THE OFFICAL WOTC ANSWER TO: Can a warlock multiclass and pick invocations level?

[CyberThread]

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Wizards Customer Service. The only information we have at this time is that if the Prerequisite has a requirement, you will need to meet it to take that ability. You can talk with your DM if you would have to be the Warlock level to take it or your overall level.

Please let us know if you ever have any further questions or concerns. You can reply to this email or you can call us at the phone number listed below during business hours. We’ll be happy to help as best we can.

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account or update your question, please click here.

Jacob P.
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-7pm PST / 10am-10pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 7am-7pm PST / 10am-10pm EST




Customer Question By CSS Web () (09/10/2014 01:12 AM)
So, reading more closely through the warlock, and while reading the invocations list, I noticed they have prerequisites in levels, but nowhere I could find do they specifically mention warlock levels. So this leads to two questions:

1. If I take a level of warlock later (say, 15), would I qualify, Rules as written, for any invocation that has level 15 or lower as a prerequisite?

********************
Page Number: Warlock Unsure which
Book Name: Players Handbook 5e

[Beige]

so their answer is they have no answer :smallconfused: just like being back a uni there XD

[CyberThread]

No no no, see it is how this edition is done. The rule is vague, so ask your DM.

[Yenek]

No no no, see it is how this edition is done. The rule is vague, so ask your DM.

Meaning there is no rule whatsoever.

[Vowtz]

No no no, see it is how this edition is done. The rule is vague, so ask your DM.


Meaning there is no rule whatsoever.

Yep, that's this edition charm:


Some DMs will let you twin scorching ray, some others won't.

Some DMs will let you add str to polearm master, some others won't.

Some DMs will let your halfling hide in combat near his fighter friend, some others won't.

Some DMs will let your multiclass worlock get stronger invocations, some others won't.


There are people who think it's really great to ask each DM for his interpretation, and there are people who prefer the rules to be clear enough for everyone to interpret the same way.

My personal opinion is that these ambiguities can only lead to problems.

[Morty]

There are places in the rules where leaving things up to situational interpretation might be for the best. Such rudimentary character advancement issues aren't among them, I think.

[Yenek]

Yep, that's this edition charm:


Some DMs will let you twin scorching ray, some others won't.

Some DMs will let you add str to polearm master, some others won't.

Some DMs will let your halfling hide in combat near his fighter friend, some others won't.

Some DMs will let your multiclass worlock get stronger invocations, some others won't.


There are people who think it's really great to ask each DM for his interpretation, and there are people who prefer the rules to be clear enough for everyone to interpret the same way.

My personal opinion is that these ambiguities can only lead to problems.

They could at least make a list of missing rules they expect the DM to come up with. This would let the players know where s/he stands.

[Totema]

They could at least make a list of missing rules they expect the DM to come up with. This would let the players know where s/he stands.

This is why it's prudent for a serious DM to make a list of common rulings before play even begins. I also suspect this kind of thing will be discussed in greater detail in the DMG, which is also why I suspect it's coming out last.

Although I'm quite sure it's been debated extensively here, what ruling on this issue does everyone prefer? I can see advantages and disadvantages to either interpretation.

[Mr.Moron]

Yep, that's this edition charm:


Some DMs will let you twin scorching ray, some others won't.

Some DMs will let you add str to polearm master, some others won't.

Some DMs will let your halfling hide in combat near his fighter friend, some others won't.

Some DMs will let your multiclass worlock get stronger invocations, some others won't.


There are people who think it's really great to ask each DM for his interpretation, and there are people who prefer the rules to be clear enough for everyone to interpret the same way.

My personal opinion is that these ambiguities can only lead to problems.

It's really only a problem if the player base can't accept compromise, the GM is just looking for a power trip or either side is trying to "win" the game. Outside those circumstances It's a few words and a mental note for later. If any of those apply it's going to be a miserable game anyway.

If the GMs word can't be "enough" or simple rules ambiguities (which are annoying but will always crop up in any complex game), it's only going to be that much worse the they start having major NPCs make decision, or where and what kind of major challenges are encountered.

Energy is better spent floating different interpretations, and looking at the pros and cons of each than it is just complaining that it's vague or arguing over which one is "Right".

[andhaira]

In this case the answer is pretty obvious. A warlock needs to have levels in the Warlock class to meet the invocation requirements. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, especially not for a class so steeped in lore and flavor. Why would a demon patron reward a warlock with invocations and lores if he takes 10 levels in Paladin the back to Warlock?

[Corinath]

In this case the answer is pretty obvious. A warlock needs to have levels in the Warlock class to meet the invocation requirements. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, especially not for a class so steeped in lore and flavor. Why would a demon patron reward a warlock with invocations and lores if he takes 10 levels in Paladin the back to Warlock?

Because the demon patron was able to turn someone to the dark side. Watch more Star Wars.

Power of any kind begets more power.

(That being said I have no horse in this fight.)

[Morty]

It's really only a problem if the player base can't accept compromise, the GM is just looking for a power trip or either side is trying to "win" the game. Outside those circumstances It's a few words and a mental note for later. If any of those apply it's going to be a miserable game anyway.

If the GMs word can't be "enough" or simple rules ambiguities (which are annoying but will always crop up in any complex game), it's only going to be that much worse the they start having major NPCs make decision, or where and what kind of major challenges are encountered.

Energy is better spent floating different interpretations, and looking at the pros and cons of each than it is just complaining that it's vague or arguing over which one is "Right".

How does it benefit the game if this particular rule is left up to interpretation?

[Tanuki Tales]

In this case the answer is pretty obvious. A warlock needs to have levels in the Warlock class to meet the invocation requirements. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, especially not for a class so steeped in lore and flavor. Why would a demon patron reward a warlock with invocations and lores if he takes 10 levels in Paladin the back to Warlock?

Is there something inherently wrong with making it like 3.5's martial maneuvers? Honest question, since I don't pay too close attention to anything 5th edition.

[Giant2005]

Is there something inherently wrong with making it like 3.5's martial maneuvers? Honest question, since I don't pay too close attention to anything 5th edition.

There is nothing inherently wrong with doing anything at your table (unless you are being particularly malicious or something of course) but he is right in that it obviously isn't the intention of the design. I don't even really understand why the Warlock is being singled out for this - none of the classes specify that you need to have a certain level in that class to get that ability, they use the same "level" terminology that the Warlock uses yet no-one thinks to ask whether or not a Fighter 6, Rogue 1 has Evasion or not (Because he took Rogue at level 7 and would qualify for the level 7 Rogue ability if they were treated with the same standards as the Warlock).

[Totema]

How does it benefit the game if this particular rule is left up to interpretation?
Because it lets the DM make the game their own.

I recall a 3.5 game I was playing a few years ago. The party wizard wanted to know if he could hit a particular foe with a Lightning Bolt spell from behind a wooden wall. The DM wanted to say yes but felt the need to run it through RAW. We had a 10-minute discussion over how thick the wall was, what specific variety of wood it was made of, whether or not the force of the blast would be diminished after bursting through the wall, and more, before finally deciding that the spell would penetrate the wall. 10 minutes of debate, to reach the same conclusion that the DM tried to make in under one.

I understand that players might want specific mechanics that everyone can look up reliably, but in my opinion, a quick and fair DM ruling makes the game much smoother and more enjoyable. And where there are deeper ambiguities (such as with our warlock problem here) the DM should make his/her ruling both well communicated and strictly systematic. Hence, a rulings list.

[Beige]

Is there something inherently wrong with making it like 3.5's martial maneuvers? Honest question, since I don't pay too close attention to anything 5th edition.

it is a slap in the face to the dude who stuck with a class for 16 levels to have the guy with two levels pick up his shiny new toy

epseically since martial manouvres used 1/2 level :smalltongue:

[Morty]

Because it lets the DM make the game their own.

I recall a 3.5 game I was playing a few years ago. The party wizard wanted to know if he could hit a particular foe with a Lightning Bolt spell from behind a wooden wall. The DM wanted to say yes but felt the need to run it through RAW. We had a 10-minute discussion over how thick the wall was, what specific variety of wood it was made of, whether or not the force of the blast would be diminished after bursting through the wall, and more, before finally deciding that the spell would penetrate the wall. 10 minutes of debate, to reach the same conclusion that the DM tried to make in under one.

I understand that players might want specific mechanics that everyone can look up reliably, but in my opinion, a quick and fair DM ruling makes the game much smoother and more enjoyable. And where there are deeper ambiguities (such as with our warlock problem here) the DM should make his/her ruling both well communicated and strictly systematic. Hence, a rulings list.

You didn't answer my question. Why should this particular element be left up to interpretation? Leaving things up to the GM's desires needs to follow some rhyme and reason, and be applied where it can benefit the game. Here? It can only cause arguments.

[andhaira]

it is a slap in the face to the dude who stuck with a class for 16 levels to have the guy with two levels pick up his shiny new toy


Exactly! And this is also why the Bard in my games (and most likely officially too when errata is released) will not be able to pick Paladin 5th level spells 7 levels earlier than the Pally can. This is IMO an obvious oversight by the writers, and an unintended but somewhat necessary side effect of homogenizing stuff neatly for the sake of simplicity (pure casters get same amount of slots gained progression and same number of slots at every level, hybrid casters like Pally and Ranger get less than the above, 1/3rd casters like EK and AT get even less, etc)

[DeAnno]

I really think all this policy of "DM Empowerment" taken to the level where they wont clarify ambiguous rules is doing is making things harder on inexperienced DMs. Forcing them to make more judgement calls with respect to basic game balance isn't empowering them so much as shifting responsibility onto them for something that WotC should really be taking responsibility for.

[SaintRidley]

I think we can just as easily ignore WotC CustServ in 5e as we did in 3.5. There's no reason to suppose that CustServ even cracks a book before answering, or even actually understands the questions.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think we can just as easily ignore WotC CustServ in 5e as we did in 3.5. There's no reason to suppose that CustServ even cracks a book before answering, or even actually understands the questions.

Apparently people have asked (those other people who directly involved in the rules) and have gotten a similar answer as the OP got from customer service, or that's the impression I've gotten from a similar thread over on the official website.

So yeah the current answer really is "talk to your dm about it"

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah, I'm just going back to dual classing. This system seems to have just tacked multi-classing on.

[Mr.Moron]

How does it benefit the game if this particular rule is left up to interpretation?

Irrelevant, it is. That's the reality of it. You've basically got two options. Stop playing & talking about 5e. Accept it doesn't have an official answer for the moment and start talking about the various ways to resolve it and which you'd prefer. Anything else really just amounts to whining.

[Totema]

You didn't answer my question. Why should this particular element be left up to interpretation? Leaving things up to the GM's desires needs to follow some rhyme and reason, and be applied where it can benefit the game. Here? It can only cause arguments.

My bad, I went on a bit of a tangent without realizing what was being argued. But I'll say it again: If the DM makes it abundantly clear what their standing on the ambiguity is, and sticks to it consistently, there's little potential for confusion.

[Shadow]

Although I'm quite sure it's been debated extensively here, what ruling on this issue does everyone prefer? I can see advantages and disadvantages to either interpretation.

My ruling, Warlock level for anyone with any casting class for a multi. You *might* be able to talk me into character level for non-EK and non-AT fighters, rogues, barbs and monks, but my general ruling is walock level.


10 minutes of debate, to reach the same conclusion that the DM tried to make in under one.
I understand that players might want specific mechanics that everyone can look up reliably, but in my opinion, a quick and fair DM ruling makes the game much smoother and more enjoyable. And where there are deeper ambiguities (such as with our warlock problem here) the DM should make his/her ruling both well communicated and strictly systematic. Hence, a rulings list.

I absolutely agree, and this is why I love that D&D is getting back to rulings instead of rules. Why spend 10 minutes looking for and/or arguing about an answer, when it will almost invariably be exactly the same as your gut told you to begin with? Who the hell wants to do that?
Not me.
But this also leads to mutablity, so when different situations lead to different common sense responses, it still doesn't violate the holy RAW.


Forcing them to make more judgement calls with respect to basic game balance isn't empowering them so much as shifting responsibility onto them for something that WotC should really be taking responsibility for.

So when you make your call, make it with balance and common sense in mind. That's the way I'm interpreting any issues in RAW myself.
For example, anything that grants you a bonus attack action with what would essentially be a second weapon (XbX feat, PoleMaster) follow the TWF rules and therefore does not apply Mod to damage. Monk's MA is the exception. Anything which uses resources (such as FoB and War Priest's extra attack) apply mod and get full damage.
Or that Twinned Spell can only be used on single target spells (rather than spells with the ability to target multiple creatures focused fired on one).
Use commoon sense and balance concerns to make rulings, and everything works perfectly fine, in addition to running quickly.


I think we can just as easily ignore WotC CustServ in 5e as we did in 3.5. There's no reason to suppose that CustServ even cracks a book before answering, or even actually understands the questions.

I've actually seen emails posted that it is quite apparent that the CS didn't open the book and/or had no clue what they were talking about.
And actually, it's much easier to ignore them. Chris Tulach, who runs the Adventurer's League, stated (paraphrased) that any ruling coming from the organization, but not in official documentation (such as the PHB, FAQ, errata, etc), is to be considered a guideline for a ruling from another DM and not the word of God. Ask Your DM and find out what he says.
Even sending one of those emails is a waste of your time unless your group decides that this is the way that they collectively want to resolve any issues.

[MeeposFire]

I think we can just as easily ignore WotC CustServ in 5e as we did in 3.5. There's no reason to suppose that CustServ even cracks a book before answering, or even actually understands the questions.

Meh honestly there is nothing in the book that actually says one way or the other hence why we are asking. THe problem is that Custserv is not supposed to make up rules on the spot really either so this question is only a good question for them assuming they know of something we don't (such as we missed some obscure passage somewhere). Since that does not seem to be the case then this really is a case of DM adjudication or errata neither of which is in their purview.

[Morty]

My bad, I went on a bit of a tangent without realizing what was being argued. But I'll say it again: If the DM makes it abundantly clear what their standing on the ambiguity is, and sticks to it consistently, there's little potential for confusion.

Yes, and I will say again, that there's time and place for such rulings, and this isn't one of them. Your example with a lighting bolt spell and people hiding behind wooden cover is a case where something may be covered by the rules, or may be left for the DM to decide based on what she deems appropriate. People may prefer the former or the latter. But in case of character creation, there's really no benefit to leaving things ambiguous like that. It's not like you'll have to look it up in-game, and it won't interfere with how the DM wants the story to go.

[Tanuki Tales]

it is a slap in the face to the dude who stuck with a class for 16 levels to have the guy with two levels pick up his shiny new toy

epseically since martial manouvres used 1/2 level :smalltongue:

Well, obviously there are some benefits that they're missing out on for dipping and other prerequisites they aren't meeting, right? They might get access to higher level invocations, but their selection is small and they don't get the other cool features, right?

So it sounds like they're dipping and picking up a neat trick or two. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Shadow]

Well, obviously there are some benefits that they're missing out on for dipping and other prerequisites they aren't meeting, right? They might get access to higher level invocations, but their selection is small and they don't get the other cool features, right?

So it sounds like they're dipping and picking up a neat trick or two. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

That's true, but it also has implications.
The most obvious, and one of the most contested, is Lifedrinker.

L i f e d r in k e r
Prerequisite: 12th level, Pact o f the Blade feature
When you hit a creature with your pact w eapon, the
creature takes extra necrotic damage equal to your
Charisma modifier (minimum 1).

As just one example, a warlock 3 / bard 17 would, under character level ruling, become a veritible melee powerhouse with amazing at will ranged damage, while retaining full casting of support, healing, and CC that 9th level bard spells offers.
With class level ruling, the melee powerhouse aspect disappears.

[Naanomi]

That's true, but it also has implications.
The most obvious, and one of the most contested, is Lifedrinker.
Totally true, and of course the 'Warlock 3/Paladin 3/Bard 6' build using a Shillelagh and Smite to get Charisma to Attack X2, and Charisma to Damage X2; with Smite and potentially Polearm Master attack on top of that; a build that could be finished off with more Paladin or Bard levels or further multi-classing into Fighter and/or Barbarian for a truly brutal Charisma-Based melee build.

[CyberThread]

That's true, but it also has implications.
The most obvious, and one of the most contested, is Lifedrinker.

L i f e d r in k e r
Prerequisite: 12th level, Pact o f the Blade feature
When you hit a creature with your pact w eapon, the
creature takes extra necrotic damage equal to your
Charisma modifier (minimum 1).

As just one example, a warlock 3 / bard 17 would, under character level ruling, become a veritible melee powerhouse with amazing at will ranged damage, while retaining full casting of support, healing, and CC that 9th level bard spells offers.
With class level ruling, the melee powerhouse aspect disappears.



Just a heads up, when you cut and paste like that, it is clear as day, that you are using an illegal PDF :)

[eugee]

Just a heads up, when you cut and paste like that, it is clear as day, that you are using an illegal PDF :)

I scanned my entire PHB on my HP Desktjet 3050 MFP into NAPS2 then OCR'd it with PDFXChange; all of my spells look identical when I cut-n-paste them. It interprets the "lower case capital" headers as being spaced out lines. I would assume any pirated PDF was created in the exact same why my PDF was, and since the two software programs I used to make my OCR PDF are both in the top free options, why should I be alarmed if my OCR kicks out pretty much identical text?

TL;DR: Just a heads up, when you make a sweeping generalization like that, it is clear as day that you have a guilty conscience. :)

[Shadow]

Just a heads up, when you cut and paste like that, it is clear as day, that you are using an illegal PDF :)

Just a heads up, I don't care what it looks like. I purchased a physical copy. Who's to say I didn't just scan my copy for ease of use?

[DeAnno]

So when you make your call, make it with balance and common sense in mind. That's the way I'm interpreting any issues in RAW myself.
For example, anything that grants you a bonus attack action with what would essentially be a second weapon (XbX feat, PoleMaster) follow the TWF rules and therefore does not apply Mod to damage. Monk's MA is the exception. Anything which uses resources (such as FoB and War Priest's extra attack) apply mod and get full damage.
Or that Twinned Spell can only be used on single target spells (rather than spells with the ability to target multiple creatures focused

Paragraphs like this are exactly why WotC needs to take more responsibility.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yes, and I will say again, that there's time and place for such rulings, and this isn't one of them. Your example with a lighting bolt spell and people hiding behind wooden cover is a case where something may be covered by the rules, or may be left for the DM to decide based on what she deems appropriate. People may prefer the former or the latter. But in case of character creation, there's really no benefit to leaving things ambiguous like that. It's not like you'll have to look it up in-game, and it won't interfere with how the DM wants the story to go.

Nope. You have it completely and utterly backwards.

Such cases are the default answer to which you must establish there is some great and abiding need to be clearer then DM Discretion. Here especially since multiclassing is an explicitly optional feature that has actually nothing to do with character creation. They've already answered it and shouldn't undermine DM authority casually, while DMs should not look to WotC to bail them out.

Because of course the real answer WotC just is being polite about is this: "The DM is always right, and you are always wrong (yes even then) and that's the rule. The rest is just guidelines nominally to make for smoother play for the DM and a way to insert a bit of chance to the procedings."

If you aren't seeking to argue with the DM this should never come up. If you are the DM, pick and your not overuling the PHB either way so your players can't complain. Brilliance.

[Shadow]

If you aren't seeking to argue with the DM this should never come up. If you are the DM, pick and your not overuling the PHB either way so your players can't complain. Brilliance.

This!
A thousand times, this!

[Naanomi]

This!
A thousand times, this!
Still, it will be interesting to see the way Adventure League rules on this issue; or any other 'interchangeable group play' situations; where play-by-play rulings can vary but it is vital to have character creation consistent.

[Rummy]

Still, it will be interesting to see the way Adventure League rules on this issue; or any other 'interchangeable group play' situations; where play-by-play rulings can vary but it is vital to have character creation consistent.

This. I think WotC does a disservice by not addressing these things in a sidebar. I have scar tissue from a players mutiny in 4e when I was using rulings and they insisted on RAW.

[Vowtz]

All this just means that, for 5th edition, if you play a certain character in one table, there is a chance you will not be able to do the same in another, and that would not happen if the rules were clear (I'm not asking for complicated rules, I said clear).

Sorcerer 10/warlock 3 is an example.


Some tables will allow you to get two attacks and cha to damage with pact weapon, others won't.

Don't say "it's obvious the correct interpretation is X", because it's a very controversial rule, on every thread there are conflicting opinions about it, I would allow it, andhaira would not allow.

I will not say that people who disagree with me are idiots, they are not, it's a poorly written rule, it's perfectly fine to be confused and interpret one way or the other.

Instead of defending the 5th edition developers like a religion we can just accept that many of its rules wordings are not good.

On the warlock example:

Instead of

- prerequisite: 5th level

It should be

- prerequisite: 5 warlock levels

Or

- Prerequisite: character level 5th.


There are simple fixes for all these things, the twinned spell, coward halflings, polearm master.


Until a FAQ or dnd 5.5 comes we will have to accept the fact that raw this time is not good and you cannot play the game without some heavy houseruling.

[Giant2005]

I will not say that people who disagree with me are idiots, they are not, it's a poorly written rule, it's perfectly fine to be confused and interpret one way or the other.
I wouldn't call them idiots either but I disagree that it is fine to be confused. Those supporting the essentially removed class requirements need to think things through a great deal more. Otherwise everyone will just cherry pick their levels for maximum benefits and at level 20, everyone will be running around as Masters of all Trades.
Take Druid at 20 for their glorious capstone and level 9 druidic casting.
Take Cleric at 19 for an ability point bonus and level 9 divine casting.
Take Wizard at 18 for infinite Shield spells and level 9 arcane casting.
Take Rogue at 17 so you get two turns during the first round of combat and some pretty nice sneak attack damage.
Take Warlock at 16 for an ability point bonus plus 3 extra level 5 spell slots.
Take Fighter at 11 for three attacks per attack action.

I was actually going to finish this and make an entire build but the more I do so, the more I actually start to think the advocates of this really are idiots, so I think I better stop here.

[archaeo]

Until a FAQ or dnd 5.5 comes we will have to accept the fact that raw this time is not good and you cannot play the game without some heavy houseruling.

I think it's a bit unfair to say heavy houseruling; there are like, maybe a dozen points in the PHB where the rules are unclear enough to make things ambiguous. Sure, if you really want to play 4e with 5e right now, you're going to have to hack the system to pieces and put it back together by hand. But most of the weird bits are individual spells, a few class features, and other simple things where there's usually a really obvious "balanced" answer. Some of them, like this goofy warlock multiclass stuff, should be relatively rare and also obvious. (Why wouldn't it just work like all the other casting classes?) Also, a good litmus test to see which of your players are more interested in playing rules lawyer!

Beyond those few problems, RAW delivers what I think is both a) an entertainingly written PHB stuffed to the brim with plot hooks and character ideas and b) a satisfying D&D experience that cuts out of lot of cruft. It doesn't deliver perfection, but it has a lot of room to grow.

It'd also be nice to extend a bit more goodwill to Mearls & Co., as we know they're a 1) small team who 2) is busily trying to finish 5e. For all we know, the staggered release means that the DMG will have an FAQ addressing some of these issues. Otherwise, after the playerbase digests the entire core rules set, the time will be ripe to make some more "official" guidelines. One doubts WotC's Customer Service department was designed with "fiddly D&D question answers" in mind.

[Theodoxus]

This. I think WotC does a disservice by not addressing these things in a sidebar. I have scar tissue from a players mutiny in 4e when I was using rulings and they insisted on RAW.

I'm sorry about your scar...

And I totally agree. If Adventure League play was some haphazard third party/player pushed creative enterprise, everyone going on (and WotC apparently) about DM ruling would have a case. "Sorry, 5th Ed wasn't built to cater to a 'Living X' or 'Pathfinder Society' type play." And weaksauce wishy-washy rules are fine.

However, 5th Ed and WotC specifically created an homogeneous playstyle called Adventure League, where you track your character development, have very rigid and codified creation rules, can easily port the same character from gametable and gain unique abilities with that same character. And all of a sudden, one week you're a halfling hiding behind your paladin friend, jumping out of hiding to strike fear into the hearts of your enemies, and another week, that whole playstyle is nullified because a completely different DM decides that hiding doesn't work that way?

Your singular character, week to week, becomes schizophrenic through no fault of your own, and it's build that way purposefully? WotC does a disservice to any AL player; sidebar or no - when they decide 'meh, f*** it - it's all s*** anyway'. Sure, it's too late now, but I at least hope they understand why some of us are not happy that AL is gospel and completely unsupported.

[Vhaluus]

In this case the answer is pretty obvious. A warlock needs to have levels in the Warlock class to meet the invocation requirements. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, especially not for a class so steeped in lore and flavor. Why would a demon patron reward a warlock with invocations and lores if he takes 10 levels in Paladin the back to Warlock?

This post is freaking ridiculous. Just because you WANT it to work a certain way doesn't mean that automatically becomes the 'obvious' answer. Jesus some people on this forum are arrogant.

We have had numerous debates in threads on this forum and even Wizards customer support explicitly said it can work either way... so no there is no obvious answer.

This is just an utterly, utterly dumb post.

[Theodoxus]

This. I think WotC does a disservice by not addressing these things in a sidebar. I have scar tissue from a players mutiny in 4e when I was using rulings and they insisted on RAW.


I think it's a bit unfair to say heavy houseruling; there are like, maybe a dozen points in the PHB where the rules are unclear enough to make things ambiguous. Sure, if you really want to play 4e with 5e right now, you're going to have to hack the system to pieces and put it back together by hand. But most of the weird bits are individual spells, a few class features, and other simple things where there's usually a really obvious "balanced" answer. Some of them, like this goofy warlock multiclass stuff, should be relatively rare and also obvious. (Why wouldn't it just work like all the other casting classes?) Also, a good litmus test to see which of your players are more interested in playing rules lawyer!

Beyond those few problems, RAW delivers what I think is both a) an entertainingly written PHB stuffed to the brim with plot hooks and character ideas and b) a satisfying D&D experience that cuts out of lot of cruft. It doesn't deliver perfection, but it has a lot of room to grow.

It'd also be nice to extend a bit more goodwill to Mearls & Co., as we know they're a 1) small team who 2) is busily trying to finish 5e. For all we know, the staggered release means that the DMG will have an FAQ addressing some of these issues. Otherwise, after the playerbase digests the entire core rules set, the time will be ripe to make some more "official" guidelines. One doubts WotC's Customer Service department was designed with "fiddly D&D question answers" in mind.

The sad part is, all they had to do was write 'Any ability described inside a class that mentions a level, means it requires that level of the specified class. Anything that specifically alters this rule is under the Multiclass section.' You would read Warlock, see level requirements for some Invocations, realize they're Warlock levels specifically, flip to the Multiclass section, see there is nothing written about Warlock Invocations and you're done.

This would solve any and all disputes about levels and what you gain where.

[Vhaluus]

Just a heads up, when you cut and paste like that, it is clear as day, that you are using an illegal PDF :)

Which is increadibly ironic given he has talked in post after post about 'voting with his wallet' for 5th ed and against 4th ed

[Vhaluus]

I scanned my entire PHB on my HP Desktjet 3050 MFP into NAPS2 then OCR'd it with PDFXChange; all of my spells look identical when I cut-n-paste them. It interprets the "lower case capital" headers as being spaced out lines. I would assume any pirated PDF was created in the exact same why my PDF was, and since the two software programs I used to make my OCR PDF are both in the top free options, why should I be alarmed if my OCR kicks out pretty much identical text?

TL;DR: Just a heads up, when you make a sweeping generalization like that, it is clear as day that you have a guilty conscience. :)


Just a heads up, I don't care what it looks like. I purchased a physical copy. Who's to say I didn't just scan my copy for ease of use?

This is just as illegal as downloading a copy FYI

[Theodoxus]

This post is freaking ridiculous. Just because you WANT it to work a certain way doesn't mean that automatically becomes the 'obvious' answer. Jesus some people on this forum are arrogant.

We have had numerous debates in threads on this forum and even Wizards customer support explicitly said it can work either way... so no there is no obvious answer.

This is just an utterly, utterly dumb post.

So, when you play, say, a level 1 Fighter, and get level 1 fighter things, and then at character level 2, you decide to go Rogue. You look at the chart, grab the things that are under Rogue 2, and ignore the Rogue 1 level abilities? Because that's what you just described is your playstyle. Is that the way you WANT it to work?

[Vhaluus]

So, when you play, say, a level 1 Fighter, and get level 1 fighter things, and then at character level 2, you decide to go Rogue. You look at the chart, grab the things that are under Rogue 2, and ignore the Rogue 1 level abilities? Because that's what you just described is your playstyle. Is that the way you WANT it to work?

What? I didn't describe anything as my play style. Hell I didn't even disagree that going on class level is a correct solution. All I said is that to claim it is the ONLY correct solution is clearly not true and there is copious evidence to prove it false, with the wizards customer service just being the latest.

But to address your example the way that works is quite clearly laid out in the rules for multiclassing. However the Eldritch invocations are not explained and so it is unclear if they should work like normal benefits from a class or if they work more akin to something like proficiency bonus which scales on character level.

[Mr.Moron]

This. I think WotC does a disservice by not addressing these things in a sidebar. I have scar tissue from a players mutiny in 4e when I was using rulings and they insisted on RAW.

So... terrible players. Not worth the time or hassle. As I noted previous it's only becomes a problem with players when they can't compromise or want to "Win". Your post clearly illustrates this. It's pointless even associating with those kinds of people, let alone trying to run a campaign with them.

In the end it's better to ditch 'em and find folks who know how to have a good time without getting tied up in knots over the details.

[archaeo]

However, 5th Ed and WotC specifically created an homogeneous playstyle called Adventure League, where you track your character development, have very rigid and codified creation rules, can easily port the same character from gametable and gain unique abilities with that same character. And all of a sudden, one week you're a halfling hiding behind your paladin friend, jumping out of hiding to strike fear into the hearts of your enemies, and another week, that whole playstyle is nullified because a completely different DM decides that hiding doesn't work that way?

Your singular character, week to week, becomes schizophrenic through no fault of your own, and it's build that way purposefully? WotC does a disservice to any AL player; sidebar or no - when they decide 'meh, f*** it - it's all s*** anyway'. Sure, it's too late now, but I at least hope they understand why some of us are not happy that AL is gospel and completely unsupported.

As an aside, the Adventurers League Guide (http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/ADVLeague_PlayerGuide_TODv1.pdf) makes it sound only rigid-ish; there's a ton of language that makes it very clear that, while you're constrained by a few extra rules and regulations, you're nonetheless going to be subject to the DM, who is expected to deliver a fun game to the players. I think anybody who reads that document and then chats with their player about, say, the stealth rules, is being expected to be cool about it.


The sad part is, all they had to do was write 'Any ability described inside a class that mentions a level, means it requires that level of the specified class. Anything that specifically alters this rule is under the Multiclass section.' You would read Warlock, see level requirements for some Invocations, realize they're Warlock levels specifically, flip to the Multiclass section, see there is nothing written about Warlock Invocations and you're done.

This would solve any and all disputes about levels and what you gain where.

Oh, absolutely. Just saying "Warlock level" instead of "level" would be sufficient. Or listing "Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Warlock" in the Bard's share spell ability to protect the differently scaled Ranger and Paladin spells.

But given how this document was undoubtedly turned out, with different parts being "finished" at different times, and constant playtesting changes, etc., etc, it should be little wonder that a few mistakes made it through. It's not "sad," just human.


We have had numerous debates in threads on this forum and even Wizards customer support explicitly said it can work either way... so no there is no obvious answer.


What? I didn't describe anything as my play style. Hell I didn't even disagree that going on class level is a correct solution. All I said is that to claim it is the ONLY correct solution is clearly not true and there is copious evidence to prove it false, with the wizards customer service just being the latest.

But to address your example the way that works is quite clearly laid out in the rules for multiclassing. However the Eldritch invocations are not explained and so it is unclear if they should work like normal benefits from a class or if they work more akin to something like proficiency bonus which scales on character level.

It seems intuitively obvious that the intent was that mutliclassing casters should generally use their class levels when selecting which spells they can prepare. This is borne out by how ridiculous it gets if you let anyone who picks up a few Warlock levels get all the benefits of being a high-level Warlock in addition to their primary class.

I assume the only reason we're getting a "Let your DM decide" suggestion is to see how DMs decide. The entire 5e strategy has been to let the players guide the design process, and that's what's happening right now, if WotC keeps up their side of the bargain and asks survey questions for the next round of rules edits/corrections/errata. It's also the easiest thing for a customer service rep to say who is probably not an infallible reference for D&D rules, while Mearls & Co. have their minds on the DMG and either a) plan to address some of this in the DMG itself or b) just want to wait until all the rules are out before they try issuing clarifications, both of which seem pretty reasonable.

[Shadow]

Which is increadibly ironic given he has talked in post after post about 'voting with his wallet' for 5th ed and against 4th ed

Do me a favor and find me the post where I said anything of the sort.
Go ahead. I'll wait.

hint: You're going to be looking for a while, because I never said any such thing.

And for the record, scanning it is not illegal. Sharing that scan is.
So tell me, does everything look low and insignificant from being up there so high and mighty?

[archaeo]

And for the record, scanning it is not illegal. Sharing that scan is.

While I don't think we need to get snippy with each other, Shadow is right here. In general, Vhaluus, you have a right to copy anything you own, and even some things you don't (most television broadcasts, for example). If it was illegal to copy things you owned, it would be, for example, illegal to back up your hard drive.

This is derailing discussion in any case; if you think Shadow's breaking the rules, report him to the mods.

[captpike]

"we do not know how our own system works, figure it out yourself"

I feel so glad they are here...



So when you make your call, make it with balance and common sense in mind. That's the way I'm interpreting any issues in RAW myself.
For example, anything that grants you a bonus attack action with what would essentially be a second weapon (XbX feat, PoleMaster) follow the TWF rules and therefore does not apply Mod to damage. Monk's MA is the exception. Anything which uses resources (such as FoB and War Priest's extra attack) apply mod and get full damage.
Or that Twinned Spell can only be used on single target spells (rather than spells with the ability to target multiple creatures focused fired on one).
Use commoon sense and balance concerns to make rulings, and everything works perfectly fine, in addition to running quickly.


that is not what RAW is.

RAW means what they wrote, not what you want it to mean. you are free to houserule what they wrote to something else but don't lie to your players by saying that a rule says X when it clearly says Y, instead say "it says X, but that is stupid so we are using Y houserule"

[Giant2005]

"we do not know how our own system works, figure it out yourself"

I feel so glad they are here...

Its hardly news - if you watch Chris Perkins DMing Acquisitions Inc., it becomes very obvious that the writers have no idea what the actual rules are.

[captpike]

Its hardly news - if you watch Chris Perkins DMing Acquisitions Inc., it becomes very obvious that the writers have no idea what the actual rules are.

no sadly it is not news, but I die a little inside every time something happens that shows it.

[Totema]

no sadly it is not news, but I die a little inside every time something happens that shows it.

You know, no one's forcing you to play 5e. 4e is still around for all you folks with balance fetishes. They're all still there, with all their myriad problems, just how you like them. Go ahead, no one will stop you from playing them.

[SiuiS]

Meaning there is no rule whatsoever.

That is what "we don't know yet" means, yes.

[archaeo]

Its hardly news - if you watch Chris Perkins DMing Acquisitions Inc., it becomes very obvious that the writers have no idea what the actual rules are.

I'm not sure that Acquisitions Inc. games, especially the live shows, are really excellent examples of D&D by the book. They're time-limited, after all, and Perkins wants to show the complete episode, necessitating some pretty strict rails and probably a bit of fudging. I'd also say that Perkins actually provides a good example of how experienced DMs can play things by ear in order to facilitate the right kind of story, something he excels at and is largely system independent. Acquisitions Inc. isn't supposed to be a D&D rules tutorial, after all, and Perkins is trying to a) sell D&D by making it look cool, and b) show off how playing things with room for the Rule of Cool is a fine way to DM.

But I haven't seen the most recent episodes; where is Perkins messing up the 5e rules? He certainly seemed to have a good grasp of the rules back when Acquisitions Inc. was a 4e game, and in my opinion, showed off exactly how fun D&D can be.

[Mandrake]

Just a few things (and I'm not preaching, I'm being systematic about my thoughts):

[1] DM's used to make a lot of judgment calls even in 4e. They are the ones that made the room, it has the stuff they want in it, so they decide if you can, for example, kick the chair all the way to the door. It doesn't mean that if you have rules, you all become rule robots playing colorful inflated chess.
[2] Vagueness is good as ever. It keeps the game flowing. It is fine that they explicitly said that the DM can make his decision, so he is not threatened by RAW inspectors.
[3] That said, Warlock Invocation is just a mistake. You qualify for it early and might get high level benefits (not like Rogue Evasion talk). The problem is that "wingin' it", "gut feeling", "obvious interpretation", "common sense" etc. fails here, otherwise this wouldn't be a topic for so long. Also, the idea that "it's ok for some to do it this way if they like" (although, in a way, of course it is) leads to a problem when changing tables, and, even more importantly, gaining levels. I haven't played a single game of 5e above certain level, and I would really much dislike it if Warlock multiclasser turned out to be super strong or weak due to my decision. I cannot have a gut feeling by now or common sense of the strength I give to the player. In other words, the consequences are unpredictable, and on a much larger scale then just deciding whether a character gets full or partial cover in a single round of a single encounter. Winging it in that occasion is ok, since it changes little, and, over time, the decisions made in this or that favor basically nullify, if you're all cool and fair, but this changes too much.

I can only say that we can hope for someone playing it to be judge (as if one was enough) or wait for WotC to sum it up and give an errata, hopefully. Otherwise, they are just hiding behind the DM without any responsibility, forcefully giving us our "identity", "decisions" and "uniqueness" as if I wasn't able to get some of those by myself.
Here, DM. No one cares about you. You are not creative and tend to just read from our books, unable to flesh out your game beyond it. Well, we wrote our books wrong, so that you my think, isn't that better? No, it's an error in your system, and demeaning to me.

I'm not as annoyed as this may sound.

[Shadow]

Perkins stuff

I was typing something similar, but you beat me to it.
Perkins shows exactly what a good DM does. It mat not be 100% by the numbers, but it always adds up to a good experience.

[Giant2005]

I'm not sure that Acquisitions Inc. games, especially the live shows, are really excellent examples of D&D by the book. They're time-limited, after all, and Perkins wants to show the complete episode, necessitating some pretty strict rails and probably a bit of fudging. I'd also say that Perkins actually provides a good example of how experienced DMs can play things by ear in order to facilitate the right kind of story, something he excels at and is largely system independent. Acquisitions Inc. isn't supposed to be a D&D rules tutorial, after all, and Perkins is trying to a) sell D&D by making it look cool, and b) show off how playing things with room for the Rule of Cool is a fine way to DM.

But I haven't seen the most recent episodes; where is Perkins messing up the 5e rules? He certainly seemed to have a good grasp of the rules back when Acquisitions Inc. was a 4e game, and in my opinion, showed off exactly how fun D&D can be.

Yeah I think it is just 5e he is struggling with. There were a few times where the players were using multiple bonus actions in the same turn, he was also using what I think were old playtest rules (Crits doing max damage plus an additional die) and a couple of times he actually took the time to consult the book to figure out how a rule was supposed to play out.

[Shadow]

Yeah I think it is just 5e he is struggling with. There were a few times where the players were using multiple bonus actions in the same turn, he was also using what I think were old playtest rules (Crits doing max damage plus an additional die) and a couple of times he actually took the time to consult the book to figure out how a rule was supposed to play out.

The rules were in a constant state of flux. What would you expect?
The DnD livestream games, available on YouTube if you want to watch them, sometimes changed from session to session, and the players (which were all WotC employees) would have to ask and/or remind each other which ruleset they were playing with for that particular game.
PAX, and therefore the AqInc game in question, falls squarely in this time frame as well.

The entire session from PAX is a huge billboard for 5e's "make rulings, not rules" philosophy.

[archaeo]

The problem is that "wingin' it", "gut feeling", "obvious interpretation", "common sense" etc. fails here, otherwise this wouldn't be a topic for so long.

As far as I can tell, the main reason this has been a topic for so long is because people are edition warring, or just rules lawyering to start an argument. The underlying logic of the multiclassing rules makes it pretty clear that it's a mistake, and the fact that it feels like you're exploiting a loophole in the tax code if you make this work definitely gives it a scuzzy feeling most DMs should get.

I'll totally admit that it's probably a bit confusing for brand new DMs, and I suspect this'll be one of the first things errata'd. But if you follow the logic of allowing Fighter 18 / Warlock 2 to pick any invocation, even a new guy should see that it's a seriously unbalanced result. Given that the D&D team is still ostensibly working hard to finish releasing the game, I'm willing to cut them some slack on providing a definitive answer to this right away.


Yeah I think it is just 5e he is struggling with. There were a few times where the players were using multiple bonus actions in the same turn, he was also using what I think were old playtest rules (Crits doing max damage plus an additional die) and a couple of times he actually took the time to consult the book to figure out how a rule was supposed to play out.

Yeah, that sounds about right. The man's been working on this a long time, and one imagines the rules all kind of run together after awhile.

[Yenek]

There are several problems with the whole "make rulings, not rules" attitude:


It forces the DM to make the rulebook's work. That's what this "DM Empowernment" tripe amounts to. The DM has always been able to houserule when they disagree with the book - this attitude just forces them to, drawing attention away from stuff like encounters and plot and treating them like WotC's unpaid employes.
It allows the DM to behave like Joffrey damn Lannister and arbitrarily favor/haze certain players.
It inherently favors high player Cha.

[Vowtz]

You know, no one's forcing you to play 5e. 4e is still around for all you folks with balance fetishes. They're all still there, with all their myriad problems, just how you like them. Go ahead, no one will stop you from playing them.

But that's the thing, d&d 5 is not a bad system at all, it is really good! It's simplicity is magnificent, the idea of progressing in a single class being as good or better than multiclassing is really great, even if it was poorly executed. The "neo vancian magic" is beautiful.

The healing and skill systems are the only things that's really bad in concept, but maybe DMG can still save us there.

But there are so many rules problems (with very simple solutions) that force you to stablish house rules all the time when it could just be written there.

And that complicate your character creation, meaning you will have to keep asking your DM for a lot of things to create your character, you can't write your char at home, come and play, you have to know this specific DMs houserules beforehand.

"Can I enter rage in heavy armor and use wolf totem abilities?" if you say yes will you say the same to bear totem ability?

"How Polearm Master and Sentinel work?" If I hit my oponent he stops before entering my reach, as raw indicates?

As a DM I don't want to make these rules, DMs already have enough work writting stories, campaigns, adventures, NPCs, etc.

As a player I want to play the same kind of character in different tables without losing/gaining abilities based on DMs disposition.

The idea of vague rules just turn 5th edition from "almost perfect" to "maybe better than average".

[archaeo]

There are several problems with the whole "make rulings, not rules" attitude:


It forces the DM to make the rulebook's work. That's what this "DM Empowernment" tripe amounts to. The DM has always been able to houserule when they disagree with the book - this attitude just forces them to, drawing attention away from stuff like encounters and plot and treating them like WotC's unpaid employes.
It allows the DM to behave like Joffrey damn Lannister and arbitrarily favor/haze certain players.
It inherently favors high player Cha.


Your first point ignores that relatively few rules errors or weirdnesses in 5e really need to be addressed by DMs. For the most part, "rulings not rules" is just WotC saying "having fun isn't about playing 'correctly,'" not "please fix the mistakes we didn't want to fix." It's been all of a few weeks since the book came out, and I imagine that most of the obvious issues we've been talking about are also going to be some of the first things the designers patch up and provide information about. In the meantime, only a very few rules even approach the point of necessitating a house rule.

Your second point is asking for something that isn't possible. If a version of D&D could magically make jerks into good DMs, it would be worth a lot more than $150. Likewise, your third point is another good way to know when to jump ship. If a campaign runs on DM abuse or some kind of weird DM patronage scheme, you're gonna have a bad time.

[Warskull]

There are several problems with the whole "make rulings, not rules" attitude:


It forces the DM to make the rulebook's work. That's what this "DM Empowernment" tripe amounts to. The DM has always been able to houserule when they disagree with the book - this attitude just forces them to, drawing attention away from stuff like encounters and plot and treating them like WotC's unpaid employes.
It allows the DM to behave like Joffrey damn Lannister and arbitrarily favor/haze certain players.
It inherently favors high player Cha.


Don't forget it forces slapdash rulings. Some of this stuff takes time and analysis. You have to think about the consequences of the ruling. You don't have time to pause the game for an hour while you analyze the rules considering the RAW, possible language interpretations, the RAI, and the possible results of all the rulings.

For example my first instinct with Warlock pacts might be to allow it, however upon further analysis I think that is wrong. Particularly because of Thirsting Blade. If the interpretation is character level, anyone can dip into warlock and get a second attack with only three warlock levels. The game seems to standardize a five level minimum investment for a second attack. If you interpret the level requirement at warlock level then it functions as the standard five levels for a second attack.

Additionally, if you look through the use of the word level throughout the classes, the almost never specify class. Go read through class features for other classes. They like to use "starting at X level" not "starting at X cleric level." No one would argue you get improved smite by simply being a level 11 character, buy it says "by 11th level." If you go off the other language the use of level in the class section seems to imply class level not character level.

You have no time to analyze either of these things at the table, so you may as well be flipping a coin for rulings made ad hoc at the table.

However, this is something the community could over time solve itself. Create a list of the more common questions, provide a brief analysis, and recommended rulings.

[BW022]

There are several problems with the whole "make rulings, not rules" attitude:


It forces the DM to make the rulebook's work. That's what this "DM Empowernment" tripe amounts to. The DM has always been able to houserule when they disagree with the book - this attitude just forces them to, drawing attention away from stuff like encounters and plot and treating them like WotC's unpaid employes.
It allows the DM to behave like Joffrey damn Lannister and arbitrarily favor/haze certain players.
It inherently favors high player Cha.


I have to agree. I don't mind parts of 5E which are optional and like the simplified rules which leave it to the DM to come up with the exceptions or make general table rulings on subjective things such as when characters get advantage or disadvantage. Such openness is fine.

However, I fail to see the reason not having concrete base rules. This isn't a complex issues arriving in game which requires a unique or limited ruling. It is a core rule for which I can't see any reason they shouldn't just say one way or the other.

Obviously, 5E is going to have a massive issue in organized play, public game days, etc. unless someone comes up with a mountain of rules and get everyone to agree to them. Even within groups, lack of clarify like this just leads to unnecessarily hard feelings. Say when the player reached 12th-level, multi-classes and then the issue comes up. The player has some type of build in mind and the DM says "No"... or you have another PC who took 10-levels of the class to get the same ability upset that they could have gotten the same ability just by multi-classing.

I just don't understand why they can't say in the multi-class rules "If a class feature has a prerequisite level, this is always the class level." If they really intend for this to be optional, then include one of those option boxes "Option. DMs may allow class feature prerequisites to be based on character level." (or the reverse).

If they honestly never thought about it... fine. Do the same in an FAQ or come up with an organized play set of rules which can form the defaults for players who don't want to waste a week or more coming up with all the rulings for really simple stuff.

[Surrealistik]

I paid for a system with concrete rules.

I want a system with concrete rules.


Now don't get me wrong, I'm not all that hung up on this particular issue, so much as the tone it sets and what it implies in terms of future errata and rules clarifications.

[Shadow]

I paid for a system with concrete rules.

I want a system with concrete rules.

No, you want a system with concrete rules. That part is true.
But you paid for a system with unknown rules. Had you done a tiny bit of research, you would have discovered even before the PHB was released that this was the design intent of the new edition. There were plenty and plenty of interviews and videos wherein designers discussed the philosophy of 5e all over the internet. They were there for you to find. They weren't even hard to find. They were everywhere.
So don't complain about what you paid for, because that was the fault of the buyer, not the fault of the seller.

[Surrealistik]

No, you want a system with concrete rules. That part is true.
But you paid for a system with unknown rules. Had you done a tiny bit of research, you would have discovered even before the PHB was released that this was the design intent of the new edition. There were plenty and plenty of interviews and videos wherein designers discussed the philosophy of 5e all over the internet. They were there for you to find. They weren't even hard to find. They were everywhere.
So don't complain about what you paid for, because that was the fault of the buyer, not the fault of the seller.

Having played this game in both the closed and open Alphas and listened to these, no, that was not the edition philosophy that was implicit or stated during the development process. The primary goal of 5e as defined by these sources was modularity, _not_ rules ambiguity and inconsistent free form; there's an important and distinct difference between the two.

That said, it's a single custserv response, so I'm hopeful that this is an anomaly, and not indicative of how rules ambiguities in 5e will be resolved, particularly when other ambiguities have been more concretely and definitively resolved by the Word of God.

[Shadow]

That said, it's a single custserv response, so I'm hopeful that this is an anomaly, and not indicative of how rules ambiguities in 5e will be resolved, particularly when other ambiguities have been more concretely and definitively resolved by the Word of God.

It will be a more common response than you'd like.
WotC representatives have already stated (paraphrased) that (1) you should always ask your DM first, and (2) any response from the organization to any queries should be treated as simply a suggestion from another DM rather than a hard and fast ruling about RAW, unless it comes in the form of official documentation (such as errata, FAQ, Player's Guide, etc).
That means that even the Word of God.... well.... isn't. Until it officially is.

"Ask your DM" is going to be the standard answer to most questions. And even when they say something else, that is just a recommendation and is not an official ruling until it gets in print somewhere, if it ever does.

[captpike]

You know, no one's forcing you to play 5e. 4e is still around for all you folks with balance fetishes. They're all still there, with all their myriad problems, just how you like them. Go ahead, no one will stop you from playing them.

true, but Wotc promiced a game that would suit everyone's taste, including mine. I will leave when I get such a game or they exsplictly tell me that they are not going to make it

[Surrealistik]

It will be a more common response than you'd like.
WotC representatives have already stated (paraphrased) that (1) you should always ask your DM first, and (2) any response from the organization to any queries should be treated as simply a suggestion from another DM rather than a hard and fast ruling about RAW, unless it comes in the form of official documentation (such as errata, FAQ, Player's Guide, etc).
That means that even the Word of God.... well.... isn't. Until it officially is.

"Ask your DM" is going to be the standard answer to most questions. And even when they say something else, that is just a recommendation and is not an official ruling until it gets in print somewhere, if it ever does.

Concrete answers from the Word of God is definitive to me, errata or not (unless of course, errata rules exist that contradict WoG) . Beyond that I haven't seen/heard any quotes from people with authority that (2) is indeed the case; if anything like 2 was indeed stated, I think it is intended more as an affirmation of rule 0 and the DM's right to houserule than a dismissal of the validity of official sources. Overall, it's clear that ambiguity and continual DM adjudication over poorly written rules were not design goals of 5e and I hope that subsequent rule clarifications and errata will reflect this; we will just have to see.

[captpike]

[2] Vagueness is good as ever. It keeps the game flowing. It is fine that they explicitly said that the DM can make his decision, so he is not threatened by RAW inspectors.


there is never a time when vagueness is good. there are times when you do not include rules. for example in 4e there are no rules for improved your attitude with NPCs via the diplomacy skill. this was done because there SHOULD be no rules for it.

leaving rules out of the system that should not be in the system are good, having rules that are not rules is not.

[TheOOB]

I fell like I should chime in that WotC customer service has never been a trusted source for rules questions. Technically only the books and errata are "RAW", while FAQs and Word of God are not RAW, but generally respected sources.

As for the Warlock question, I believe you need a warlock level of the specified level to meet the prerequisites. Note that virtually every class ability for every class simply says that you gain the ability "at x level", not specifying the class. As Invocations follow the same notation, and are also found in the warlocks class entry, it is reasonable to expect them to work the same, and in fact an argument that you just need an over all level to learn those abilities could also be used as an argument that characters gain every class ability from every class at each level, which is obviously not the case. Note that the multi-class rules are optional rules, and the class descriptions are note build assuming them. Unless the class ability is specifically noted in the multiclass rules, assume it works exactly as it does for a single class character.

Abilities are not intended to be ambiguous, they are intended to be module and adaptable. For most rules a careful reading of the rules will let you arrive at the correct RAW interpretation, or at least the most likely one.

[Shadow]

Beyond that I haven't seen/heard any quotes from people with authority that (2) is indeed the case; if anything like 2 was indeed stated, I think it is intended more as an affirmation of rule 0 and the DM's right to houserule than a dismissal of the validity of official sources. Overall, it's clear that ambiguity and continual DM adjudication over poorly written rules were not design goals of 5e and I hope that subsequent rule clarifications and errata will reflect this; we will just have to see.



I would definitely suggest having a discussion with your DM if you have elements of your character that are open to rules interpretation, as others have said. It is not a priority for us to create a homogenous game experience.

Unless it appears in official documentation (like a FAQ or the Player's Guide), a ruling on general D&D rules (as opposed to Adventurers League specific rules) from someone in the administration is just a guideline from another DM.

This edition really puts a lot more weight on DM interpretation to make the game move along, and the D&D Adventurers League embraces that philosophy when possible.

Choose a sentence from the quote, copy/paste, google search

[Surrealistik]

Choose a sentence from the quote, copy/paste, google search

In otherwords, DM interpretation takes precedence over anything but errata; fair enough. I'm also not especially reassured by this quotation which implies a lack of concern with quality control so far as wording goes. Even so, the real litmus test will be when the first major errata is released.

[Shadow]

In otherwords, DM interpretation takes precedence over anything but errata; fair enough. I'm also not especially reassured by this quotation which implies a lack of concern with quality control so far as wording goes. Even so, the real litmus test will be when the first major errata is released.

Like I said, prepare yourself to be disappointed.
I, for one, am ecstatic about it rather than concerned.

My main suggestion for people that want a more solid foundation upon which more games are based would be to use the AL specific rules at all times.

[Surrealistik]

Like I said, prepare yourself to be disappointed.
I, for one, am ecstatic about it rather than concerned.

I don't at this point have much in the way of expectations to disappoint really.

Ultimately so long as I have a DM that provides fair and clear rulings and doesn't permit abuse of rules ambiguity I'm alright, but I would much rather that 5e's rules be better worded and codified in the first place so the need for DM arbitration and the controversy/drama/hard feelings that often comes with it in my experience are minimized.

Beyond this I can easily see inconsistent rulings being an issue in organized play, particularly in cases like these prerequisites.

[Shadow]

I'm sure that ALOP will have a specific ruling on this issue, and I'm fairly certain that it will favor warlock level.
This isn't an issue with a character's round to round combat options like the twinned scorching ray issue is. This is one of basic character building.
They'll have a rule for it.

In case you missed my edit:
My suggestion for people that want a more solid foundation for thier games would be for those people to use the AL specific rules at all times.

[TheOOB]

Word of God is irrelevant in regards to RAW. Whether you like it or not, RAW is absolute unless changed with errata. DM interpretation has nothing to do with it. If RAW is unclear there can be debate as to what RAW means, and it is sometimes(rarely in well made works) possible to come up with multiple valid interpretations of RAW, but unless the rules specifically give the DM power over a certain element of the game mechanics(such as a sorcerer's wild surge), then DM fiat has nothing to do with RAW.

Also note that while RAW is important to discussing among different groups of players, no group plays 100% to RAW and for the purpose of your game you can do whatever you want.

[Surrealistik]

Word of God is irrelevant in regards to RAW. Whether you like it or not, RAW is absolute unless changed with errata. DM interpretation has nothing to do with it. If RAW is unclear there can be debate as to what RAW means, and it is sometimes(rarely in well made works) possible to come up with multiple valid interpretations of RAW, but unless the rules specifically give the DM power over a certain element of the game mechanics(such as a sorcerer's wild surge), then DM fiat has nothing to do with RAW.

If this is addressing me, I'm actually in agreement with this. My position on WoG is that it is, for me, effectively tantamount to (but not literally) RAW to me in cases where:

A: There is a legitimate rules ambiguity with several possible interpretations.

and

B: There is no official errata resolving that rules ambiguity.

[TheOOB]

If this is addressing me, I'm actually in agreement with this. My position on WoG is that it is, for me, effectively tantamount to (but not literally) RAW to me in cases where:

A: There is a legitimate rules ambiguity with several possible interpretations.

and

B: There is no official errata resolving that rules ambiguity.

It wasn't addressed to you specifically, I actually agree with most of what you've been saying, more the general concept that the D&D rules are open to interpretation. When written well rules have one and only one meaning, and when said meaning is unclear it's usually better to use logic to figure out what the meaning is than to ask people, even designers, about rules they helped to make a while ago and that they are trying to remember off hand.

I feel there is a running trend of this board of people ignoring well thought out arguments about the rules because the rules are "supposed to be open to interpretation". I feel this doesn't promote meaningful discussions.

[Bauth]

As for the Warlock question, I believe you need a warlock level of the specified level to meet the prerequisites. Note that virtually every class ability for every class simply says that you gain the ability "at x level", not specifying the class. As Invocations follow the same notation, and are also found in the warlocks class entry, it is reasonable to expect them to work the same, and in fact an argument that you just need an over all level to learn those abilities could also be used as an argument that characters gain every class ability from every class at each level, which is obviously not the case.

Well the thing is Invocations do not follow that same notation. Instead they say "Prerequisite: xth level". And in regards to their appearance of the class entry, they are laid out more like spells known than normal class features, which are listed in the class features entry. The evidence against normal class features not being matched to character level is their presence on the class table. Following what the table says, you need to get to 2nd warlock level to receive the class feature called Eldritch Invocations. Then, as you gain more warlock levels, you gain more Invocations similarly to how you gain more spells or how a Barbarian gains more uses of Rage. In that sense, abilities that a class gains that do not have progression listed on the table should not be held to that table's constraints.

And this mindset is supported elsewhere in the book. Look at Paladin Oath Spells. Oath Spells are granted by the Sacred Oath class feature at Paladin level 3 according to the Paladin table. Oath Spells as a feature itself is not given in the table. When the progression of these spells is given later in the section, it is given exactly as "You gain oath spells at the paladin levels listed," followed by a small table showing the levels, which are listed specifically as "Paladin Level". Similarly in the Druid class section, circle spells are listed as being earned in a table at a given "Druid Level."

This would imply that if such a thing were not explicitly written, then that specific restriction was not actually intended. The fact they leave it open to DM discretion as opposed to giving a correction or clarification as they have on other rulings seems a good indicator that what you say is the clear intention of the rule is not actually the clear intention of the rule at all.

[TheOOB]

Well the thing is Invocations do not follow that same notation. Instead they say "Prerequisite: xth level". And in regards to their appearance of the class entry, they are laid out more like spells known than normal class features, which are listed in the class features entry. The evidence against normal class features not being matched to character level is their presence on the class table. Following what the table says, you need to get to 2nd warlock level to receive the class feature called Eldritch Invocations. Then, as you gain more warlock levels, you gain more Invocations similarly to how you gain more spells or how a Barbarian gains more uses of Rage. In that sense, abilities that a class gains that do not have progression listed on the table should not be held to that table's constraints.

And this mindset is supported elsewhere in the book. Look at Paladin Oath Spells. Oath Spells are granted by the Sacred Oath class feature at Paladin level 3 according to the Paladin table. Oath Spells as a feature itself is not given in the table. When the progression of these spells is given later in the section, it is given exactly as "You gain oath spells at the paladin levels listed," followed by a small table showing the levels, which are listed specifically as "Paladin Level". Similarly in the Druid class section, circle spells are listed as being earned in a table at a given "Druid Level."

This would imply that if such a thing were not explicitly written, then that specific restriction was not actually intended. The fact they leave it open to DM discretion as opposed to giving a correction or clarification as they have on other rulings seems a good indicator that what you say is the clear intention of the rule is not actually the clear intention of the rule at all.

I'm not sure I agree, but I don't have time(nor access to the book) to formulate a proper counter argument to your post at the moment. I'd like to see others thoughts on this. In short though, I feel that class entry is written for a single class warlock, and if the ability worked differently than every other ability when multiclassing that it would be noted as spellcasting an extra attack are.

[SaintRidley]

Breakdown of my interpretation:

Multiclassing is listed as an optional variant. Everything is written with single-classed characters in mind.

That's going to swing me hard in the direction of "probably not" category.

But looking at the invocations... The ones with level prereqs are pretty well in-line with the abilities of that character level for other single-classed characters.

With a dip, you are delaying progress in your primary class and giving up a feat/ability increase as well as the capstone. You're getting other abilities, but they're abilities which the other class has been doing for several levels already. So that pushes me a bit back toward the why not category.

On the other hand, Chains of Carceri is a brand new shiny toy the Chainlock has just gotten to play with, and if Fighter comes along with a dip for it that might not be entirely fair to the Chainlock.

On the fourth Kreen claw, classes are bundles of abilities which can be used to build a coherent whole. I don't take class fluff all that seriously if your concept requires multiclassing to function. In which case I'd probably allow it.

Maybe I'll go for a dual classing system down the line, I don't know. I think if you're going to allow multiclassing in the first place (and that's your decision as a DM, this is something the DM should consider and decide beforehand. Maybe talk to the players and see what their general ideas and plans are).

I mean, you could always just disallow multiclassing and eliminate any problems that way. Or you could point that multiclassing is a variant and say that if it's in a class description, all references to level have to do with the class's level. That'd do it too. It's really not too onerous if that's what you want to do. And I'm totally fine with leaving this up to DMs.

[rlc]

Subject
Grappler Feat

Response By Email (Support Rep) (09/16/2014 12:39 PM)
Hello Rob,

Thank you for contacting Wizards Customer Service. I have received your information and have forwarded it up to the appropriate team. Any updates will be posted on our website. As for if the creature can grapple the creature one size bigger, your DM can make that call at that time.

Please let us know if you ever have any further questions or concerns. You can reply to this email or you can call us at the phone number listed below during business hours. We’ll be happy to help as best we can.

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account or update your question, please click here.

Jacob P.
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-7pm PST / 10am-10pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 7am-7pm PST / 10am-10pm EST
Customer Question By CSS Web (Rob Clark) (09/14/2014 06:07 PM)
What exactly is meant by the Grappler feat where it says that creatures of one size larger than you cannot automatically break your grapple if it says elsewhere that you can grapple creatures of that size? If they can automatically break your grapple, then it would follow that you cannot grapple them.
Thanks for the help!
i get the whole "not supposed to be making rules decisions for you" thing, but a little more than "idklol" would be nice.

[Perkinz]

*snip*

Customer Question By CSS Web () (09/10/2014 01:12 AM)
So, reading more closely through the warlock, and while reading the invocations list, I noticed they have prerequisites in levels, but nowhere I could find do they specifically mention warlock levels. So this leads to two questions:

1. If I take a level of warlock later (say, 15), would I qualify, Rules as written, for any invocation that has level 15 or lower as a prerequisite?

********************
Page Number: Warlock Unsure which
Book Name: Players Handbook 5e




In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability....

...Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the invocations you know and replace it with another invocation that you could learn at that level.

This is what the PHB for 5e says about invocations (irrelevant parts to the statement I'm about to make snipped, and emphasis mine).

Notice the bolded part. It says this class. So getting levels of fighter/barbarian/onion knight wouldn't allow you to learn higher level invocations. Moreover, you wouldn't have invocations at 1st level warlock. They're a second level ability.

I think it's not too unreasonable to infer, since the description of the ability itself includes a reference to warlock levels, that warlock levels are required to gain access to the higher levels of that ability.

Is there a bit of ambiguity there? I suppose, if you tilt your head and squint heavily.

[cobaltstarfire]

Thank you for contacting Wizards Customer Service. I have received your information and have forwarded it up to the appropriate team. Any updates will be posted on our website.

i get the whole "not supposed to be making rules decisions for you" thing, but a little more than "idklol" would be nice.


Their response to you was different from the one in the OP, they acknowledge that there appears to be an issue with the rules there and that it will probably need tweaking. What else do you seriously expect them to say?

They likely don't want to give you a ruling that will be contradicted when they errata it to make sense.

[Ferrin33]

This is what the PHB for 5e says about invocations (irrelevant parts to the statement I'm about to make snipped, and emphasis mine).

Notice the bolded part. It says this class. So getting levels of fighter/barbarian/onion knight wouldn't allow you to learn higher level invocations. Moreover, you wouldn't have invocations at 1st level warlock. They're a second level ability.

I think it's not too unreasonable to infer, since the description of the ability itself includes a reference to warlock levels, that warlock levels are required to gain access to the higher levels of that ability.

Is there a bit of ambiguity there? I suppose, if you tilt your head and squint heavily.

It means you can replace one of your currently known invocations with another one on the list whenever you gain a level in the warlock class, as long as you meet the prerequisites of the invocation you learn. At 1st level you do not have any invocations, and thus can not exchange any of them, not to mention you don't even have the ability yet that says you can exchange them.

Trigger: Gain a level in the warlock class.
Action: Exchange currently known invocation for another one.
Limitation: Can only choose an invocation you meet the prerequisites for.

It does not say anything at all about the prerequisites themselves.

[Rummy]

So... terrible players. Not worth the time or hassle. As I noted previous it's only becomes a problem with players when they can't compromise or want to "Win". Your post clearly illustrates this. It's pointless even associating with those kinds of people, let alone trying to run a campaign with them.

In the end it's better to ditch 'em and find folks who know how to have a good time without getting tied up in knots over the details.

Except that I have played with these "terrible" players for nearly ten years. Ditching them was an option, but I'm glad I didn't. It is darn hard to find a group to game with on a regular basis. The player who instigated the mutiny is my friend, he just doesn't like my DMing style.

[Rummy]

As far as I can tell, the main reason this has been a topic for so long is because people are edition warring, or just rules lawyering to start an argument. The underlying logic of the multiclassing rules makes it pretty clear that it's a mistake, and the fact that it feels like you're exploiting a loophole in the tax code if you make this work definitely gives it a scuzzy feeling most DMs should get.

I'll totally admit that it's probably a bit confusing for brand new DMs, and I suspect this'll be one of the first things errata'd. But if you follow the logic of allowing Fighter 18 / Warlock 2 to pick any invocation, even a new guy should see that it's a seriously unbalanced result. Given that the D&D team is still ostensibly working hard to finish releasing the game, I'm willing to cut them some slack on providing a definitive answer to this



Actually, I think there are two main mistakes with invocations. Prolly should be warlock level. BUT the spell invocations prolly should be cast at the same power as your pact spell slot once a day WITHOUT spending a slot. That is the only way they make any sense. That, and it allows for true AEDU structure from level 1 (level 1 daily: Bane). The warlock was meant to mimic the 4th ed warlock, but it doesn't due to poor editing.

[Rummy]

I'm sure that ALOP will have a specific ruling on this issue, and I'm fairly certain that it will favor warlock level.
This isn't an issue with a character's round to round combat options like the twinned scorching ray issue is. This is one of basic character building.
They'll have a rule for it.

In case you missed my edit:
My suggestion for people that want a more solid foundation for thier games would be for those people to use the AL specific rules at all times.

I concur. This is what we will probably do. Once they exist.

[Sir_Leorik]

No no no, see it is how this edition is done. The rule is vague, so ask your DM.

This is ridiculous. The rule clearly is intended to refer to Warlock advancement, not character levels. The intern who got handed your e-mail doesn't know the intent behind the rule and is afraid to state the obvious, so he or she punted the question back to you.

[Rummy]

This is ridiculous. The rule clearly is intended to refer to Warlock advancement, not character levels. The intern who got handed your e-mail doesn't know the intent behind the rule and is afraid to state the obvious, so he or she punted the question back to you.

And spell invocations are clearly not supposed to cost one of your encounter slots, yet they do.

[Sir_Leorik]

And spell invocations are clearly not supposed to cost one of your encounter slots, yet they do.

Specific trumps general. Some invocations are at-will abilities. Some give a nifty perk, like reading all languages. Some make the Warlock's pact boon more powerful. And some are charged by spending Pact Magic spell slots. But the PC needs to be a 2nd level Warlock to get any Eldritch Invocations, and some Invocations are so powerful that they require a specific number of Warlock levels. Specific (need to meet the prerequisite) trumps general (the player of a Warlock gets to choose Invocations).

Non-Warlocks can't get Eldritch Invocations (general) unless they multiclass (specific). They still need to meet the prerequisites that a single class Warlock would need to meet, including levels of Warlock to take some Invocations. For example, no one here would say that a multiclass Warlock who wants to take Voice of the Chain Master needs to have chosen Pact of the Chain, right? So why are we arguing that the levels listed are not intended to be Warlock class levels?

[Rummy]

Specific trumps general. Some invocations are at-will abilities. Some give a nifty perk, like reading all languages. Some make the Warlock's pact boon more powerful. And some are charged by spending Pact Magic spell slots. But the PC needs to be a 2nd level Warlock to get any Eldritch Invocations, and some Invocations are so powerful that they require a specific number of Warlock levels. Specific (need to meet the prerequisite) trumps general (the player of a Warlock gets to choose Invocations).

Non-Warlocks can't get Eldritch Invocations (general) unless they multiclass (specific). They still need to meet the prerequisites that a single class Warlock would need to meet, including levels of Warlock to take some Invocations. For example, no one here would say that a multiclass Warlock who wants to take Voice of the Chain Master needs to have chosen Pact of the Chain, right? So why are we arguing that the levels listed are not intended to be Warlock class levels?

I am arguing that the cast Bane with a spell slot invocation was supposed to be cast Bane at the level of your pact spell slot once a day without spending a spell slot. That is the only way they make sense. That is the only way they are in balance and attuned to the character leveling and power dynamics of 5E, which are rather well balanced for virtually every other class. Since they borked this in the RAW, I'm saying might as well give the warlock players some love with the RAW invocations based on character level. If you go by RAI, or what makes the most sense, use Warlock level as the prerequisite and make the daily spell invocations key off of spell slot for power level, but not expend them.

[archaeo]

I am arguing that the cast Bane with a spell slot invocation was supposed to be cast Bane at the level of your pact spell slot once a day without spending a spell slot. That is the only way they make sense. That is the only way they are in balance and attuned to the character leveling and power dynamics of 5E, which are rather well balanced for virtually every other class. Since they borked this in the RAW, I'm saying might as well give the warlock players some love with the RAW invocations based on character level. If you go by RAI, or what makes the most sense, use Warlock level as the prerequisite and make the daily spell invocations key off of spell slot for power level, but not expend them.

I'm not sure what the problem is here? Bane isn't otherwise on the Warlock spell list, so you have to take Thief of Five Fates to cast it, and when you do, you have to spend a spell slot. In what way does this gimp the balance of Warlock? You choose an invocation to get an extra spell, and it happens to be a rather powerful effect that targets what will commonly be a weak save (Cha) and guarantees at least a -1 penalty for the rest of combat.

I'm not sure how this is worse than getting bane at 1/day.

[Rummy]

I'm not sure what the problem is here? Bane isn't otherwise on the Warlock spell list, so you have to take Thief of Five Fates to cast it, and when you do, you have to spend a spell slot. In what way does this gimp the balance of Warlock? You choose an invocation to get an extra spell, and it happens to be a rather powerful effect that targets what will commonly be a weak save (Cha) and guarantees at least a -1 penalty for the rest of combat.

I'm not sure how this is worse than getting bane at 1/day.

Please think about the opportunity costs. When you are a Warlock, your most valuable resources are your spell slots. Anything that requires you to use those slots must be really great. Bane doesn't even come close. Most warlocks would never even use it because it occupies the concentration slot that is taken by Hex. Now compare it to every other invocation. They ADD value to the class. At will spells or always on extras are AWESOME. Clearly invocations are meant to be something useful, valuable, and awesome. The only way the spell invocations match up is if they are ADDITIONAL spells cast on a daily basis. They would be the levels 1-5 versions of Mystic Arcanum. That is the ONLY way they make sense.

[MustacheFart]

I don't understand the argument when applied to Adventure league. Either you treat the level prereq as warlock levels or character levels. Well, only one option could really be vetoed by a DM. Both of them are not risking DM ruling--only the latter is.

So, if you want to play a character in Adventure League that doesn't change from table to table then just go the safe route and treat the prereqs as Warlock levels. That way, even if you encounter a DM who would've allowed character levels, oh well, you're still okay because you meet that criteria too thanks to the warlock levels (aka character levels). If you encounter a DM who wouldn't allow character levels to meet the prereq...well, good thing you took the Warlock levels then! Your character still remains the same.

This seems to be about people arguing over one optimized method, hoping Wizards would have validated it so that they had/have a leg to stand on with "hard to sway" DMs. Now people have to continue talking to their DMs beforehand.

Personally, it doesn't bother me as I have had to speak with my DMs beforehand pretty much every time I have tried to play something unique that's "optimized".

[Fwiffo86]

I think the easiest solution would be to figure all level requirements default to levels in the relative class unless otherwise stated. So in the example OP asked for, its Warlock levels, not total level.

If relationships help... Invos are like spells. you don't get to select prepared spells based on total level. Class features (which I'm sure the Invocations are to be) do not get calculated on anything other than individual class level.

That would be how I would approach it.

[archaeo]

Please think about the opportunity costs. When you are a Warlock, your most valuable resources are your spell slots. Anything that requires you to use those slots must be really great. Bane doesn't even come close. Most warlocks would never even use it because it occupies the concentration slot that is taken by Hex. Now compare it to every other invocation. They ADD value to the class. At will spells or always on extras are AWESOME. Clearly invocations are meant to be something useful, valuable, and awesome. The only way the spell invocations match up is if they are ADDITIONAL spells cast on a daily basis. They would be the levels 1-5 versions of Mystic Arcanum. That is the ONLY way they make sense.

Eh, I don't know, bane is much more flexible than hex and provides a bonus everyone in the party can use, which will probably be valuable to some Warlocks. I also think it scales better than hex too, which doesn't get a lot of utility out of those higher level slots; you'd think there'd be an invocation that would take advantage of this, maybe giving you perfect tracking against a hexed target.

For Warlocks that are trying to control the battlefield or work together with the party, bane is a balanced selection. If not, then you have 31 other invocations to choose from, and 10 other "1st-level" invocations. I notice that several other invocations give you a spell that you have to use your slots to spend. Warlocks should leave themselves a little open in the beginning of a campaign; if it turns out your party takes short rests often, like if you're hanging out with a bunch of Druids, Monks, and Fighters, you can spend your precious spell slots with much more impunity.

[DrBurr]

Apparently Mearls and Crawford have been answering rules questions on twitter, while diving through them I found this tweet

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502915145345949698

The question was asking about a Wizard 2/Cleric 18 learning Fireball but I feel it applies here as well. Not RAW but then again can't update that until the DMG comes out

[Ferrin33]

Apparently Mearls and Crawford have been answering rules questions on twitter, while diving through them I found this tweet

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502915145345949698

The question was asking about a Wizard 2/Cleric 18 learning Fireball but I feel it applies here as well. Not RAW but then again can't update that until the DMG comes out

This is completely unrelated to the Warlock invocation requirements, as this refers to;

Multiclassing > Spellcasting > Spells Known and Prepared Page 164

"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

[Theodoxus]

And you determine your freakin' class abilities by the levels of the class you're in. Are you a 15th level Warlock? No? then you can't choose a 15th level invocation. Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

[Xetheral]

And you determine your freakin' class abilities by the levels of the class you're in. Are you a 15th level Warlock? No? then you can't choose a 15th level invocation. Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

Because there are two equally-plausible interpretations of RAI here. You have a decided preference for one of them, to the point of considering it the only possible interpretation. But both the existence of the controversy and the refusal (so far) of WotC to come down one way or the other are strong evidence that both interpretations are valid.

For my own part, when I first read the Warlock entry in the PHB I assumed the prerequisites were indeed intended to be character level. Other classes explicitly refer to "<class> level" when describing acquisition of features that don't appear by name on the table. I assume that when different language is used, a different result is intended. Furthermore, Warlocks can't benefit from multiclass spell progression, so permitting invocation selection to be based on character level is a nice analogue to help multiclass Warlocks in a manner similar to other multiclass spellcasters.

On the other hand, the failure to list the prerequisites as "Warlock Level <x>" could indeed be a simple oversight.

Both interpretations of designer intent make sense to me. I think it's even possible that different designers intended different things, and they never noticed the discrepancy until after the book was published.

[Bauth]

And you determine your freakin' class abilities by the levels of the class you're in. Are you a 15th level Warlock? No? then you can't choose a 15th level invocation. Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

The controversy is that in regards to features not explicitly listed on the table at the beginning of each class description, when a class level is the specific requirement, it is mentioned. Warlock is the only situation in which this is not the case it would seem. It's possible that this is an oversight in development. It is also possible that this is intended, as Warlocks are already very unique as a class.

Furthermore, aside from an apparent misconception common to some in favor of the character class side of the argument, a multi-class Warlock using the character level interpretation isn't necessarily out to break the game. They might even be building a Warlock 14/Monk 6 just for the mechanical roleplay of jumping through shadows and altering one's appearance at will with Master of Myriad forms and send unsuspecting victims through hell because their character concept was based around stories of the Devil that involved him doing the very same. It's really not game breaking at all but it allows for very interesting combinations of mechanics that add a lot of fun flavor to the game when mixed together.

[Giant2005]

when a class level is the specific requirement, it is mentioned.

This does happen occasionally although extremely rarely. If you consider all class features that don't specifically mention class level requirements to be available without being that level in the class, the game will be absolutely destroyed.
Why be a Druid when your level 19 Monk can choose Druid at 20 and Wildshape just as well as a pure Druid? Why invest so much in Fighter when you can just take Fighter on the 11th level to get a third attack or 20 to get a fourth? It is obviously the wrong interpretation to take although I can see merit in it adding some extreme complexity in character building which would lead to a whole lot more uniqueness in every character.

[Psyren]

I think we can just as easily ignore WotC CustServ in 5e as we did in 3.5. There's no reason to suppose that CustServ even cracks a book before answering, or even actually understands the questions.

I can't wait for the resurgence of conflicting CustServ answers :smallbiggrin:

Ooh, better yet, they'll make a "Rules Compendium" that we can all ignore after two years!


Apparently Mearls and Crawford have been answering rules questions on twitter, while diving through them I found this tweet

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502915145345949698

The question was asking about a Wizard 2/Cleric 18 learning Fireball but I feel it applies here as well. Not RAW but then again can't update that until the DMG comes out

...Weren't people raging at Paizo for answering questions on their own forums? And now WotC is going even further afield?

[Shadow]

The controversy is that in regards to features not explicitly listed on the table at the beginning of each class description, when a class level is the specific requirement, it is mentioned. Warlock is the only situation in which this is not the case it would seem.
That's not true at all, that's just the excuse people are using. In point of fact, the opposite is true. In almost every single case, in almost every single class feature from almost every single class, the opposite is true and it assumes that you are reading it as class level required.
People are just using that as an excuse to do something that they know wasn't intended.

One could even argue that it is supported by the class table, as the levels in question (5th, 7th, 9th, 12th, 15th, etc) always grant a new invocation learned.

[Theodoxus]

It's stuff like this that is making me seriously lean towards not allowing the optional multiclass rules. I don't want to do something silly like 'you can only MC into a class that isn't similar (Fighter/Rogue/Cleric is fine, Sorcerer/Warlock isn't)' - so best to just not allow it.

[Fwiffo86]

MC the old way.

Sure, you can take the new level, but until both classes are the same level, you can't use any of your abilities from your original class. Doing so negates any xp you would gain for that encounter.

then, make sure they keep however many classes they want to take equal in level. No more 18/2 mixes, for example. Interesting concept though. I'm a 20th level character that only makes use of 2nd level abilities. hahahahaha

[Ferrin33]

That's not true at all, that's just the excuse people are using. In point of fact, the opposite is true. In almost every single case, in almost every single class feature from almost every single class, the opposite is true and it assumes that you are reading it as class level required.
People are just using that as an excuse to do something that they know wasn't intended.

One could even argue that it is supported by the class table, as the levels in question (5th, 7th, 9th, 12th, 15th, etc) always grant a new invocation learned.

At the same time I could argue that the warlock learns invocations at those levels as to not force multiclassing to get around the requirements. (For example, if you learned invocations at 4, 6, 8, 11, 14) I agree that it makes sense as to make it feel in line with the progression of other classes with their class features.

However, the monk class' Way of the Four Winds>Elemental Disciplines explicitly says this in its text; "If a discipline requires a level, you must be that level in this class to learn the discipline." This implies that if this requirement is not explicitly stated then it is more than reasonable to assume it's character level, as with the warlock invocations.

[Fwiffo86]

I would think if they were specific enough to say that in the Monk levels, it is simply an editing mistake for the PHB and keep the same ruling.

[Theodoxus]

I would think if they were specific enough to say that in the Monk levels, it is simply an editing mistake for the PHB and keep the same ruling.

I agree - writing by committee often tends to have these foibles. Guy 1 working on Warlock writes a generic ability clause. Guy 2 working on Monk sees it, thinks it's a great clause for his class, but modifies it to be exclusive to Monks and either doesn't tell Guy 1 of the exclusivity change, or Guy 1 doesn't think it'll matter; or forgets about it before the book is printed...

If this is how it happened, eventually someone at WotC will either fess up and rule that Warlock invo's require Warlock levels; or, they'll be influenced by reader polls, think 'well, it was supposed to be exclusive, but after reading opinions and working maths, we've decided that invo's are based on character level' and rule that Warlock invo's are character level.

A third option would be that inhouse, WotC sees they weren't internally consistent with class rules, but decide to promote the "mistake" with their stand that 'DMs make the rulings' and continue with the current customer service reply.

[Ferrin33]

I agree - writing by committee often tends to have these foibles. Guy 1 working on Warlock writes a generic ability clause. Guy 2 working on Monk sees it, thinks it's a great clause for his class, but modifies it to be exclusive to Monks and either doesn't tell Guy 1 of the exclusivity change, or Guy 1 doesn't think it'll matter; or forgets about it before the book is printed...

If this is how it happened, eventually someone at WotC will either fess up and rule that Warlock invo's require Warlock levels; or, they'll be influenced by reader polls, think 'well, it was supposed to be exclusive, but after reading opinions and working maths, we've decided that invo's are based on character level' and rule that Warlock invo's are character level.

A third option would be that inhouse, WotC sees they weren't internally consistent with class rules, but decide to promote the "mistake" with their stand that 'DMs make the rulings' and continue with the current customer service reply.

Right, so you're 100% sure that it's a mistake judging from the options you have given us.

It could be intentional, a way for classes to be distinct from each other even more. The warlock gets for all intents and purposes two choices in archetype; Who they make a pact with(Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One), and what they get from the pact(Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Chain, or Pact of the Tome). Their magic works differently as well with Pact Magic instead of standard spell slots and their Mystic Arcanum. To claim "The warlock works like X because Y does too, it must be an editing mistake." is going against the RAW. All of your 'options' assume it's a mistake, that seems to be the only option in your mind while it's evidently not the only option.

[Fwiffo86]

Right, so you're 100% sure that it's a mistake judging from the options you have given us.

It could be intentional, a way for classes to be distinct from each other even more. The warlock gets for all intents and purposes two choices in archetype; Who they make a pact with(Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One), and what they get from the pact(Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Chain, or Pact of the Tome). Their magic works differently as well with Pact Magic instead of standard spell slots and their Mystic Arcanum. To claim "The warlock works like X because Y does too, it must be an editing mistake." is going against the RAW. All of your 'options' assume it's a mistake, that seems to be the only option in your mind while it's evidently not the only option.

I am not seeing credible evidence that it is anything other than an oversight. Lack of evidence is not evidence. You have to ask what is the more logical and easier route to take with a system geared for ease of use.

They specifically left it out but didn't actually put any rules in that say its based on Character level to differentiate the class from others.

or

They meant to put it in, as exampled by the Monk class, which would be read first (due to alphabetical listing). And someone in the editing department dropped the ball.

[Theodoxus]

Right, so you're 100% sure that it's a mistake judging from the options you have given us.

It could be intentional, a way for classes to be distinct from each other even more. The warlock gets for all intents and purposes two choices in archetype; Who they make a pact with(Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One), and what they get from the pact(Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Chain, or Pact of the Tome). Their magic works differently as well with Pact Magic instead of standard spell slots and their Mystic Arcanum. To claim "The warlock works like X because Y does too, it must be an editing mistake." is going against the RAW. All of your 'options' assume it's a mistake, that seems to be the only option in your mind while it's evidently not the only option.

If it's not a mistake, then they're really piss poor at pointing out that this one specific class ability is completely so unlike all the others, that writing a passive/aggressive non-clause will be sufficient to demonstrate that fact.

Ok, then Option 4: State unequivocally that Warlock invo's are meant to be taken at character level, not class level - unlike every other option inside class descriptions (we wouldn't want another round of 'well, warlock invo's are character level, so monk abilities were obviously an oversight!' debate).

[Ferrin33]

I am not seeing credible evidence that it is anything other than an oversight. Lack of evidence is not evidence. You have to ask what is the more logical and easier route to take with a system geared for ease of use.

They specifically left it out but didn't actually put any rules in that say its based on Character level to differentiate the class from others.

or

They meant to put it in, as exampled by the Monk class, which would be read first (due to alphabetical listing). And someone in the editing department dropped the ball.

The only similar class feature is that of the monk, which specifically mentions only your monk level counts. Is this an exception to the general rule, or a clarification of it? For it to be in only one specific class' features but not the only other class that shares a similar feature seems to me that it is indeed an exception. The easier and more logical route would be to read the book as it is, and not assume it was an oversight or a mistake to not include something.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Theodoxus]

The only similar class feature is that of the monk, which specifically mentions only your monk level counts. Is this an exception to the general rule, or a clarification of it? For it to be in only one specific class' features but not the only other class that shares a similar feature seems to me that it is indeed an exception. The easier and more logical route would be to read the book as it is, and not assume it was an oversight or a mistake to not include something.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

You realize this is WotC you're talking about right? Who say they take a long time to get things right, and yet, have to patch their product in ways that make some video game companies blush. The base assumption is if two things are similar, yet mechanically different, they messed up on one of them - especially if it isn't spelled out distinctly.

So no, I adamantly reject the idea that their undocumented character level concept of invocations was intentional.

[Ferrin33]

You realize this is WotC you're talking about right? Who say they take a long time to get things right, and yet, have to patch their product in ways that make some video game companies blush. The base assumption is if two things are similar, yet mechanically different, they messed up on one of them - especially if it isn't spelled out distinctly.

So no, I adamantly reject the idea that their undocumented character level concept of invocations was intentional.

Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master.
Add ability modifer to damage, yes or no? By your logic it's a mistake that it's not clarified that you don't. In reality it's an exception on the general rule that Two-Weapon Fighting without the fighting style doesn't add it to the attack granted by the bonus action and Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master do not reference the Two-Weapon Fighting rules at all.

You assume what the RAI is based on past editions of the game and the history the creators have. That's fair.

It is not, however, the RAW. To claim it's an oversight or a mistake requires an assumption beforehand.

[Fwiffo86]

I am breaking your quote into bits because I am confused and would like to make sure you are saying what I think you are saying.


The only similar class feature is that of the monk, which specifically mentions only your monk level counts. Is this an exception to the general rule, or a clarification of it?


But if the only other representation of this type of ability selection mechanic has class level requirements, wouldn't it make more sense to assume the Warlock's do as well?


For it to be in only one specific class' features but not the only other class that shares a similar feature seems to me that it is indeed an exception.

A 50% exception seems awfully unlikely in my thinking.


Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Just fun to say, isn't it?

[Ferrin33]

I am breaking your quote into bits because I am confused and would like to make sure you are saying what I think you are saying.

But if the only other representation of this type of ability selection mechanic has class level requirements, wouldn't it make more sense to assume the Warlock's do as well?

The monk specifically has an exception written for it that only counts monk levels, the warlock does not. This much we agree on, correct?

You infer from this that the warlock's text is missing the clause written for the monk even though they're different class features, however similar they may be.

I infer they're different class features which work differently.


A 50% exception seems awfully unlikely in my thinking.

A 50% exception means half has the exception, the other half does not. To ascertain that because Xa has Y, Xb must have Y too is flawed logic. They're not the same even though they're similar.


Just fun to say, isn't it?

Well, that too. :smallbiggrin:

But it was actually aimed at; "Lack of evidence is not evidence."

[Shadow]

In reality it's an exception on the general rule that Two-Weapon Fighting without the fighting style doesn't add it to the attack granted by the bonus action and Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master do not reference the Two-Weapon Fighting rules at all.

You read they don't mention the rules as an obvious exception.
Some of us read they don't mention the rules to mean that the rules still apply, specifically because they didn't mention them as an exception.
Note that when the rules are being overwritten in some way, they get specifically mentioned. The fact that they don't get mentioned is the exact reason that some of us feel that they apply.

By your logic, it doesn't matter if the TWF rules get mentioned or not. If they get mentioned, they get overwritten. If they don't get mentioned, they get overwritten.
How does that make sense?

[Ferrin33]

You read they don't mention the rules as an obvious exception.
Some of us read they don't mention the rules to mean that the rules still apply, specifically because they didn't mention them as an exception.
Note that when the rules are being overwritten in some way, they get specifically mentioned. The fact that they don't get mentioned is the exact reason that some of us feel that they apply.

By your logic, it doesn't matter if the TWF rules get mentioned or not. If they get mentioned, they get overwritten. If they don't get mentioned, they get overwritten.
How does that make sense?

Two-Weapon Fighting gives you the ability to attack with a second light melee weapon you are holding as a bonus action if you attack with a light melee weapon, with the exception to the general rule that this attack does not give the bonus damage.

The Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master feats do not refer to two-weapon fighting at all, and thus it can be concluded that they can add their ability bonus to the damage as normal for attacks.

[Shadow]

Two-Weapon Fighting gives you the ability to attack with a second light melee weapon you are holding as a bonus action if you attack with a light melee weapon, with the exception to the general rule that this attack does not give the bonus damage.

The Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master feats do not refer to two-weapon fighting at all, and thus it can be concluded that they can add their ability bonus to the damage as normal for attacks.

Not the way that we read it at all.
The general rule, via the TWF rules, is that you don't get mod to damage when using a bonus action to attack with a second weapon in your other hand.
The specific rule under the TWF style via fighter/ranger is the exception to the general rule.
If simply taking a feat would change this, then why in the world isn't mod to damage one of the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat?

[Ferrin33]

Not the way that we read it at all.
The general rule, via the TWF rules, is that you don't get mod to damage when using a bonus action to attack with a second weapon in your other hand.
The specific rule under the TWF style via fighter/ranger is the exception to the general rule.
If simply taking a feat would change this, then why in the world isn't mod to damage one of the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat?

Who do you mean with "we"?

The Two-Weapon Fighting rules only counts for light melee weapons. It has an exception to the general rule for attacks that prevents you from adding your ability bonus to the damage of the bonus attack.

The Dual Wielder refers to and is an exception to the general rules for two-weapon fighting, allowing you to use non-light one handed weapons.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style is an exception to the Two-Weapon Fighting rules and allows you to add your ability modifier to the damage with the bonus attack.

Crossbow Expert never once mentions two-weapon fighting or refers to a similarity other than attacking with a bonus action, the same goes for Polearm Master. Another feat; Great Weapon Master also allows you to make an attack as a bonus action after some requirements are met, does this attack also not add your ability modifier to the damage? Or the bonus action attack granted by the Frenzy ability of barbarians?

In short; Two-Weapon Fighting itself is an exception to the general rule that adds your ability modifier to the damage of weapon attacks with very specific limitations on how it is used.

[Shadow]

In short; Two-Weapon Fighting itself is an exception to the general rule that adds your ability modifier to the damage of weapon attacks with very specific limitations on how it is used.

That's where you're wrong. The TWF rule is the general rule for fighting with two weapons.

Look at the entries in the index for saving throws, melee attack, rounding numbers, etc.
General rules are listed as lower case. Specific rules use upper case.
Two weapon fighting has two listings. One as general rules and one as a specific rule. The general rule is that you get no mod to damage. Anything that changes that is a specific rule and is capitalized. When a general rule is superceeded by a specific rule, the general rule is mentioned in the specific rule's entry.


Two-Weapon Fighting Style is an exception to the Two-Weapon Fighting rules and allows you to add your ability modifier to the damage with the bonus attack.
So now there's an exception to what you claim to be an exception?
Or is it more reasonable that this is an exception to a general rule?

[Fwiffo86]

The monk specifically has an exception written for it that only counts monk levels, the warlock does not. This much we agree on, correct?

You infer from this that the warlock's text is missing the clause written for the monk even though they're different class features, however similar they may be.


You are correct. That is exactly what I am saying.



I infer they're different class features which work differently.


How the features work (ie] what their game effects are] is not what I am addressing. I am addressing how they are selected, and when can that be done. Since the Monk abilities are the closest fit, I will use them as a model, not an exception.

As always, run as you wish.

TWF:

Here is an option. View it as a ranking system.

Default [TWF] is less than [TWF Feat/Crossbow Master Feat], which is less than [TWF class feature].

In the cases of something being greater than, its rules supplant the rules of the previous versions.

Example Result:
Dual wielding crossbows only applies attribute damage to the offhand bonus attack if the character in question has both the Crossbow master feat, and the TWF style from a class feature.

[Theodoxus]

I'm AFB, but is a hand crossbow light? I know a polearm isn't. So using Polearm Master isn't TWF regardless of how you look at it, it's not two weapons - it becomes a double ended weapon, as far as I know, the only one in 5th. Just because double ended weapons in 3rd were considered TWF if used in two hands, does not carry over to 5th.

As such, I would postulate that Polearm Master butt strikes do in fact provide ability mod bonus damage; a la any other bonus strike with the same weapon.

[Shadow]

If you want to continue this discussion, let's do it in one of the many threads devoted to it rather than in a thread about warlock invocation requirements.

[Ferrin33]

That's where you're wrong. The TWF rule is the general rule for fighting with two weapons.

It's very specific about an action you can take when you attack with a light melee weapon and have another light melee weapon in hand. There's a feat that allows you to use another type of weapons with this rule; Dual Wielder, and a class feature that absolves a limitation on it; Two-Weapon Fighting Style. Both refer to Two-Weapon Fighting.

Crossbow Expert does not refer to the general rule for two-weapon fighting. Instead it gives another action you can take in a specific circumstance that does not necessarily involve two weapons.

Polearm Master also doesn't refer to the general rule for two-weapon fighting. And as Crossbow Expert it gives the option to take a specific action in a specific circumstance that likewise does not involve two weapons.

To infer that Two-Weapon Fighting is relevant to either of these feats is a huge stretch of the imagination.

And yes, we should keep this on-topic, was sidetracked for a moment.

[DrLemniscate]

You read they don't mention the rules as an obvious exception.
Some of us read they don't mention the rules to mean that the rules still apply, specifically because they didn't mention them as an exception.
Note that when the rules are being overwritten in some way, they get specifically mentioned. The fact that they don't get mentioned is the exact reason that some of us feel that they apply.

By your logic, it doesn't matter if the TWF rules get mentioned or not. If they get mentioned, they get overwritten. If they don't get mentioned, they get overwritten.
How does that make sense?

Keep in mind that a lot of 5e is supposed to be open to newer players.

They mention Two-Weapon Fighting in the Dual wielder feat so that newer players know where to turn to see the rules.

There is no such mention on Crossbow Expert. Why would they assume everyone would know to turn to Two-Weapon fighting?

I pretty much stopped trying to see things from your point of view once you started arguing that Polearm Master was covered under Two-Weapon Fighting. Somehow making an attack with single piece of wood and metal gets covered under these rules that look completely unrelated and aren't referenced at all? W

ould it make you angrier to know that the bonus attack from Polearm Master is still using a 2-handed weapon, and meets the qualifications for rerolling 1's and 2's from Great Weapon Fighting, and the -5 hit / +10 dmg from Great Weapon Master?

But yes, Two-Weapon Fighting is a specific rule that trumps the general rule of Making an Attack. It is a specific rule when using 2 light melee weapons. Not 1 melee weapon and a hand crossbow, not 2 hand crossbows, and most certainly not a polearm that is neither 1 weapon nor light.


You would have a much clearer argument if you just settled for "Attacks from bonus actions don't add modifiers."

[MeeposFire]

MC the old way.

Sure, you can take the new level, but until both classes are the same level, you can't use any of your abilities from your original class. Doing so negates any xp you would gain for that encounter.

then, make sure they keep however many classes they want to take equal in level. No more 18/2 mixes, for example. Interesting concept though. I'm a 20th level character that only makes use of 2nd level abilities. hahahahaha

That would be a terrible idea. Unlike in AD&D your level totals for XP are based on your total levels. In AD&D the total XP that you need to get your old abilities back could be less than the XP needed to get a new level in your old class. In 5e the XP goes up with level no matter what class level you take. The quick gains in level would allow you to get back into being useful again fairly quickly whereas her you would be hurt badly by doing htis.

Seriously if you hate multiclassing that much just forbid the option in the first place...or make the XP tables a whole lot more complicated.

[Rummy]

Eh, I don't know, bane is much more flexible than hex and provides a bonus everyone in the party can use, which will probably be valuable to some Warlocks. I also think it scales better than hex too, which doesn't get a lot of utility out of those higher level slots; you'd think there'd be an invocation that would take advantage of this, maybe giving you perfect tracking against a hexed target.

For Warlocks that are trying to control the battlefield or work together with the party, bane is a balanced selection. If not, then you have 31 other invocations to choose from, and 10 other "1st-level" invocations. I notice that several other invocations give you a spell that you have to use your slots to spend. Warlocks should leave themselves a little open in the beginning of a campaign; if it turns out your party takes short rests often, like if you're hanging out with a bunch of Druids, Monks, and Fighters, you can spend your precious spell slots with much more impunity.

I strongly suspect that you are just trying to bait me into one of those long weary internet arguments. I really can't imagine any Warlock choosing Bane over Hex.

[archaeo]

I strongly suspect that you are just trying to bait me into one of those long weary internet arguments. I really can't imagine any Warlock choosing Bane over Hex.

Nah, man, I'm not trying to argue, I just see the logic of including it as an invocation. In terms of 4e roles, bane is a great choice if you want to be more of a controller than a striker. This logic is backed up by numerous other spells in the Warlock arsenal that don't do damage and instead apply conditions.

If your goal as a player is to do high DPR, a hex Warlock is a good choice. If your goal as a player is to control the battlefield and make it easier for the rest of the party to do high damage, spells like bane make it possible to do that with a Warlock too.

[Boci]

Because it lets the DM make the game their own.

But they can already do that through rule zero. The above is a fine approach for a rules light game. No D&D edition I have known (3.5+) have been rules light.

Never mind, I didn't see the thread had already gotten to its 5th page.

[Rummy]

Okay. It is still a crazy choice if you must give up another innovation to get it. I think it us there so that folks that want to play controllery warlocks can grab an extra daily control spell to that end. This whole debate is founded on the idea that WotC messed up and forgot to put warlock in front of level in the description. I'm extending that thought. I think they also messed up by not stipulating that daily spell invocations are cast at the power of pact spells, but do not burn pact spell slots.

[techsamurai5000]

I realize I'm REAAAALLLY late to the party and this may have come up already (I only skimmed the last 3 pages of the thread) but the official errata says:

Eldritch Invocations (p. 110). A level prerequisite in an invocation refers to warlock level, not character level.

[HoarsHalberd]

I realize I'm REAAAALLLY late to the party and this may have come up already (I only skimmed the last 3 pages of the thread) but the official errata says:

Eldritch Invocations (p. 110). A level prerequisite in an invocation refers to warlock level, not character level.

The official Errata was published long, long after this thread became a necro to post in.

[MrStabby]

The official Errata was published long, long after this thread became a necro to post in.

Although given that some people still havent heard this, it does remain relevant.

[HoarsHalberd]

Although given that some people still havent heard this, it does remain relevant.

Then a new thread should be posted in. Or heck, the level 20 School of Necromancy wizardry that went into this could have reanimated a more relevant thread, like the Errata thread.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread Necromancy.