Broken: Shillelagh

[Evean]

The first sentence in the description for Shillelagh (https://ddowiki.com/page/shillelagh?useskin=sparseman) reads “Enchants your wooden melee weapons to do additional base weapon damage, and converts their damage type to bludgeoning.”

I bet you can already see where this is going.

Use the spell, fight a skeleton, “You hit Dusty Skeleton for 17 points of pierce damage after 6 were blocked by Bludgeon damage reduction.”

[J1NG]

The first sentence in the description for Shillelagh reads “Enchants your wooden melee weapons to do additional base weapon damage, and converts their damage type to bludgeoning.”

Fixed for you. So you know where you went wrong. All wooden melee weapons at low levels are Bludgeon based already. Since you're not using a wooden weapon (because you're dealing Piercing damage), the spell won't work on it.

J1NG

[Evean]

Fixed for you. So you know where you went wrong. All wooden melee weapons at low levels are Bludgeon based already. Since you're not using a wooden weapon (because you're dealing Piercing damage), the spell won't work on it.

Wrong again (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Flotsam).

[Arkat]

Wrong again (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Flotsam).

I'm pretty sure Densewood doesn't count as "wooden" for the purposes of the Shillelagh spell.

It probably should, though. So should Ironwood.

[Evean]

I'm pretty sure Densewood doesn't count as "wooden" for the purposes of the Shillelagh spell.

I’m “pretty sure” big-porcelain has a secret base on the dark side of the flat moon. I’m not 100% sure, but what I can say with absolute certainty is: they either do, or do not, have a secret base on the dark side of the flat moon. It’s definitely one of those two options. :) lol

[J1NG]

I'm pretty sure Densewood doesn't count as "wooden" for the purposes of the Shillelagh spell.

It probably should, though. So should Ironwood.

Not only that (materials being funny and not being the same despite what is generally known about them), we also have a situation where the spell was developed some 5-6 years before the weapon in question. And back then, there was no other material:wooden weapon that was not Bludgeon, and the team has not fully locked everything down with regards to damage flags and addition of such flags back then (not until very recently). So there may not even have been the Damage flag addition or was removed because there was no point to it (before the item even came into question; since again, all wooden weapons being Bludgeon in the first place, that additional damage flag was extrenous and unnecessary).

So what OP is really asking for - and correctly so, is if the description on the spell is correct (and not the effect itself, which doesn't mention adding the Bludgeon Damage type property to Wooden Melee weapons) to include the Damage flag type Bludgeon for (all) wooden weapons. Otherwise, to please remove it from the description if the effect description is correct (on the buff bar) to help avoid confusing players who aren't as well versed with how the game works and has been developed over the years (and knows what to look out for or have tested).

J1NG

[Evean]

Neither A Garbage Can Lid? (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:A_Garbage_Can_Lid%3F) nor Barnacled Buckler (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Barnacled_Buckler) break Druidic Oath (https://ddowiki.com/page/Druidic_Oath). Both are made from Densewood (https://ddowiki.com/page/Category:Densewood_items).

Preemptively, Darkwood (https://ddowiki.com/page/Category:Darkwood_items) doesn’t break Druidic Oath either (Scalemail of the Celestial Sage (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Scalemail_of_the_Celestial_Sage)).

I don’t have an Ironwood Kopesh (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Ironwood_Khopesh_(Level_16)), but that may also be worth looking into.

It may be the case that Flotsam (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Flotsam) is broken—not actually typed as wood—and not the spell (Shillelagh (https://ddowiki.com/page/shillelagh?useskin=sparseman)).

Also preemptively, I have tried fighting more than one skeleton. All yield the same result: yellow numbers, damage blocked by bludgeoning DR.

[J1NG]

I don’t have an Ironwood Kopesh (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Ironwood_Khopesh_(Level_16)), but that may also be worth looking into.

If I can find one, I may look into it further. However...


It may be the case that Flotsam (https://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Flotsam) is broken (not actually typed as wood) and not the spell.

This may not be the case either.

Preliminary tests suggest that the Effect Description (found on the Buff Effect on the buff bar) appears to be how it works in game (now, unsure on how long this has been the case for however).

It says it provides base weapon damage dice increase (basically [w] increases) but doesn't mention adding the Bludgeon Damage flag at all. And preliminary tests suggest this does actually work; (all wooden, darkwood and densewood shields) are provided a +1[w] increase. Whilst Quarterstaves are given a +2[w] increase. But again, other than in the spell description itself, the effect makes no mention of the Bludgeon damage flag. Also, the increase in damage dice is also clearly different, being +0.5[w] and +1[w] different for non-quarterstave weapons, and (wooden) quarterstave weapons respectively. (I have not yet tested if non-wood quarterstaves receive this bonus as there are very limited selections available at mid-high but non-epic levels which will not break the Druidic Oath either, where one of my Druids are currently parked at, so it may be possible being Wooden provides the +1[w] and being a quarterstaff provides another +1[w], have not tested if this is the case yet. However, given it is a Level 1 spell, this is probably the limit it was set at intentionally.).

J1NG

:: edit ::

Managed to grab a Quarterstave made of something other than wood and wouldn't cause problems for the Druid, and it would not provide a +1[w] at all (or the +2[w] seen on a material:wood quarterstaff), which means the spell is keyed for material:wood/densewood/dark wood (tested wood types). But again, no Bludgeon Damage type is being added.

Once again, suspect as a Level 1 spell, this is intentional. Given that this is fitting in with the description in the effect box, and not the description in the spell.

[Evean]

Preliminary tests suggest that the Effect Description (found on the Buff Effect on the buff bar) appears to be how it works in game (now, unsure on how long this has been the case for however).

It says it provides base weapon damage dice increase (basically [w] increases) but doesn't mention adding the Bludgeon Damage flag at all. And preliminary tests suggest this does actually work; (all wooden, darkwood and densewood shields) are provided a +1[w] increase. Whilst…

Which brings us back to the first sentence of my initial post:

The first sentence in the description for Shillelagh (https://ddowiki.com/page/shillelagh?useskin=sparseman) reads “Enchants your wooden melee weapons to do additional base weapon damage, and converts their damage type to bludgeoning.”

(I stopped reading as soon as I saw the word “whilst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nae9L4EdRs)…”. :) lol)

[J1NG]

Which brings us back to the first sentence of my initial post:

This does not actually. Since you never specified what you thought was wrong in the first place in op. Instead, from title and op, you believed the spell was broken instead of the spell description being wrong or no longer up to date or that it may actually be WAI already and the part you are looking might be at fault.

The part you quoted from me says "it (effect description, not spell description and I made this distinction out already) makes NO mention of adding the damage type of Bludgeon." Which you have conveniently left out. And even then it doesn't match the description for base weapon dice increases that the spell description has either. So there's a mismatch between effect and spell description, and the actual in game effects themselves suggest aligning with the effect description. So something of the spell is already correct for effect and description from an effect (buff description). Whilst the spell description appears to be using an older and now incorrect description.

Which again is not what your op first sentence is about, since you were unaware of the existence of a correct effect description and effect already existing in game, being concerned instead that the damage flag is not being applied - the part where you thought the code wasn't working and was broken. Otherwise you would have identified the spell description as being wrong, as some parts of the spell was working right already and could verify each other.

J1NG

[Evean]

This does not actually…

My point was we’ve gone full circle. There’s no need to tag everything everyone says.

[Mindos]

My point was we’ve gone full circle. There’s no need to tag everything everyone says.

I'm happy you got the game working again. :)

[Evean]

I'm happy you got the game working again. :)

Yet another bad communication day.

Apologies in advance if I’ve misunderstood, but what in my previous statement lead you to assume that I “got the game working again”?

To be clear, it’s not “working again” and by “full circle” I mean my next point would be the original post I made, and to continue any further would simply be repetition. It is rather amusing, and ironic, that I’ve had to repeat that point three times now. :) lol

[J1NG]

My point was we’ve gone full circle. There’s no need to tag everything everyone says.

When you remove extrenuous information - which is a perfectly valid thing to do (I and many others have done so before), you need to leave relevant parts to be quoting and replying to (or add in why it was removed). When you remove necessary parts for continuity and then leave a ambiguous reply that doesn't even address the relevant missing parts, you can't blame others when you are called out on it. As no one will know if you even bothered to read it. This is why when online you don't do sarcasm or read any emotions into anything, because text doesn't translate like that and needs more effort to make it clear and unambiguous.

In any event, after some digging, it appears that the change to Shillelagh first happened around 2018 (Update 38; Druid pass), just before the Flotsam first appeared (Update 39). Prior to that, it was an Item Enchantment that affected individual weapons and reportedly had targetting (functional) issues on non-material:wood items. So this was likely fixed back in 2018 or most recent spell pass last year (2021) to cover the other material: (like)wood items. It is unknown when this exactly happened because Druids were in a bad spot back then and were largely ignored, so no one was keeping tabs on it's changes. But all wooden items back then that were also melee weapons remain bludgeon only. Also, the Damage Flag addition was also funky and not entirely reliable back then, so most likely the developers decided to removed the effect if they had it before as said before, due to extrenuous addition and possibly not able to get it to work reliably.

It wasn't until the update after when the Flotsam appeared when you had access to a piercing and material: (like)wood melee weapon, but by this point, the change to Shillelagh most likely has already happened and set as WAI now.

Again, given that the in game Buff/Effect description aligns with what it does (and doesn't mention Bludgeon flag addition) and that it was the update immediately after (Flotsams appearance), it is most likely Shillelagh not providing the Bludgeon damage flag was an intended design. And that the spell description needs updating is all.

J1NG

[TedSandyman]

Wow. The whole thread is borked in my opinion.

From the op, the shillelagh spell doesn't seem to be working. Simple enough.

Can someone summarize for me with a few simple answers?

In the end is the spell broken or not?

Is it the type of wood that is causing the problem?

Since most (not all apparently) wooden weapons are bludgeoning, what weapon or weapons was this originally used for?

[J1NG]

In the end is the spell broken or not?

Answer? Unlikely.

Given the history of the spell (prior to U38, Shillelagh appears to work as Enchant Weapon where it won't stack with another Item Enchantment, after U38 it became a buff effect of 5 minutes per caster level instead that checks for all weapons that are equipped and can work with other Item Enchantments) and that this aligns with the description of the buff itself when you examine it (it makes no mention of adding the Bludgeon damage flag that OP was on about), most likely this was the intended outcome after the change during U38. And that the Spell Description (when you moust over the spell to examine it) is the one that is wrong (because it never got updated).


Is it the type of wood that is causing the problem?

Previously? (Before U38) There was reports of this (not working). After? Tests I did hours ago suggests that other similar wood types work. (So this is confirmed, but only for Densewood, Wood and Dark Wood, have not had a chance to test the other types yet as finding them and obtaining them for testing is not easy).


Since most (not all apparently) wooden weapons are bludgeoning, what weapon or weapons was this originally used for?

You'll need or want a Dev to answer that one. As first release of the spell (back in early 2010s) and the change in U38 (2018) were very different.

J1NG

[Evean]

…remove extrenuous information…

You mean like this? :) lol

Footnote: It’s entirely possible we don’t share the same definition/evaluation of “extraneous (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraneous).”