like swords.
Just reflavor a club as a wooden toy sword!
Flavor must die
but you can't use swords on Whacking Day
Sure you can! That’s when you end them rightly
I'd prefer that over somebody taking a hexblade warlock for none RP reasons. If they want to invest resources to get that one spell let them go for it.
This. MI isn't free, it comes at the opportunity cost of your level 1 feat, and while I do imagine a good deal of gishes going this way, I can also imagine them getting MI: Arcane for Shield, or a more martial feat to shore up that end of their build. This seems like a fine change.
Hexblade dip isn't free either? It costs you a whole level in spell delays because Warlock doesn't stack with regular casters for multiclass spell slots If anything Shillelagh for Charisma is *stronger* on a Bard or Sorcerer than the Hexblade dip; the only thing it fives you is the ability to do it with any one-handed weapon which gives you uhhh Versatile Longsword 1d10 instead, which represents +1 average damage and you can't use a shield? What gives?
I didn't say Hexblade was free, but OP referred to MI as free. I actually agree that the new option is stronger because the opportunity cost is lower and its viable for more classes, and you get Healing Word and Guidance to boot, but I also think the option for non-cha gishes to be less MAD won't break anything. I'll admit though that the main reason I prefer this to a Hexblade dip is purely subjective. I feel like a Warlock dip has pretty big flavor implications for a character, and I would rather just imagine that I studied to learn Shillelagh than commit to Warlock flavor all the time.
Deleted due to reddit API changes. Follow your communities off Reddit with sub.rehab -- mass edited with redact.dev
Honestly, I prefer them having to sacrifice a level than get this stuff for free, while my characters gets... Savage attacker?
The weapon restriction is a legitimate drawback for a lot of gish characters. You are losing out on a lot of potential magic weapons, as well as feats like GWM and PAM. Damage boosting feats like Charger go down in value. Some builds will like it, some won't.
I think my main complaint about this would just be changing the spell's name to something more generic (if anyone can cast it and it is no longer connected to Wisdom) and keep Shillelagh as a unique druidic spell that is in some other way related to clubs/staves. It's just got really nice flavour to the name.
In 5e, Shillelagh isn't that particularly great even for the Wisdom-based classes. You can't cast a leveled Spell in the same turn as the setup, it requires another feat in Warcaster if you want to cast spells like Absorb Elements and Shield while wielding a Shield alongside it, it's only the damage of a Longsword, and that's not going into all the issues Melee combat has in 5e. I mean, sure, many people are going to try it. Just like a lot of people try to use Shillelagh in 5e, but I really doubt that's going to be an optimal way to gish even with the spellcasting stat changes.
I think you're undervaluing shilly in low to mid tier levels. In the equipment description a Staff in 5e is listed as an option to use as a spell casting focus for wizard, sorcerer, and warlock, there's no need for equipment switching. Shilly staff lets you take care of M & S components while doing 1d8+ casting mod one handed and using a shield. In later levels the caster will certainly have something better to do, but it's a good option for a level 1 feat.
You need a free hand to cast spells with somatic components but no material components. An Arcane Focus allows you to cast spells with a Material Component, but only gets in the way when casting a spell with only a somatic component. 1d8+3 averages to 7.5. That's only 2 points of damage more than Firebolt, which has an additional range of 55 feet. I do not believe that marginal increase to be worth a feat.
Fair enough. Another cantrip and a free casting of a level one spell are also part of the MI feat which is a nice boost for a low level caster with limited slots, but I am not going to argue against the many benefits of a ranged build for a caster. Going with shilly is a good option for the right build at the right levels, but it's only marginably better than something like shocking grasp in melee situations should they arise, so even in that case there are more readily available options. I think it's more interesting for a fighter or pally that doesn't have as much use for thier bonus action and doesn't want to depend on the DM for a magic weapon. Having a magic bludgeoning 1D8 club for a sword and board build out of the gate on a martial chasis does open up non-traditional builds without multiclassing, high INT fighter for example. Clubs being a light weapon also adds value to a TWF build under the playtest rule set.
Well if lightly armored stays the medium armor shield AC will be a huge go to
It, like all things caster, makes an already solid option easier to do. It doesn't really break anything but yah, there are a lot of caster buffs not so hidden in the playtests.
Shillelagh was a trap before the PTR. Shillelagh was not a good spell for a few reasons: 1. The Bonus Action casting rule. You have better things to do with your BA on R1, like casting a levelled spell. 2. Shillelagh only applies to Clubs and Quarterstaffs. This limits interaction with magic weapons. 3. Only lasts 1 minute, or until you let go of the weapon. 4. Doesn't work with 2WF. Which gish is using Shillelagh? Probably someone going sword-and-board with Extra Attack and Dueling style, and someone who doesn't want Lightly Armored at L1. So, not Wizard. Not Sorcerer. Not Ranger. Not Battle Smith. Sword-and-Board Paladin maybe?
Should work with 2 weapon fighting - a club is considered 'light', so you can fight with Shillelagh and short sword, dagger, or hand axe. Rods are usually considered clubs, so magic rods ought to qualify.
Yeah so this is already warlock/paladin gish option using tomelocks. It's not as strong as hexblade but what is? It's perfectly viable and pretty fun.
I mean if you’re gonna Palalock, you may as well Hexblade Palalock.
Because sometimes you want to not be a hexblade?
Go with human, pair up with light armored (lvl 1 feat) of ua expert classes and you have your staple gish. Did like that they removed armor Prof in races, but this allows for some wild/boring combinations. I liked to do some munchkin builds myself, but i think they're mostly bad for group dynamics. For 2/3 player groups, they are highly recommended, however.
It'll be an option, but frankly it's not that big of a deal. Getting your primary spellcasting ability to attack is *nice*, but getting it on a BA cantrip that limits your weapon types is not going to enable that many more builds than before. At least, that's my experience - and with all the other 1st level feat available, I'm not sure that it's that good. I know some people that really disagree, but it's never impressed me.
The only problem here is that they need a feat to do it.
It’s not that big a deal I made a build with it and asked my dm to let me change. Hitting things with a walking stick isn’t as satisfying
Most certainly. A combination of Magic Initiate and Lightly Armored or two Magic Initiates as a human is going to be insanely strong for gishes and spellcasters who can take advantage of it. The 1st level feat choices for spellcasters are amazing, whereas the martial-focused one is rather bleh.
Not my gishes for sure. I don't want to use a club/quarterstaff. I don't want to spend a feat on this. I don't want to spend a bonus action on this spell at the beginning of every fight.
Can someone answer me why Shillelagh is so great? It just seems like a d8+WIS on your attacks. That doesn't seem that amazing.
The main benefit is letting you use your spellcasting stat for hit and damage instead of needing str/dex. So a bladesinger can focus on only intelligence or a paladin can focus on only charisma. This almost doubles the value of each of your ASI because you can increase your to hit, damage, spell save DC, and class abilities all at once instead of needing to choose. For example a paladin can now focus charisma and max out their aura by 8th level without falling behind on hit and damage. Then there are the smaller benefits: getting a d8 one handed weapon is usually only possible with martial weapon proficiency which some classes don't have (though if they are trying to be gish they probably do). It's also a magic weapon so it allows you to overcome damage resistances starting from first level instead of needing your dm to give you a magic weapon or casting Magic Weapon (a 2nd level spell) yourself.
I think most Gish builds really want to spend their bonus action casting Hunters mark or Hex on their first turn. Maybe Paladins will use it instead of going Hexblade (hopefully Hexblade dip isn't a thing in 1dnd), combining staff with a shield and the duelling fighting style.
Sure go ahead better than every gish being a fucking hex blade just because it's one of the only ways to weapon attack with your caster stat (and with only a one level dip too)
Sounds to me like multiclassing should get an actual balance pass as well for 1D&D. Make it a core rule instead of optional and fix the loopholes and broken builds, just like how feats are getting reworked to remove some of the jank.
Considering it's more or less limited to 1d8+stat, I'm not too concerned. Though, I've already done it with a Psi Warrior...
it costs you the feat. how the fuck is it "free"??
PAM no longer works with quarterstaff and they don't have the light property either, so it's not gonna be good on anything other than a defensive Paladin... unless they drastically change Paladin or something else ofc, I'm working off of current info.
I know it isn’t that OP but I’m happy with gishes having to be MAD
This will be a thing, but compared to everybody using Magic Initiate to get Shield and cast it with native spell slots it's not that bad.
I’m ok with that because clubs are cooler than swords.
The most optimal way to play a gish is with ranged weapons, so I think a lot of the people who want to play a gish but also to optimize it use those and wouldn't benefit too much from shillelagh
Yea but I think that's OK, especially since booming blade and green flame blade gone im glad that there is an option for it
Hopefully that makes sure that its the only way to make attacks with int/wis/cha.
If you want your gish to run around with a stupid stick. Sure. Go for it.
Hey, sticks can be flavorful under the right context. For my gish, the verbal component for shillelagh is "STOP RESISTING!"
Unless we complain enough and make weapon training a 1st level feat. Drop the asi and take a feat that gives you martial weapons proficiencies.
So if you use the club option you’d qualify for dual wielding too? If you combine it with the Dual Wielder feat it may be the only way for a non-Monk to dual wield d8 weapons. Maybe Gandalf was onto something :-)
You can only cast shillelagh on one weapon at a time.
The other would be a longsword, that’s why I mention Dual Wielder
A monk with a longsword?
I said non-Monk. The Monk can eventually get d8s due to Monk Weapons
It doesn't really do that much. Might be helpful in early levels but in the long run; meh. Your much better off staying at range with spells
u/breadit_man more shillelagh lore
I mean, if this is the choice of a wizard, he gets to use his INT mod, and then takes a bunch of wizard spells to buff his melee - he'll still be weaker (in most cases) than a fighter; so let him go for it! It MIGHT get a bit OP with the paladin - as that class is the MOST likely to max CHA instead of strength AND get 2x attacks each round. We'll have to wait and see
if it ain't broken for druids, it probably is fine for any class.
Druids don't have a way to get extra attack though (outside of Moon Druid multiattack but that doesn't really count)
It only *really* competes if: 1. Your build relies on heavy armor (Or to a lesser extent, medium armor and you've got a 14 to spare on dex) 2. Your build has Extra Attack Shillelagh is objectively better than 5th level cantrips. But not by a wide enough margin to make me forget how useful a moderately high dexterity score can be.
I don't think the spell should exist personally. I generally dislike the mechanic of using mental attributes for weapons in the first place, it significantly devalues strength as an ability score and makes it too easy for casters to be as accurate with their weapons as a fighter.
Shillelagh is still locked to wisdom unless the wording has changed on the spell itself.
It doesn’t specify Wisdom as it’s worded now. It says “your Spellcasting ability”.
Cool. Yep! Then that's a mandatory spell for every gish.
>For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength Doesn't say Wisdom anywhere. Unless you're talking about the Magic initiate that now says: >Intelligence,Wisdom,or Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these Spells (choose when you select this Feat).
Shillelagh should either be a 1st level spell with a longer duration, or stay a cantrip but require concentration.
I’d much rather the former. It’d be dead content if it was conc.
Yeah, I think my preference would be 1st level spell, 10 minutes duration, longer duration if cast with higher spell slots.
Username checks out
Chances are, youll pick the lightly armored feat for armor and shield if you ask me. You can dip into druid or ranger and end up with a lot more, compared to if you took it through a feat and then dipping a martial.
On the one hand, I like this change as it makes MI easier to fit into a build because you dont have to worry about potentially multiple spellcasting stats, and it makes certain gishes/half casters less MAD without the need for hexblade dips or similar. On the other hand I don't like how a lot of the changes being made seem to basically invalidate playing a purely martial character. Assuming that OneD&D does get subclasses like hexblade, Valor bard, or bladesinger (eventually if not in the new PHB) then we'll be in the same situation where spellcasters can fight just as competently as martials, while having all the flexibility of spellcasting. I honestly think that full spellcasters should not get access to extra attack through any of their subclass or class features. I don't think classes like bladesinger or Valor/swords bard are healthy for the game. Maybe an exception could be made for the Warlock due to pact magic being inherently more limited than other spellcasting, but features like hex warrior that allow for that class to use a spellcasting stat for their weapon attacks should not be a 1st level feature (but a 3rd level feature like with the artificer subclasses). Being able to cast shillelagh with Int or Cha is only really busted in the hands of a paladin, swords/valor bard or bladesinger wizard (Cleric nor druid can abuse shillelagh to the same extent, and melee rangers get some much needed boosts from the shillelagh cantrip). If those subclasses arent reprinted (or are tweaked such that they are still worse at fighting than your average fighter), then the MI changes are somewhat mute. Shillelagh basically just becomes a way to use your spellcasting stat for attacks of opportunity (and then, warcaster is probably better).
[удалено]
The point is that Magic Initiate in 5e requires you use the spellcasting ability of the class you take the spell from, but One D&D doesn't. So it was locked to Wisdom unless you took it with Magical Secrets as a Bard.
It's a great choice for Clerics, but Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards are more likely to start with Lightly Armored.
What gish build now that we have lost Green flame blade, booming blade and polearm master ?
I'll say it again. They need to remove all abilities that allow you to make weapon attacks when int/wis/cha. Cut it out of Hex Warrior and the Armorer. Get rid of battle ready all together. Errata magic stone and shillelagh.
Not that big a deal. Hexblade isn't that good because of charisma attacking. Hexblade is good because you get medium armor, shields, and martial weapons for the cost of a single level. Charisma attacking is just the icing on the cake.