How useful is Eldritch Smite, really?

[Elric VIII]

I've been playing a Hexblade-bladelock for a while and I find that I almost never use Eldritch Smite. It always feels like I have better uses for my spell slots than adding a few d8, even on in a crit.

One of my favorite strategies has been Darkness & Blink with Lightning Lure to control the battlefield while not impeding my allies.

Do you find Eldritch Smite to be effective? How do you use it?

[Mikal]

I've been playing a Hexblade-bladelock for a while and I find that I almost never use Eldritch Smite. It always feels like I have better uses for my spell slots than adding a few d8, even on in a crit.

One of my favorite strategies has been Darkness & Blink with Lightning Lure to control the battlefield while not impeding my allies.

Do you find Eldritch Smite to be effective? How do you use it?

For me it's the auto prone that's best. But then I'm running a GWM polearm master so that lets me do the multiple attacks with advantage and +10 damage

[Laserlight]

I've been playing a Hexblade-bladelock for a while and I find that I almost never use Eldritch Smite. It always feels like I have better uses for my spell slots than adding a few d8, even on in a crit.

One of my favorite strategies has been Darkness & Blink with Lightning Lure to control the battlefield while not impeding my allies.

Do you find Eldritch Smite to be effective? How do you use it?

I prefer Darkness myself, but upcasting Hex means you can cast it, short rest, and go into the next fight with Hex active and both warlock slots available.

And Sorlock will give you more slots, as well as spell point shenanigans with any unexpended lock slots.

[sithlordnergal]

I prefer Darkness myself, but upcasting Hex means you can cast it, short rest, and go into the next fight with Hex active and both warlock slots available.

And Sorlock will give you more slots, as well as spell point shenanigans with any unexpended lock slots.

Doesn't Hex end as soon as you don't have a hostile target to put it on?

[Ganymede]

I prefer Darkness myself, but upcasting Hex means you can cast it, short rest, and go into the next fight with Hex active and both warlock slots available.

That is actually an open question and is subject to DM rulings.

You only get the benefits of the short rest, including the recovery of a Warlock's spell slots, if you do "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."

There is no rules guidance that tells us whether or not concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than performing those tasks, so it is up to each individual DM to answer that question. Taking for granted that you can do what you describe is folly.

[Laserlight]

Doesn't Hex end as soon as you don't have a hostile target to put it on?

No. "If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature"; note "a subsequent", not "your next". You wake up in the morning, Hex a chicken, kill the chicken, take a short rest, and you've got your slot back and have Hex active and ready to apply when you find your next encounter.

As for Ganymede's comment: what you do at your table is up to your DM, but Sage Advice says you can concentrate through a rest as long as you don't sleep.

[LeonBH]

Eldritch Smite is great because of its auto-prone. It's also great if you're not a fully-classed Warlock and have a source of spell slots other than your Warlock spell slots.

[Ganymede]

As for Ganymede's comment: what you do at your table is up to your DM, but Sage Advice says you can concentrate through a rest as long as you don't sleep.

I believe you are mistaken.

The Sage Advice Compendium, updated as of October 2017, does not say what you claim it says. The word "sleep" doesn't even appear in the compendium.

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

[Zene]

I believe you are mistaken.

The Sage Advice Compendium, updated as of October 2017, does not say what you claim it says. The word "sleep" doesn't even appear in the compendium.

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

I believe he’s referring to this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/20/concentration-during-rest/
Note that it’s Mearls not JC, so technically not an official ruling; still probably reflective of RAI though

[Ganymede]

I believe he’s referring to this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/20/concentration-during-rest/
Note that it’s Mearls not JC, so technically not an official ruling; still probably reflective of RAI though

The Sage Advice Compendium is pretty explicit: "The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice."

I take this to mean that Mearls' advice in the tweet linked above is how he'd rule it in his own games. Mearls' input on the situation certainly has value for the DMs out there, but it is neither a rule nor an indication of the correct way to play the game.

[Tanarii]

As long as you don't cast another concentration spell, aren't incapacitated or killed, or don't take damage, you can concentrate. The things that break concentration are explicit under the rule for concentration in PHB p203. Any DM ruling otherwise is modifying the concentration rules with a house rule.

[Ganymede]

As long as you don't cast another concentration spell, aren't incapacitated or killed, or don't take damage, you can concentrate. The things that break concentration are explicit under the rule for concentration in PHB p203. Any DM ruling otherwise is modifying the concentration rules with a house rule.

You are applying the wrong rules to the situation. The issue isn't whether a short rest disrupts your concentration like taking damage would. The issue is whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than what is allowed under a short rest.

[LeonBH]

You are applying the wrong rules to the situation. The issue isn't whether a short rest disrupts your concentration like taking damage would. The issue is whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than what is allowed under a short rest.

Concentration says nothing about it being strenuous activity.

[Ganymede]

Concentration says nothing about it being strenuous activity.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

Without a rule indicating how strenuous concentrating on a spell is, we have no way to determine whether it is more or less strenuous than what is allowed during a short rest.

That's why a DM ruling is necessary in this instance, because the rules themseves are silent on the issue.

[LeonBH]

Yes, that is exactly my point.

Without a rule indicating how strenuous concentrating on a spell is, we have no way to determine whether it is more or less strenuous than what is allowed during a short rest.

That's why a DM ruling is necessary in this instance, because the rules themseves are silent on the issue.

There is also no rule indicating how strenuous it is to sleep inside heavy armor. Do you think each DM should rule on whether or not martials should remove their armor before taking a rest, too?

[Vaz]

There is also no rule indicating how strenuous it is to sleep inside heavy armor. Do you think each DM should rule on whether or not martials should remove their armor before taking a rest, too?

There is now.

[Elric VIII]

I don't think whether or not hex lasts through short tests is particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

So, with a PAM/GWM build you can prone the enemy for a round with your first attack and land 2 GWM hits on him. That's 2-6d8 smite damage plus an extra 20 from GWM. It also helps out your melee allies until the enemy stands. Does standing still provoke an AoO?

[Degwerks]

Eldritch Smite is 1/per turn, unlike Divine Smite from paladin. If you have both then you can get multiple smites on any turn if you're able to attack

[Talamare]

As long as you don't cast another concentration spell, aren't incapacitated or killed, or don't take damage, you can concentrate. The things that break concentration are explicit under the rule for concentration in PHB p203. Any DM ruling otherwise is modifying the concentration rules with a house rule.

You're Unconscious when you're Asleep.

Unconscious applies Incapacitated.

In game proof? Sleep spell applies a Slumber which is defined as Unconscious.

[Mikal]

You're Unconscious when you're Asleep.

Unconscious applies Incapacitated.

In game proof? Sleep spell applies a Slumber which is defined as Unconscious.

That's magical sleep vs. regular sleep.

[Dudewithknives]

You're Unconscious when you're Asleep.

Unconscious applies Incapacitated.

In game proof? Sleep spell applies a Slumber which is defined as Unconscious.

Eldritch Smite is a VERY narrow ability, and vastly inferior to Paladin Smiting.

1. It can only be done once per turn, not per attack.
2. This is the huge one, it can ONLY use warlock spell slots, so unless you are post level 10, you are spending half your spell slots for this rest on some bonus damage and auto prone.
You could have just taken devil's sight and cast darkness to get advantage the whole time they are in the area, and do it from range if needed. It is not like most warlocks are going to have the str to make an athletics check to grapple and keep them prone more than one round.
3. It is costing you a valuable invocation slot, in a build that already has many costly invocation taxes to be viable: Thirsting Blade, Improved Pact Weapon, Life Drinker and now Eldritch Smite if you can afford it.

I am playing a Hexblade/Pact of the Blade and honestly it is just not good enough for me to waste an invocation on.

[Talamare]

That's magical sleep vs. regular sleep.

You're unconscious while you're asleep, this isn't even up for debate or argument. It's just a fact.

but 'Sleep' Spell isn't a "Magical Sleep"

'Sleep' Spell Magically FORCES you to go to into a Slumber
The Slumber Portion isn't the Magic Part, it's the Forcing you that is Magic.

Which is why Elves Fey Ancestry doesn't State that you're Immune to Magical Sleep
It states "Magic can't PUT you to Sleep."

[LeonBH]

Eldritch Smite is a VERY narrow ability, and vastly inferior to Paladin Smiting.

1. It can only be done once per turn, not per attack.
2. This is the huge one, it can ONLY use warlock spell slots, so unless you are post level 10, you are spending half your spell slots for this rest on some bonus damage and auto prone.
You could have just taken devil's sight and cast darkness to get advantage the whole time they are in the area, and do it from range if needed. It is not like most warlocks are going to have the str to make an athletics check to grapple and keep them prone more than one round.
3. It is costing you a valuable invocation slot, in a build that already has many costly invocation taxes to be viable: Thirsting Blade, Improved Pact Weapon, Life Drinker and now Eldritch Smite if you can afford it.

I am playing a Hexblade/Pact of the Blade and honestly it is just not good enough for me to waste an invocation on.

No, you can use any spell slot once you multiclass. Paladin smites also specify that you can only use Paladin spell slots, but we throw those out once they MC into another caster class. The MC rules do not explicitly enable Paladins to use non-Paladin spell slots upon multiclassing.

Also, Eldritch Smites are able to go beyond a level 4 slot, so in terms of raw smite damage per hit, it's more powerful. If the Warlock were to crit, they can deal more damage per smite.

A GWM Warlock can really use the advantage prone can impose for their second attack. A Warlock who does not concentrate on Darkness is a Warlock who can concentrate on Hex.

[alchahest]

Eldritch Smite specifically calls out pact magic slots, does it not?

[Degwerks]

Eldritch Smite specifically calls out pact magic slots, does it not?

Yes in the new book it specifically says Warlock spell slots. Until we get a Sage Advice ruling that is.

[LeonBH]

Paladin smites also specifically call out Paladin spell slots.

[DivisibleByZero]

Eldritch Smite specifically calls out pact magic slots, does it not?

Yes in the new book it specifically says Warlock spell slots. Until we get a Sage Advice ruling that is.

Paladin smites also specifically call out Paladin spell slots.

Spell slots are spell slots are spells slots.

[LeonBH]

Yes, exactly.

[alchahest]

Cool - so we can assume that the intent is to update the printed rule to something that another class with a different type of casting had? I'm just curious because Warlock slots are specifically a different type of spell than others w/r/t mulitclassing and are used differently.

[DivisibleByZero]

Cool - so we can assume that the intent is to update the printed rule to something that another class with a different type of casting had? I'm just curious because Warlock slots are specifically a different type of spell than others w/r/t mulitclassing and are used differently.

Spell slots are spell slots are spell slots.
It doesn't matter which class granted you the slot. If you have the slot, and you have a spell or ability which can use a slot, then it can use any slot that you have. Slots aren't tied to a class in 5e. The difference between Pact Magic and normal Spellcasting is only in how and when the slots are attained. Once you have it, you can use it for anything which uses a slot of that level.

[LeonBH]

DivisibleByZero is correct.

Imagine this. You are a Sorlock. You have Hex as a Warlock. Can you use your 1st level spell slot from Sorcerer to cast Hex, which is a Warlock spell?

You have Font of Magic and you want to turn spell slots into Sorcery Points. Can you burn your Warlock spell slots so that they recharge on a short rest?

The answers to both are yes, because multiclassed characters can use all the spell slots they have.

[Daphne]

Paladin's Divine Smite ability does not specify slots, that was errata'ed:

Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend.


On the other hand Eldritch Smite does specify that it only works with Warlock slots:

Once per turn, when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus 1d8 per level of the slot, and you knock the target prone if it's huge or smaller.

Either they did the same mistake twice (unlikely imo) or it is their intention for Eldritch Smite to only work with Warlock slots.

[Dudewithknives]

Paladin's Divine Smite ability does not specify slots, that was errata'ed:



On the other hand Eldritch Smite does specify that it only works with Warlock slots:


Either they did the same mistake twice (unlikely imo) or it is their intention for Eldritch Smite to only work with Warlock slots.

Warlock levels do not stack for other spell casters to calculate their effective caster level, the same way that a Warlock has to use specifically Pact Magic spell slots to power their invocation.

It was worded that way intentionally.

[DivisibleByZero]

Paladin's Divine Smite ability does not specify slots, that was errata'ed:



On the other hand Eldritch Smite does specify that it only works with Warlock slots:


Either they did the same mistake twice (unlikely imo) or it is their intention for Eldritch Smite to only work with Warlock slots.


Warlock levels do not stack for other spell casters to calculate their effective caster level, the same way that a Warlock has to use specifically Pact Magic spell slots to power their invocation.

It was worded that way intentionally.

I 100% without a doubt guarantee you that the class you got the slot from does not matter.
Go ask JC if you want to. Feel free. I'm not going to waste my time because he has already answered this question in the past numerous times.

[Talamare]

I 100% without a doubt guarantee you that the class you got the slot from does not matter.
Go ask JC if you want to. Feel free. I'm not going to waste my time because he has already answered this question in the past numerous times.

I think it's required to ask again, and to have them errata it again.

Because there is a chance... however unlikely... that it's a rule change.

Just like how they have already rule changed a few other aspects of 5e.

[Dudewithknives]

I 100% without a doubt guarantee you that the class you got the slot from does not matter.
Go ask JC if you want to. Feel free. I'm not going to waste my time because he has already answered this question in the past numerous times.

He answered it for a class that says spell slots, and clarified that they mean any spell slots.

The new abilities expressly says Warlock Spell Slots.

They are not the same ruling.

Personally I hope that he does mean ALL spell slots, either way it is only really good for someone who is going Warlock 2/3 and then a full caster for the rest of their levels.

If it is only Warlock spell slots and nothing else, nobody should ever take that it is too costly.
If It is any spell slots, only people who are multi classing should take it.

Either way, just like Hexblade itself, it is mainly there for people to dip before going a different charisma based casting class.

[Daphne]

I 100% without a doubt guarantee you that the class you got the slot from does not matter.
Go ask JC if you want to. Feel free. I'm not going to waste my time because he has already answered this question in the past numerous times.

It does matter, so much that they changed the wording on the Divine Smite feature to clear any doubt. And by the Multiclassing rules the Warlock slots are a different thing that doesn't stack with others' slots.

[Tanarii]

You're Unconscious when you're Asleep.

Unconscious applies Incapacitated.

In game proof? Sleep spell applies a Slumber which is defined as Unconscious.
What's that got to do with the price of milk? We were discussing maintaining concentration through a Short Rest.

[rbstr]

It may or may not get errated. Eldritch Smite is not Divine Smite so it absolutely could be intended to work differently.

I think I'd take it at level 5 on a Hexblade for the crit-fishing aspect in particular.
For a bladelock on a different patron I'd wait until higher levels to pick it up. With only 2 slots the opportunity cost is a bit high but once you pick up the 3rd slot things get a bit more free. When you hit 4 you're a freaking smiting machine. I don't think anyone actually plays a warlock that high...but it's fantastic as long as you get the recommended number of rests.

[DivisibleByZero]

It does matter, so much that they changed the wording on the Divine Smite feature to clear any doubt. And by the Multiclassing rules the Warlock slots are a different thing that doesn't stack with others' slots.

So feel free to ask him again if you think it's necessary.
I'm not going to waste my time, because I know the answer, because he's already answered it numerous times before.

[tieren]

So feel free to ask him again if you think it's necessary.
I'm not going to waste my time, because I know the answer, because he's already answered it numerous times before.

Out of curiosity, does that mean with the Minions of Chaos invocation you can cast Conjure Elemental with a 1st level spell slot if you MC for one? The invocation just says "warlock spell slot" but the invocation has a level 9 prereq so the pact magic slots are already level 5.

[DivisibleByZero]

Out of curiosity, does that mean with the Minions of Chaos invocation you can cast Conjure Elemental with a 1st level spell slot if you MC for one? The invocation just says "warlock spell slot" but the invocation has a level 9 prereq so the pact magic slots are already level 5.

Are you asking me if you can cast Conjure Elemental, which is a 5th level spell, with a 1st level slot?
If so, the answer is No. But you already knew that.

[tieren]

Are you asking me if you can cast Conjure Elemental, which is a 5th level spell, with a 1st level slot?
If so, the answer is No. But you already knew that.

The invocations break those rules, there are several invocations that let you cast leveled spells with no slots whatsoever.

This invocation just says you use a warlock slot, are you saying there is a rule or ruling somewhere that says you can use a pact magic slot or a spell slot of appropriate level? if there is I have never seen it.

[Daphne]

Out of curiosity, does that mean with the Minions of Chaos invocation you can cast Conjure Elemental with a 1st level spell slot if you MC for one? The invocation just says "warlock spell slot" but the invocation has a level 9 prereq so the pact magic slots are already level 5.

You can only cast it with Warlock spell slots by RAW

[LeonBH]

The invocations break those rules, there are several invocations that let you cast leveled spells with no slots whatsoever.

This invocation just says you use a warlock slot, are you saying there is a rule or ruling somewhere that says you can use a pact magic slot or a spell slot of appropriate level? if there is I have never seen it.

The existence of invocations that let you cast spells with no spell slots does not mean Warlocks can cast higher level spells with lower level slots.

[tieren]

The existence of invocations that let you cast spells with no spell slots does not mean Warlocks can cast higher level spells with lower level slots.

But thats another rule.

You're adding more and more rules to justify the original premise you proposed that slots are slots. Now your rule appears to be you can use warlock slots or spell slot but only if the spell slot is of a high enough level to do whatever you needed the slot to do in the first place.

Or you could just say pact slots are different and we'll need to wait and see.

[Vaz]

The existence of invocations that let you cast spells with no spell slots does not mean Warlocks can cast higher level spells with lower level slots.

While it doesn't allow what is being suggestion it does refute DBZ's reasoning as to why.

[Daphne]

you could just say pact slots are different and we'll need to wait and see.

They are different:


Pact Magic: If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.

You don't learn the spell from the invocation.

[LeonBH]

But thats another rule.

You're adding more and more rules to justify the original premise you proposed that slots are slots. Now your rule appears to be you can use warlock slots or spell slot but only if the spell slot is of a high enough level to do whatever you needed the slot to do in the first place.

Or you could just say pact slots are different and we'll need to wait and see.

That is indeed another rule, which you will find in PHB 201 under Spell Slots, second paragraph.

[DivisibleByZero]

While it doesn't allow what is being suggestion it does refute DBZ's reasoning as to why.

No it doesn't.
You need a 5th level slot to cast a 5th level spell.
Once you have a 5th level slot, and also the ability to cast a 5th level spell, you can do so.
That Invocation exists so that you can spend an Invocation to add a spell to your spells known that is normally not available to you. That's all it does. Usually those spells are relegated to once per long rest, as per their descriptions.
So now you have it. But you still need a 5th level slot to cast it, regardless of multiclass or single class.
A slot is a slot is a slot.

[Dudewithknives]

While it doesn't allow what is being suggestion it does refute DBZ's reasoning as to why.

Warlocks do not have but 1 level of slots at a time so it does not matter what level you are spending, you are spending the only one you have.

Warlock spell slots also are independent of other spell slots as it says in every invocation like was mentioned that you spend a WARLOCK spell slot to use them, not a SPELL slot.

Warlocks are not normal casters, they are Pact Magic Users.

If you have an ability that says you can spend a Warlock like Sculpt the Flesh, you can not spend a Sorcerer spell slot to activate it, because the ability specifically says Warlock Spell Slot.

Only Paladins got errata to make it all spell slots.

[tieren]

Warlocks do not have but 1 level of slots at a time so it does not matter what level you are spending, you are spending the only one you have.

Warlock spell slots also are independent of other spell slots as it says in every invocation like was mentioned that you spend a WARLOCK spell slot to use them, not a SPELL slot.

Warlocks are not normal casters, they are Pact Magic Users.

If you have an ability that says you can spend a Warlock like Sculpt the Flesh, you can not spend a Sorcerer spell slot to activate it, because the ability specifically says Warlock Spell Slot.

Only Paladins got errata to make it all spell slots.

QFT

I also note it was necessary for Paladins as once you MC you don't have any paladin specific spell sots, you have spell slots combined per the MC table. The same is not true for warlocks, you always have separate pact magic slots.

[Dudewithknives]

QFT

I also note it was necessary for Paladins as once you MC you don't have any paladin specific spell sots, you have spell slots combined per the MC table. The same is not true for warlocks, you always have separate pact magic slots.

Good point on the independent slots after MC, that is a good catch to prove a rule.

[rbstr]

Notably the "using a warlock spell slot" invocations have not been the subject of errata.

DBZ you'd call this oversight? But really, who knows?

[DivisibleByZero]

Notably the "using a warlock spell slot" invocations have not been the subject of errata.

DBZ you'd call this oversight? But really, who knows?

It was written that way because all of their Invocations are written that way. "You can cast X using a warlock spell slot." That's ow they're all written. The new ones were written that way to keep a measure of cohesion.

Once again, I guarantee you, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a slot is a slot is a slot.
I'm not going to talk about this anymore. Argue amongst yourselves all you want to, or ask JC once again if you want to, but the question has been asked and answered many times before.

[Daphne]

I guarantee you, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a slot is a slot is a slot.

That's why you add your Warlock levels to determine your available spells slots when you multiclass, right?

[LeonBH]

QFT

I also note it was necessary for Paladins as once you MC you don't have any paladin specific spell sots, you have spell slots combined per the MC table. The same is not true for warlocks, you always have separate pact magic slots.

That does not preclude paladins from using warlock spell slots, or warlocks from using paladin spell slots.

It just means their spellcasting levels do not combine.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's why you add your Warlock levels to determine your available spells slots when you multiclass, right?

Stop arguing with me and go ask JC.
Again.

[Malifice]

That's magical sleep vs. regular sleep.

XgtE calls out sleep as giving you the unconscious condition.

[Malifice]

It was written that way because all of their Invocations are written that way. "You can cast X using a warlock spell slot." That's ow they're all written. The new ones were written that way to keep a measure of cohesion.

Once again, I guarantee you, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a slot is a slot is a slot.
I'm not going to talk about this anymore. Argue amongst yourselves all you want to, or ask JC once again if you want to, but the question has been asked and answered many times before.

Yeah. Warlock pact magic slots only with eldritch smite.

[Daphne]

Yeah. Warlock pact magic slots only with eldritch smite.

Don't bother, he won't listen.

[alchahest]

Stop arguing with me and go ask JC.
Again.

Everyone here who disagrees with you are quoting the RAW. JC and Mearls have not answered this question as Eldritch Smite has not existed as an invocation in printed material until now. So no, it has not been answered yet. and Until such time as someone provides proof that RAW is wrong, why wouldn't we go by RAW?

[DivisibleByZero]

Stop arguing with me and go ask JC.
Again.Everyone here who disagrees with you are quoting the RAW. JC and Mearls have not answered this question as Eldritch Smite has not existed as an invocation in printed material until now. So no, it has not been answered yet. and Until such time as someone provides proof that RAW is wrong, why wouldn't we go by RAW?

So stop arguing with me and go ask JC.
Again.

[alchahest]

We don't need to ask JC permission to play RAW though? like it's not an argument, it's facts. the rules say Warlock slots. they don't say anything else. RAW, it's warlock slots. As of right now, we are right, and anything deviating from that is incorrect. We don't need to seek additional proof that the RAW is correct, because it is already written in official materials.

That's like claiming that because a Long Rest is actually is four hours for elves, that half elves only rest 6 horus, then telling people they have to check with JC to confirm that half elves don't rest for 6 hours, even though nothing in the RAW states that.

[DivisibleByZero]

We don't need to ask JC permission to play RAW though? like it's not an argument, it's facts. the rules say Warlock slots. they don't say anything else. RAW, it's warlock slots. As of right now, we are right, and anything deviating from that is incorrect. We don't need to seek additional proof that the RAW is correct, because it is already written in official materials.

That's like claiming that because a Long Rest is actually is four hours for elves, that half elves only rest 6 horus, then telling people they have to check with JC to confirm that half elves don't rest for 6 hours, even though nothing in the RAW states that.

"Divine Smite says Paladin spell slots. Can I use Warlock Pact Magic slots to Divine Smite?"
JC: Yes, you can. A slot is a slot is a slot. It doesn't matter where the slot came from. If you have the slot, you can use it.

He said it over and over and over and over again, until he got sick of saying it and errata'd it.

All we're doing is reversing the roles:
"Eldritch Smite says Warlock spell slots. Can I use slots from a multiclass?"
It's the exact same question. Guess what the answer is going to be....

Just go on ahead and ask him. You'll see.

[Tanarii]

At this point I'm tempted to make a Twitter account just so I can see how DbZ reacts if JC doesn't agree. :smallamused::smallbiggrin:

[Elric VIII]

Seriously, just ignore him. I have him blocked and he still freaking annoys me. Do not feed the troll.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I tweeted JC waiting so see if i get a response. I am inclined to agree with DbZ though, but i understand that one may assume they wouldn't make he same mistake twice, therefore its intentional.

[Kuulvheysoon]

At this point I'm tempted to make a Twitter account just so I can see how DbZ reacts if JC doesn't agree. :smallamused::smallbiggrin:

I actually did tweet JC not long ago, because I was as curious as y'all.

That, and I do actually have a player who wants to play a Hexblade with this feat if (when) his current character dies.

[DivisibleByZero]

Seriously, just ignore him. I have him blocked and he still freaking annoys me. Do not feed the troll.

Trying to make people understand is not trolling. I have done nothing trollish here.
You just did, however.

[alchahest]

Here you go, bud. I hope your quest for proof that RAW is usually meant to be RAI is sated.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397

[Kuulvheysoon]

Here you go, bud. I hope your quest for proof that RAW is usually meant to be RAI is sated.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397

Excellent, he responded to my tweet. It is as I had guessed - having been through this once, they were very specific on the wording this time.

[alchahest]

yeah. it makes a lot of sense that they did it this way, If you want smite spam, rather than the whole warlock package, probably best to use divine smite.

[Dudewithknives]

yeah. it makes a lot of sense that they did it this way, If you want smite spam, rather than the whole warlock package, probably best to use divine smite.

Like I figured, this means the invocation MIGHT be picked up at level 7 up, but not worth the early grab.

[Mortis_Elrod]

yeah. it makes a lot of sense that they did it this way, If you want smite spam, rather than the whole warlock package, probably best to use divine smite.

I suppose. I think its more incentive to stay warlock more than anything else.

I mean who's going to spend two whole levels on paladin. Definitely not warlock

[Mortis_Elrod]

Like I figured, this means the invocation MIGHT be picked up at level 7 up, but not worth the early grab.

I'd still grab it early. But only because level 7 is reserved for something else. like anything else.

[Dudewithknives]

I'd still grab it early. But only because level 7 is reserved for something else. like anything else.

If I am playing a Hexblade/Pact of blade, which 95% of all pact of Blades will be, I will be taking, in order:

Agonizing blast, devils sight, @5 thirsting blade and drop agonizing blast for improved pact weapon, at 7 probably something utility,

[Elric VIII]

If I am playing a Hexblade/Pact of blade, which 95% of all pact of Blades will be, I will be taking, in order:

Agonizing blast, devils sight, @5 thirsting blade and drop agonizing blast for improved pact weapon, at 7 probably something utility,

Cloak of Flies is surprisingly good. There's no limit to its duration, so in many dungeons I bring it up and can leave it on for the whole time. It also doubles as a semi-social invocation with the intimidate bonus.

[LeonBH]

Here you go, bud. I hope your quest for proof that RAW is usually meant to be RAI is sated.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397

Thanks for the find. That is a bit disappointing from a mechanical standpoint, but I do like the fiction around this. Your Eldritch Invocations are too Otherworldly to make use of mortal sources of magic.

[Talamare]

It was written that way because all of their Invocations are written that way. "You can cast X using a warlock spell slot." That's ow they're all written. The new ones were written that way to keep a measure of cohesion.

Once again, I guarantee you, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a slot is a slot is a slot.
I'm not going to talk about this anymore. Argue amongst yourselves all you want to, or ask JC once again if you want to, but the question has been asked and answered many times before.


Just go on ahead and ask him. You'll see.


Here you go, bud. I hope your quest for proof that RAW is usually meant to be RAI is sated.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397

Why I keep telling you really should stop presenting every single word you say as the ultimate factual law.

[Malifice]

[i]Just go on ahead and ask him. You'll see.

Err Oops.....

[DivisibleByZero]

Err Oops.....

That is the single most asinine ruling that has been made in 5e to date.
Every single spellcaster in the game can use warlock slots to play with their own toys, but warlocks can't use anyone else's?
That is quite literally the worst ruling that has been made so far for this edition.

[mer.c]

Every single spellcaster in the game can use warlock slots to play with their own toys, but warlocks can't use anyone else's one new warlock feature is tied explicitly to their unique method of spellcasting?

When you cut out the hyperbole/exaggeration/blatant misrepresentation, it almost begins to sound reasonable.

[alchahest]

That is the single most asinine ruling that has been made in 5e to date.
Every single spellcaster in the game can use warlock slots to play with their own toys, but warlocks can't use anyone else's?
That is quite literally the worst ruling that has been made so far for this edition.

every single other caster doesn't refresh on short rest and cast at maximum level. Pact Magic is different from other spells except where noted explicitly.

Also it's not "A ruling" it's "A rule"

[Zalabim]

In other arguments about things they've done again, the wording for Eldritch Smite says: "Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."

Now is that 1) Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon 2) you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal extra force damage and 3) you can knock the target prone.

Or is it 1) Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon
A) You can expend a warlock spell slot to deal extra force damage
AND
B) You can knock the target prone.

Bit of a difference. This is more like the first UA's wording. The second UA's wording said a creature that took any of this damage is knocked prone. Now we're back to optional, but does the option require spending a spell slot?

[LeonBH]

In other arguments about things they've done again, the wording for Eldritch Smite says: "Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."

Now is that 1) Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon 2) you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal extra force damage and 3) you can knock the target prone.

Or is it 1) Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon
A) You can expend a warlock spell slot to deal extra force damage
AND
B) You can knock the target prone.

Bit of a difference. This is more like the first UA's wording. The second UA's wording said a creature that took any of this damage is knocked prone. Now we're back to optional, but does the option require spending a spell slot?

Interesting thought. I would think it requires a spell slot, going from context clues (the 2nd UA shows the intent that force damage and prone go together). If you can just knock someone prone on a hit without resource expenditure, that is kind of broken, especially since the Pact Weapon can be ranged.

[Talamare]

In other arguments about things they've done again, the wording for Eldritch Smite says: "Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."

Now is that 1) Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon 2) you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal extra force damage and 3) you can knock the target prone.

Or is it 1) Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon
A) You can expend a warlock spell slot to deal extra force damage
AND
B) You can knock the target prone.

Bit of a difference. This is more like the first UA's wording. The second UA's wording said a creature that took any of this damage is knocked prone. Now we're back to optional, but does the option require spending a spell slot?

While the wording could be slightly better

There is ZERO implication that you can knock prone for free

[DivisibleByZero]

When you cut out the hyperbole/exaggeration/blatant misrepresentation, it almost begins to sound reasonable.


every single other caster doesn't refresh on short rest and cast at maximum level. Pact Magic is different from other spells except where noted explicitly.

Also it's not "A ruling" it's "A rule"

It's not exaggeration or hyperbole, because that's even worse.
If you're any other caster, you can MC warlock to get more slots that recharge on a short rest, on top of your already superior casting mechanic, and your van use any of them for anything.
If you're a warlock, you MC any other caster, but you can only use your lesser casting mechanic to play with your toys.
The weaker casting mechanic is the one that CAN'T use their MC slots with their new toys?
That's bass akward, it's asinine, and it's literally the worst ruling that has been made to date for this edition. Which is why there was no way on Earth that I thought he'd go that way. It makes zero sense.

[X3r4ph]

I agree DBZ. It's unnecessary.

[Talamare]

It's not exaggeration or hyperbole, because that's even worse.
If you're any other caster, you can MC warlock to get more slots that recharge on a short rest, on top of your already superior casting mechanic, and your van use any of them for anything.
If you're a warlock, you MC any other caster, but you can only use your lesser casting mechanic to play with your toys.
The weaker casting mechanic is the one that CAN'T use their MC slots with their new toys?
That's bass akward, it's asinine, and it's literally the worst ruling that has been made to date for this edition. Which is why there was no way on Earth that I thought he'd go that way. It makes zero sense.

It's absolutely hyperbole.

It's a fairly good ruling, because it's... NOT EVEN A RULING.
It's at best a clarification, but it's not even that.

The text was incredibly clear.
It wasn't even slightly ambiguous.

[LeonBH]

I will say that the rule that Warlocks can only use Warlock slots for their invocations is counterintuitive because they can use other slots for their spells. It seems like an arbitrary design decision. The clarification is incredibly useful as far as understanding RAW/RAI though.

I, for one, will ask my DMs to use regular slots for Warlock invocations. It's not like you can downscale a spell into a lower level spell slot, anyway.

[Vaz]

It's absolutely hyperbole.

It's a fairly good ruling, because it's... NOT EVEN A RULING.
It's at best a clarification, but it's not even that.

The text was incredibly clear.
It wasn't even slightly ambiguous.

In the same way that the Paladin spell slot wasn't even ambiguous, and yet they changed that. Or if you contend that it was, then sweet, Warlock is equally ambiguous. Paladin was changed so that it allows to use any spell slot.

To use an analogy, Imagine a printing of the PHB with the Fireball spell dealing Poison damage. This was errata'd and fixed to now show Fire Damage. Then, they release an UA which is Fireball with the serial numbers filed off, but more powerful, and based around a specific class, adding Assymetry. Later on, they rescind this new Fireball, take away the assymetry mostly, and is very similar ability written in a UA, which was Fireball with the serial numbers taken off, but said it did Poison damage again. Near universally, the community decided that WotC are down to their stupid ways, where they struggle to write a rule properly (RE Ranger with Infinite Healing), or understand the full effects of their rules (Bard subclass using duplicate actions to be untenable in the action economy).

Fast forwards to the rules full releases, and we see that WotC have not addressed the situation described. So, now we're left with Fireball-with-the-serial-numbers-stripped-off that can only be used half as much as any other Fireball, with the excuse that this neutered version which explicitly breaks several established concepts (Spell Slots is spell slots, Smite uses any Spell slots) which work similarly. It's more an incredulously "why the **** have they done that?".

To which the answer "we are purposefully sculpting the game so that you can't do that thing you thought you could do because we want to make things feel unique, because expending spell slots to do additional damage needs to be made unique, that we're purposefully going to prevent you using these abilities with other class features". It's arbitrary.

Imagine if you will, for a second that you can fly, and you see a sign at a clifftop saying "Keep Clear." You ask the employee guarding the cliff saying "Why?". He responds "Because I say so". Twirls a moustache, internally laughs crazily. "But I can fly, and so I'm not in danger of falling? So why do I need to keep clear?". "Reasons." It's nonsense.

[Daphne]

In the same way that the Paladin spell slot wasn't even ambiguous, and yet they changed that. Or if you contend that it was, then sweet, Warlock is equally ambiguous. Paladin was changed so that it allows to use any spell slot.

They didn't change any rule on the Divine Smite, they removed the word "paladin" for clarification, as you don't have paladin slots when you multiclass. see:


I also note it was necessary for Paladins as once you MC you don't have any paladin specific spell sots, you have spell slots combined per the MC table. The same is not true for warlocks, you always have separate pact magic slots.

[LeonBH]

If you think about it, they didn't need to change Paladin to be able to use non-Paladin slots. Before the errata, RAW restricted Paladin multiclasses. If the Pally MC'ed into a caster class for faster spell slot progression, they would lose Divine Smite as they no longer have Paladin spell slots. So it was a "natural" way to block out multiclassing without explicitly referencing multiclassing.

Post-errata, obviously, the Paladins are now free to MC anywhere and retain Divine Smite. But the point is, it wasn't necessary.

In the same vein, restricting Eldritch Smite to Pact Magic slots was unnecessary.

[MeeposFire]

If you think about it, they didn't need to change Paladin to be able to use non-Paladin slots. Before the errata, RAW restricted Paladin multiclasses. If the Pally MC'ed into a caster class for faster spell slot progression, they would lose Divine Smite as they no longer have Paladin spell slots. So it was a "natural" way to block out multiclassing without explicitly referencing multiclassing.

Post-errata, obviously, the Paladins are now free to MC anywhere and retain Divine Smite. But the point is, it wasn't necessary.

In the same vein, restricting Eldritch Smite to Pact Magic slots was unnecessary.

I am going to need a citation on this one showing your insinuation that the use of "paladin slots" was used explicitly to prevent you from multiclassing into and out of the paladin class. I would not accept an explanation where you are just assuming that since it said paladin slot that you would lose divine smite as there were other ways you could handle this problem (though some became complicated and frankly silly to use such as dividing the pell slots between what you got directly from paladin and those from other classes).

EDIT: If that sounds slightly combative sorry I just want to know if there really is a quote somewhere saying that because I really do not remember seeing that anywhere.

As for JC if you are surprised at this ruling then you honestly have not payed much attention to how he tends to make rulings. His divine smite ruling is the outlier not the norm. Most of his rulings are based on really fine readings of the details of the writing in the book (for a textbook example see the magic initiate ruling) which can be annoying to some considering on how the rules were written (it was thought at one time that the more strict written legalese type readings were to be left in 3e and 4e but it seems JC still follows that tradition). Divine smite was not he essentially said ignore the book and then they took the relatively rare step of changing the book to fit that ruling.

It is not often that they change the wording of the book to fit a ruling so to me that seems to paint the initial divine smite ruling as being relatively extraordinary and unlike most of what JC ends up doing on most of the Sage rulings.

I think it is also important to note that unlike with divine smite eldritch smite is an optional add on (not required and not important structurally in general to the warlock) to a class where it is easy to find and use its specific requirements. Divine smite on the other hand is essentially the main combat mechanic for the entire paladin class and the way general spell slots work would make it confusing to try to figure out if you made it paladin slots only. It seems to me they took some pains to try to make sure that for the most part your character can multiclass and get to adequately use each of your class's main combat shtick (assuming you went far enough in to get it) and so I can see them looking at divine smite and thinking "wait if we keep it as is the main combat component of the paladin when used in a multiclass becomes confusing and poor to use" and then deciding to make a change. Then when they looked at this eldritch smite they do not need to worry about multiclassing rules since warlock slots are tracked separately so no confusion there and since it is an optional add on ability directly to warlocks (sort of like how the valor bard can only use battlemagic on bard spells and not just any spell) they decided that it was desirable to them to keep it warlock slot only (I am not sure I want it to be warlock slot only myself but I can see how they can think divine smite and eldritch smite while similar are not the same situation).

[Talamare]

In the same way that the Paladin spell slot wasn't even ambiguous, and yet they changed that. Or if you contend that it was, then sweet, Warlock is equally ambiguous. Paladin was changed so that it allows to use any spell slot.

To use an analogy, Imagine a printing of the PHB with the Fireball spell dealing Poison damage. This was errata'd and fixed to now show Fire Damage. Then, they release an UA which is Fireball with the serial numbers filed off, but more powerful, and based around a specific class, adding Assymetry. Later on, they rescind this new Fireball, take away the assymetry mostly, and is very similar ability written in a UA, which was Fireball with the serial numbers taken off, but said it did Poison damage again. Near universally, the community decided that WotC are down to their stupid ways, where they struggle to write a rule properly (RE Ranger with Infinite Healing), or understand the full effects of their rules (Bard subclass using duplicate actions to be untenable in the action economy).

Fast forwards to the rules full releases, and we see that WotC have not addressed the situation described. So, now we're left with Fireball-with-the-serial-numbers-stripped-off that can only be used half as much as any other Fireball, with the excuse that this neutered version which explicitly breaks several established concepts (Spell Slots is spell slots, Smite uses any Spell slots) which work similarly. It's more an incredulously "why the **** have they done that?".

To which the answer "we are purposefully sculpting the game so that you can't do that thing you thought you could do because we want to make things feel unique, because expending spell slots to do additional damage needs to be made unique, that we're purposefully going to prevent you using these abilities with other class features". It's arbitrary.

Imagine if you will, for a second that you can fly, and you see a sign at a clifftop saying "Keep Clear." You ask the employee guarding the cliff saying "Why?". He responds "Because I say so". Twirls a moustache, internally laughs crazily. "But I can fly, and so I'm not in danger of falling? So why do I need to keep clear?". "Reasons." It's nonsense.

No, your example is wrong. It's a poor attempt at a misleading argument.

Paladin Spell Slots are not a Unique Feature due to how multiclassing works, all spell slots are shared.
Warlock Spell Slots Pact Magic is a unique feature to Warlocks; there is no way to get this unique feature (besides being a Warlock) and no way to remove it from being a Warlock unique feature.

[LeonBH]

I dont have a citation that it was the intent. I'm saying pre-Errata, that would have been one way for how it worked if a group was very particular about it. There was no system of dividing spell slots across caster levels, Paladin slots cease to exist upon MCing.

The point was that they did not need to errata Paladin slots. It was not necessary as has been claimed.

Not that it matters. It was errata'd in the end while Eldritch Smite is relegated to a 2/rest status. That is what it is.

[Mortis_Elrod]

If I am playing a Hexblade/Pact of blade, which 95% of all pact of Blades will be, I will be taking, in order:

Agonizing blast, devils sight, @5 thirsting blade and drop agonizing blast for improved pact weapon, at 7 probably something utility,

at 3rd level drop agonizing for improved pact weapon. Then at 5th drop devils sight and have all three. at 7 get back something cool like devil sight or repelling blast or grasp of hadar or frost lance.

[Talamare]

I dont have a citation that it was the intent. I'm saying pre-Errata, that would have been one way for how it worked if a group was very particular about it. There was no system of dividing spell slots across caster levels, Paladin slots cease to exist upon MCing.

The point was that they did not need to errata Paladin slots. It was not necessary as has been claimed.
or... they did need to errata it

because it's not normal for abilities to stop working just because you MCd

[LeonBH]

Or... They didn't. And it's not normal for non-Warlocks to use Warlock slots, but for Warlocks to be unable to use non-Warlock slots for their abilities.

But, whatever. It is what it is regardless of what they did or did not need to do.

[Tanarii]

hahahahaha this thread totally delivered :smallbiggrin:



Paladin Spell Slots are not a Unique Feature due to how multiclassing works, all spell slots are shared.
Warlock Spell Slots Pact Magic is a unique feature to Warlocks; there is no way to get this unique feature (besides being a Warlock) and no way to remove it from being a Warlock unique feature.
That's some solid sounding justification right there.

[Talamare]

Or... They didn't. And it's not normal for non-Warlocks to use Warlock slots, but for Warlocks to be unable to use non-Warlock slots for their abilities.

But, whatever. It is what it is regardless of what they did or did not need to do.

The difference being one deletes something, and the other grants you something.

Paladin completely losing the ability to do it if they MC
vs
Warlock still 100% able to do it if they MC

It's not even close to the same.

[Hyde]

I'm so disappointed I can't make a bladeblade that needs only Charisma to smite everything into the sun, always all the time.

[alchahest]

No, your example is wrong. It's a poor attempt at a misleading argument.

Paladin Spell Slots are not a Unique Feature due to how multiclassing works, all spell slots are shared.
Warlock Spell Slots Pact Magic is a unique feature to Warlocks; there is no way to get this unique feature (besides being a Warlock) and no way to remove it from being a Warlock unique feature.

nicely put!

[LeonBH]

The difference being one deletes something, and the other grants you something.

Paladin completely losing the ability to do it if they MC
vs
Warlock still 100% able to do it if they MC

It's not even close to the same.

Never said it was the same.

[DivisibleByZero]

The difference being one deletes something, and the other grants you something.

Paladin completely losing the ability to do it if they MC
vs
Warlock still 100% able to do it if they MC

It's not even close to the same.

When, exactly, was that true, and according to whom?
The answers to those questions are never and no one.
That is not how paladin smiting worked before the errata. They did not lose the ability to smite of they multiclassed. There was no loss of anything.
What you're attempting to claim as fact is not and has never been fact.
What was that you said to me? Take your own advice.

[Talamare]

Never said it was the same.

You used contextomy on the word 'normal' to imply it was.


When, exactly, was that true, and according to whom?
The answers to those questions are never and no one.
That is not how paladin smiting worked before the errata. They did not lose the ability to smite of they multiclassed. There was no loss of anything.
What you're attempting to claim as fact is not and has never been fact.
What was that you said to me? Take your own advice.

Ooh, How Clever!


If you think about it, they didn't need to change Paladin to be able to use non-Paladin slots. Before the errata, RAW restricted Paladin multiclasses. If the Pally MC'ed into a caster class for faster spell slot progression, they would lose Divine Smite as they no longer have Paladin spell slots. So it was a "natural" way to block out multiclassing without explicitly referencing multiclassing.

My responses were in context from LeonBH post as quoted above.


So... yea, you kinda of just failed there.

[DivisibleByZero]

Ooh, How Clever!

Which part?
The part where I turn your own words on you, or the part where I nullify your entire post as not factual, making your comparison irrelevant?
I'd like to think it was a little bit of both.

[alchahest]

DBZ it looks like you're getting a little more emotionally invested in trying to make people feel like they're wrong, rather than discussing the topic of this thread in good faith. Might be a good idea to shift focus to a different discussion.

Back to the topic of the thread, how useful is eldritch smite, really? It's not as potent as paladin smiting in terms of damage, but given that you recharge on a short rest, and you get a no-save knockdown for huge and smaller, it has some nice versatility if you aren't multid into battlemaster or paladin.

[DivisibleByZero]

DBZ it looks like you're getting a little more emotionally invested in trying to make people feel like they're wrong,

No, I get emotionally invested when someone calls me out and complains about me making a prediction as a statement of fact, only to have the person who complained about it do worse themselves later by typing pure fiction and presenting it as fact.
It's hypocritical.
Particularly when after being informed that it was incorrect, the response is an immature "ooh, clever!" instead of responding to the actual claim of inaccuracy.
So yes, hypocrisy and immaturity both directed at me, and I get emotionally invested. Damn right.

[Hyde]

DBZ it looks like you're getting a little more emotionally invested in trying to make people feel like they're wrong, rather than discussing the topic of this thread in good faith. Might be a good idea to shift focus to a different discussion.

Back to the topic of the thread, how useful is eldritch smite, really? It's not as potent as paladin smiting in terms of damage, but given that you recharge on a short rest, and you get a no-save knockdown for huge and smaller, it has some nice versatility if you aren't multid into battlemaster or paladin.

I'm rather fond of the knock-down-dragons at ranged bit, myself. As an invocation, there's not a ton of cost in taking it, either. It's an excellent tool for single or multiclass warlocks, just maybe not a reason to take a (rather big) dip on its own. I'd have really liked to see it be able to use those MC slots, just because I want to put big sorcerer slots behind it, but it does seem like it would be pretty broken, at that point. A shame, really.

[Dudewithknives]

DBZ it looks like you're getting a little more emotionally invested in trying to make people feel like they're wrong, rather than discussing the topic of this thread in good faith. Might be a good idea to shift focus to a different discussion.

Back to the topic of the thread, how useful is eldritch smite, really? It's not as potent as paladin smiting in terms of damage, but given that you recharge on a short rest, and you get a no-save knockdown for huge and smaller, it has some nice versatility if you aren't multid into battlemaster or paladin.

I do like the fact that Eldritch Smite can work with a ranged weapon.

[alchahest]

Eldritch Smite working with ranged weapons is a pretty nice feature, too. being able to hit a dragon with a smite at range and knock it out of the sky is pretty sweet.

[LeonBH]

You used contextomy on the word 'normal' to imply it was.

I used the word "normal" in the same way you used the word "normal."

[Talamare]

No, I get emotionally invested when someone calls me out and complains about me making a prediction as a statement of fact, only to have the person who complained about it do worse themselves later by typing pure fiction and presenting it as fact.
It's hypocritical.
Particularly when after being informed that it was incorrect, the response is an immature "ooh, clever!" instead of responding to the actual claim of inaccuracy

Because your attack, excuse me, your act of informing was inaccurate?

Maybe if you read the entire response before getting salty?
I'm surprised I need to repeat myself, you're definitely motivated by emotion right now.

I already told you, I was working based on the information LeonBH presented.
After that, there were no factual statements. Only conjectures on why one is unacceptable and why one is acceptable.

It's unacceptable that you could potentially lose something gained.
It is acceptable that for any reasons the developers decided to add restrictions to an ability.

Now, arguing whether Paladin was functionally mechanically broken and needed an Errata due to that?
Cool

Arguing that Warlock needs an Errata for balance reasons?
Who cares?

and that's what your case seems to be.
You want an Errata for what you perceive to be a weakness of the class.


That is the single most asinine ruling that has been made in 5e to date.
Every single spellcaster in the game can use warlock slots to play with their own toys, but warlocks can't use anyone else's?
That is quite literally the worst ruling that has been made so far for this edition.


It's not exaggeration or hyperbole, because that's even worse.
If you're any other caster, you can MC warlock to get more slots that recharge on a short rest, on top of your already superior casting mechanic, and your van use any of them for anything.
If you're a warlock, you MC any other caster, but you can only use your lesser casting mechanic to play with your toys.
The weaker casting mechanic is the one that CAN'T use their MC slots with their new toys?
That's bass akward, it's asinine, and it's literally the worst ruling that has been made to date for this edition. Which is why there was no way on Earth that I thought he'd go that way. It makes zero sense.

The reason why it's difficult to respond to you, is that your arguments are basically pointless.

That's why I disagree LeonBH arguments, but I appreciate the idea behind them. I see value in that discussion.

[Astofel]

No, I get emotionally invested when someone calls me out and complains about me making a prediction as a statement of fact, only to have the person who complained about it do worse themselves later by typing pure fiction and presenting it as fact.
It's hypocritical.
Particularly when after being informed that it was incorrect, the response is an immature "ooh, clever!" instead of responding to the actual claim of inaccuracy.
So yes, hypocrisy and immaturity both directed at me, and I get emotionally invested. Damn right.

Talamare was responding to LeonBH's claim about the pre-errata RAW of paladin smites, not making any claim themselves about how they work. But looking at the original RAW and only the RAW, not any future errata or (obvious) RAI, what they say stands. By the RAW, multiclassed paladins cannot use Divine Smite, since the no longer have 'paladin spell slots' to smite with, just their combined multiclass slots. That's clearly silly, so the errata was added. I mean no offense, but I too think you're getting frustrated, so maybe you should take a step back for a time.

As for eldritch smite, I hadn't considered knocking flying things prone, that's really awesome and probably justifies it being warlock slots only so it's not super spammable. Although if memory serves Xanathar's is supposed to contain information on how quickly things fall, so maybe that falling dragon won't actually hit the ground before its next turn.

[LeonBH]

I dont have a citation that it was the intent. I'm saying pre-Errata, that would have been one way for how it worked if a group was very particular about it. There was no system of dividing spell slots across caster levels, Paladin slots cease to exist upon MCing.

The point was that they did not need to errata Paladin slots. It was not necessary as has been claimed.

Not that it matters. It was errata'd in the end while Eldritch Smite is relegated to a 2/rest status. That is what it is.

Let me-quote myself here to bump this response as an easier reference.

I don't know if the designers intended MC to break Divine Smite, but a particular group may handle this issue that way pre-errata.

Regardless of that, they did not have to "fix" Pally. There are any number of ways to handle that issue before the errata. Restricting multiclassing is just one of them. It was not necessary to remove a limitation, but they did. It is just as unnecessary to add a Warlock limitation now.

But the entire point is moot, as we know what the actual RAW and RAI of the matter is now.

[DivisibleByZero]

As for eldritch smite, I hadn't considered knocking flying things prone, that's really awesome and probably justifies it being warlock slots only so it's not super spammable.

That's not justification for this to quite literally be the only ability in the entire game that cares where the slot comes from.
That might be justification to alter exactly how it works, but it certainly isn't justification to screw MC warlocks over any more than they already were before this.

[LeonBH]

Although if memory serves Xanathar's is supposed to contain information on how quickly things fall

For real? That is something I look forward to seeing.

[Daphne]

That's not justification for this to quite literally be the only ability in the entire game that cares where the slot comes from.
That might be justification to alter exactly how it works, but it certainly isn't justification to screw MC warlocks over any more than they already were before this.

All other Invocations care where the slot comes from, and Multiclass rules do differentiate Pact Magic slots from Spellcasting slots.

[DivisibleByZero]

All other Invocations care where the slot comes from, and Multiclass rules do differentiate Pact Magic slots from Spellcasting slots.

All other invocations that require a slot are once per day use, and have warlock level requirement appropriate, so it is a moot point. No other class or feature cares about where the slot comes from. None of them.

[Hyde]

For real? That is something I look forward to seeing.

Yeah, I saw the speed of falling things in the table of contents as well. I'm unreasonably excited about it.

[Talamare]

Although if memory serves Xanathar's is supposed to contain information on how quickly things fall, so maybe that falling dragon won't actually hit the ground before its next turn.


For real? That is something I look forward to seeing.

I believe in real life, terminal velocity of a human is around 120 mph

Which would translate to about 1000 ft per 6 seconds.

I don't know what speed they listed in Xanathars tho.

[Spiritchaser]

Eldritch Smite working with ranged weapons is a pretty nice feature, too. being able to hit a dragon with a smite at range and knock it out of the sky is pretty sweet.

Er... oh dear... that’s...

No save horror.

Ok warlock slots only. No way in hades is a hexbow/draconic sorcerer going to ground and pound a dragon with extreme range sharpshooting while flying above it.

Because just no.

[Hyde]

Er... oh dear... that’s...

No save horror.

Ok warlock slots only. No way in hades is a hexbow/draconic sorcerer going to ground and pound a dragon with extreme range sharpshooting while flying above it.

Because just no.
But moooooom, I wanna!


I believe in real life, terminal velocity of a human is around 120 mph

Which would translate to about 1000 ft per 6 seconds.

I don't know what speed they listed in Xanathars tho. I think there was a version that listed 300ft/round, and that's what I've been using, but I'll be happy to have some nice numbers behind it. (I've also increased the fall damage size to d10s, and increased the cap to 30. Was there a cap? I don't remember. Anyway, falling hurts)

[LeonBH]

Er... oh dear... that’s...

No save horror.

Ok warlock slots only. No way in hades is a hexbow/draconic sorcerer going to ground and pound a dragon with extreme range sharpshooting while flying above it.

Because just no.

Too late. Elven hexblade smiters can already do this with ease (if triple advantage), it just takes 1 shot to ground.

On dragons specifically, they can wing attack as legendary actions at the end of the hexblade's turn anyway.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Er... oh dear... that’s...

No save horror.

Ok warlock slots only. No way in hades is a hexbow/draconic sorcerer going to ground and pound a dragon with extreme range sharpshooting while flying above it.

Because just no.

My Winged Tiefling Hexbow begs to differ. He will shoot anything out of the sky as long as he hits.

[Talamare]

But moooooom, I wanna!

I think there was a version that listed 300ft/round, and that's what I've been using, but I'll be happy to have some nice numbers behind it. (I've also increased the fall damage size to d10s, and increased the cap to 30. Was there a cap? I don't remember. Anyway, falling hurts)

Well, ~1000 ft/6s is terminal velocity. So one wouldn't start at that speed.
You also accelerate fast at first, but then your acceleration starts decreasing.

It would be a bit of a hassle to do the work, so I googled it.
Cheeseducksg on Reddit mathed out that in 6 seconds starting from 0, you would fall about ~500 ft in your 1st 6 seconds
After that, you're at or pretty close to Terminal, meaning 1000 ft

I vaguely remember in 3.5 it being d6, but it was bumped up to d10s in 4e.
20d6 seems to be a consistent value.

I don't recall 4e having a cap, but a website I googled said it was 50d10

[Naanomi]

XGtE says 500ft/round, but damage capped at 20d6, and has some other rules about flying creatures and how they might avoid some falling damage

[Hyde]

XGtE says 500ft/round, but damage capped at 20d6, and has some other rules about flying creatures and how they might avoid some falling damage

Hey, thanks for chiming in with the book info. I like it. I think I'll probably still keep the murder-falls, but that a good chunk of damage, regardless.

[prototype00]

Hmm, for the OP, I’ve been considering a Trivantage Half Elf Build- is probably take it and keep it around until I crit (should be quite often thanks to Elven Accuracy).

Can I you spend your 6th or higher level slots on Eldritch Smite?

[Hyde]

Hmm, for the OP, I’ve been considering a Trivantage Half Elf Build- is probably take it and keep it around until I crit (should be quite often thanks to Elven Accuracy).

Can I you spend your 6th or higher level slots on Eldritch Smite?

Buddy, this thread devolved into quite the tantrum over that very question!

But, short answer: No! you can only use your warlock spell slots, and they don't go that high : D

I don't know about saving it exclusively for crits, but oh man, is that delicious. Dip Champion fighter to pick up Improved Crit, maybe?

[prototype00]

Buddy, this thread devolved into quite the tantrum over that very question!

But, short answer: No! you can only use your warlock spell slots, and they don't go that high : D

I don't know about saving it exclusively for crits, but oh man, is that delicious. Dip Champion fighter to pick up Improved Crit, maybe?

Warlocks can cast up to 9th level spells though?

[LeonBH]

Warlocks can cast up to 9th level spells though?

No, they can cast up to 5th. Their 9th level spells come from Mystic Arcanum, a 1/day ability that expends no spell slots.

[LeonBH]

Buddy, this thread devolved into quite the tantrum over that very question!

But, short answer: No! you can only use your warlock spell slots, and they don't go that high : D

I don't know about saving it exclusively for crits, but oh man, is that delicious. Dip Champion fighter to pick up Improved Crit, maybe?

No need to dip Champion. Hexblades crit on a 19 too.

[prototype00]

No, they can cast up to 5th. Their 9th level spells come from Mystic Arcanum, a 1/day ability that expends no spell slots.

Ah, do those not count as slots?

[LeonBH]

Ah, do those not count as slots?

No, they are daily abilities. No spell slots are expended.

[Hyde]

No need to dip Champion. Hexblades crit on a 19 too.

Oh hey, I missed that.

Sweet.

[Malifice]

That's not justification for this to quite literally be the only ability in the entire game that cares where the slot comes from.
That might be justification to alter exactly how it works, but it certainly isn't justification to screw MC warlocks over any more than they already were before this.

It's probably to cut down on 'double smites'

[Malifice]

All other invocations that require a slot are once per day use, and have warlock level requirement appropriate, so it is a moot point. No other class or feature cares about where the slot comes from. None of them.

Actually warlocks have several invocations that specifically say 'warlock spell slot like Minions of Chaos and the one that Curses you.

[DivisibleByZero]

Actually warlocks have several invocations that specifically say 'warlock spell slot like Minions of Chaos and the one that Curses you.

Already addressed.
Those abilities have level requirements and are once per day. So even if you are multiclassed, you already have 2, potentially 3, pact magic slots of that level. And the level requirements mean that by the time you actually take them, the chance of you having non lock slots of that level is extremely low. And even if you do, you might have 1 or 2 compared to your 6 or so from pact magic per day, and again can only be used once per day.
Those other invocations are moot.

This is the only ability in the entire game that really honestly cares about where the slot comes from.

[Malifice]

This is the only ability in the entire game that really cares about where the slot comes from.

Except that it's not.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except that it's not.

It is.

Go read the rules for multiclassing. The ones under Pact Magic.
Slots are interchangable.

Even if they weren't, which they are, consider the following.
Take your minions of chaos example.
You need to be 9th level to get that slot and that invocation.
So in order to even get MC slots to use it with, you'll be 18th level, at which point you have 2 pact magic slots recovering on a short rest for likely 6 or so, vs 1 from multiclassing. Again, e ability is one per day.
Your going to tell me that it *really* matters?
No.

But once again, ignoring that, what you're saying is just plain wrong, as per phb 164

This is quite literally the only feature in the entire game that cares where the slot comes from.

[Spiritchaser]

My Winged Tiefling Hexbow begs to differ. He will shoot anything out of the sky as long as he hits.

I would suggest that he has every right to do so two or three times.

Then when he’s out of warlock pact magic slots, the dragon will make a cold calculation as to whether it’s best to eat him now, or to hunt him down and eat him later.

My concern is that with a multi class, you can have a great many low level slots, and keep that dragon grounded almost perpetually.

That’s... er... that’s just not gonna fly.

I know this looks at first glance like a typo, but I’m going to stick with the RAW on this one.

[LeonBH]

I would suggest that he has every right to do so two or three times.

Then when he’s out of warlock pact magic slots, the dragon will make a cold calculation as to whether it’s best to eat him now, or to hunt him down and eat him later.

My concern is that with a multi class, you can have a great many low level slots, and keep that dragon grounded almost perpetually.

That’s... er... that’s just not gonna fly.

I know this looks at first glance like a typo, but I’m going to stick with the RAW on this one.

The dragon shouldn't know your warlock is out of Pact Magic slots from which to cast Eldritch Smite from. That's really gamey. Unless your campaign setting is Scott Pilgrim, in which case, carry on.

You can't really ground a dragon that wants to use Wing Attack as a legendary action. But that extra fall damage will be very useful. Very potent on a hexblade with Elven Accuracy. But tbh, if the prone condition is the reason Eldritch Smite is restricted to Pact Magic slots, I'd rather they removed that and just had it work with all slots.

[Lombra]

"Boooo warlock is so easy to dip! We want more reasons to not just multiclass out of the first two levels" -GitP's 5e forum since 5e's release

And now that they give it to you, you complain that it shouldn't work like that because you want to keep it easy to just multiclass and deal more damage. Smh.

[Spiritchaser]

The dragon shouldn't know your warlock is out of Pact Magic slots from which to cast Eldritch Smite from.

Dragons know everything...

[LeonBH]

I love having more reasons to multiclass.

[Vaz]

No, your example is wrong. It's a poor attempt at a misleading argument.
No, it's not, and saying that it is shows a misrepresentation on your part. You don't get to choose poor example because you don't get to use that, and then use such a poor reason as to why not.


Paladin Spell Slots are not a Unique Feature due to how multiclassing works, all spell slots are shared.
All Spell Slots are shared.


Warlock Spell Slots Pact Magic is a unique feature to Warlocks; there is no way to get this unique feature (besides being a Warlock) and no way to remove it from being a Warlock unique feature.

Imagine these two had been written at the same time.


Divine Smite (original)
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend a Paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or fiend.

Eldritch Smite
Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a Warlock Spell Slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it's Huge or smaller.

Look at those two. Essentially the same. 1/turn limitation, Force vs Radiant, and Trip, vs no additional damage vs Undead/Fiends.

You then get the information that Divine Smite's Paladin only spell slot was removed. You wonder why the Eldritch Smite does not have the same limitation. You look into it, find that there is nothing within the rules that actually refers to Warlock Spell Slots. Imagine the entire PHB, paragraph by paragraph put into an excel file, and you use =Isnumber(Search("warlock spell slot",[Cell Ref]). You'd get a True for the relevant paragraphs. Imagine then VLooking up to what is referred to as a Warlock Spell Slot. The only thing that refers to it are those Invocations which require a use of a Warlock Spell Slot; but there's no such thing as a Warlock Spell Slot.

To say otherwise is to misrepresent the argument, and ignore the actual facts. But hey, we have the RAI, and the RAW, so all that's left is RACSD, the thing that most games are ruled by; and you'd apply common sense to say that yes, it would also apply, especially given that WotC are so poor in their editing that they cannot even remember to change a table at the same time that they change some text.

Jeremy Crawford makes the rules. Everyone else plays by those rules. People say, those rules are stupid. Jeremy Crawford says **** off peasants, we know what we're doing.

[DivisibleByZero]

No, it's not, and saying that it is shows a misrepresentation on your part. You don't get to choose poor example because you don't get to use that, and then use such a poor reason as to why not.

All Spell Slots are shared..

Exactly.
That's the way that it's been since day one.
That's the way that it's been ruled every single time a question has been asked about it.
That's the way every single class feature has functioned up until now.
That's what PHB 164 says.

Now all of a sudden that's changing for this one case and this one case only.
And the previous statement that slots aren't tied to a class, which is the reason for the rules on phb 164.... well that just went out the window, right along with the text in the phb.

[alchahest]

Stop arguing with me and go ask JC.
Again.

Solid advice, actually.

[DivisibleByZero]

Solid advice, actually.

To be fair, when I said that I assumed he'd follow his multiple previous rulings and the Multiclass rules on phb164 instead of inventing new rules out of nowhere which applied to "warlock spell slots" that don't even exist.

The answer was perfectly clear. He just decided to ignore everything his previous rulings and tweets and sage advice, and even ignore what the phb said, and make stuff up instead.

[alchahest]

Look, I know you're upset about this, but you fling accusations about he how and why decisions are made, without actually asking the source, after repeatedly telling everyone else to ask the source (if what is written is what the writer's intent was). Stop attributing malice or stupidity to what is a pretty obvious, fair, and reasonable choice in writing. It's toxic to think that because you disagree with something that it's stupid or intentionally bad.

I understand that to you it was plain as day that a thing should operate in a way that wasn't written, and I understand where you would form that expectation. However, it was also plain as day to many others that the wording was intentional, and the no-save knockdown and attached to a class that uses pact magic rather than normal spell slots, maybe was more limited than paladin smites.

I also understand though, that no amount of saying how dumb/bad/malicious the author is will make it true, and I also understand that disagreeing with a thing doesn't make things dumb/bad/malicious.

If you would like, at your table you can elect to use whatever interpretation of the rules you like, this is the edition of GM fiat, after all. Please play as you like and I hope you enjoy it.

[DivisibleByZero]

With that reading it is a nonsensical feature that cannot be used, as it requires the use of a resource which does not exist.

Warlock spell slots do not exist. Slots are not tied to any class. Pact Magic spell slots do exist.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Look, I know you're upset about this, but you fling accusations about he how and why decisions are made, without actually asking the source, after repeatedly telling everyone else to ask the source (if what is written is what the writer's intent was). Stop attributing malice or stupidity to what is a pretty obvious, fair, and reasonable choice in writing. It's toxic to think that because you disagree with something that it's stupid or intentionally bad.

I understand that to you it was plain as day that a thing should operate in a way that wasn't written, and I understand where you would form that expectation. However, it was also plain as day to many others that the wording was intentional, and the no-save knockdown and attached to a class that uses pact magic rather than normal spell slots, maybe was more limited than paladin smites.

I also understand though, that no amount of saying how dumb/bad/malicious the author is will make it true, and I also understand that disagreeing with a thing doesn't make things dumb/bad/malicious.

If you would like, at your table you can elect to use whatever interpretation of the rules you like, this is the edition of GM fiat, after all. Please play as you like and I hope you enjoy it.
*slow clap* Well said, good sir. I, personally, have no issues with the way that it’s written because of the no-save prone, special warlock casting rules and the fact that it can be used at range.

But I can see where DBZ comes from, and I can respect that even if I don’t agree with it. At the end of the day, you can play your game how you want to play it.

You were simply far better at getting the point across, and for that that you deserve (my) applause.

[DivisibleByZero]

But I can see where DBZ comes from, and I can respect that even if I don’t agree with it. At the end of the day, you can play your game how you want to play it.
Thank you.

According to PHB 164, under the Multiclassing rules, particularly under the Pact Magic rules, that slots are interchangable.

Pact Magic
If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.
So in regards to the other Warlock Invocations which allow you to cast a spell "with a Warlock spell slot" the answer is most certainly that any slot will do. Says so right in the Multiclass rules.

Furthermore, it has been stated previously, again multiple times, that spell slots are not tied to any particular class. There are no such things as Wizard spell slots, or Warlock spell slots or Palain spell slots. There are only spell slots.
There are, however, two different mechanics to attain spell slots, those being Spellcasting and Pact Magic.
So one could argue that there are Spellcasting spell slots and Pact Magic spell slots, but not that there are Warlock spell slots.

It has been stated in the past that it didn't matter where the slot came from, any slot could be used.
This was repeatedly stated. There was no doubt about it.
This is expressly (as per the developers) why Paladins can Divine Smite with any slot, including slots from Pact Magic.

So when we take these things in concert, these things being:
1) Previous statements that it didn't matter where spell slots came from
2) Previous statements, supported by the text, saying that slots are not tied to any particular class
3) Paladins can Divine Smite with any slot, including Pact Magic slots
4) The PHB expresly states that Pact Magic slots and Spellcasting slots are interchangable
5) The text for other Warlock Invocations were written in this way (as were many of the class abilities from many of the classes) as in calling out slots from that class only, and one could surmise that it was written in this way so that the abilities had some measure of uniformity in their descriptions.
We're left with the conclusion that this feature is quite literally the only ability in the entire game where the source of the slot matters.

In addition, we're left with the fact that the text for the ability, requiring a Warlock spell slot, creates a situation where the ability is unusable, requiring a resource which does not exist.
Some of you are arguing that this was clear and deliberate, but I beg to differ. If it were deliberate, then they would have said Pact Magic slots. Had they wanted to indicate that only those slots attained via Pact magic could be used with this feature, then they should have specified Pact Magic spell slots instead of saying Warlock spell slots (which do not exist).

To me, all signs point to the idea that this should have aligned with all other Rulings and statements in the past, as well as to the Multiclass rules on phb164.
The argument that it was clear because of the "Warlock spell slots" is not clear at all, because Warlock spell slots do not exist.
The fact that it does not align with the previous Rulings or statements, or with the Multiclass rules regarding Pact Magic, means that this Ruling contradicts every Ruling that has come before, and it contradicts the Multiclass Pact Magic rules in the PHB, and it does so on the basis of something which doesn't even exist, as the developers themselves have previously stated that slots are not tied to any class.

So obviously, with this knowledge, I fully expected that the word Warlock in the description was redundant.
I will continue to believe that until it gets errata'd. I will houserule it until it gets fixed to align with the rest of the rules. Because at the moment it does not.

[Vaz]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929755124032987136?s=17

Errata'd his own errata.

[alchahest]

Thank you.

According to PHB 164, under the Multiclassing rules, particularly under the Pact Magic rules, that slots are interchangable.

Pact Magic
If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.
So in regards to the other Warlock Invocations which allow you to cast a spell "with a Warlock spell slot" the answer is most certainly that any slot will do. Says so right in the Multiclass rules.

Furthermore, it has been stated previously, again multiple times, that spell slots are not tied to any particular class. There are no such things as Wizard spell slots, or Warlock spell slots or Palain spell slots. There are only spell slots.
There are, however, two different mechanics to attain spell slots, those being Spellcasting and Pact Magic.
So one could argue that there are Spellcasting spell slots and Pact Magic spell slots, but not that there are Warlock spell slots.

It has been stated in the past that it didn't matter where the slot came from, any slot could be used.
This was repeatedly stated. There was no doubt about it.
This is expressly (as per the developers) why Paladins can Divine Smite with any slot, including slots from Pact Magic.

So when we take these things in concert, these things being:
1) Previous statements that it didn't matter where spell slots came from
2) Previous statements, supported by the text, saying that slots are not tied to any particular class
3) Paladins can Divine Smite with any slot, including Pact Magic slots
4) The PHB expresly states that Pact Magic slots and Spellcasting slots are interchangable
5) The text for other Warlock Invocations were written in this way (as were many of the class abilities from many of the classes) as in calling out slots from that class only, and one could surmise that it was written in this way so that the abilities had some measure of uniformity in their descriptions.
We're left with the conclusion that this feature is quite literally the only ability in the entire game where the source of the slot matters.

In addition, we're left with the fact that the text for the ability, requiring a Warlock spell slot, creates a situation where the ability is unusable, requiring a resource which does not exist.
Some of you are arguing that this was clear and deliberate, but I beg to differ. If it were deliberate, then they would have said Pact Magic slots. Had they wanted to indicate that only those slots attained via Pact magic could be used with this feature, then they should have specified Pact Magic spell slots instead of saying Warlock spell slots (which do not exist).

To me, all signs point to the idea that this should have aligned with all other Rulings and statements in the past, as well as to the Multiclass rules on phb164.
The argument that it was clear because of the "Warlock spell slots" is not clear at all, because Warlock spell slots do not exist.
The fact that it does not align with the previous Rulings or statements, or with the Multiclass rules regarding Pact Magic, means that this Ruling contradicts every Ruling that has come before, and it contradicts the Multiclass Pact Magic rules in the PHB, and it does so on the basis of something which doesn't even exist, as the developers themselves have previously stated that slots are not tied to any class.

So obviously, with this knowledge, I fully expected that the word Warlock in the description was redundant.
I will continue to believe that until it gets errata'd. I will houserule it until it gets fixed to align with the rest of the rules. Because at the moment it does not.

a little higher up on the page, for calculating total spell slots:

Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third o f your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.

So despite having some ways in which pact magic and regular spell slots can interact, they are not the same thing, and the same behavior cannot be assumed, unless specifically called out (as in paladin smites).

However, if you're cool with the huge power increase, like I said, your table, your rules. warlock3/sorc whatever with a pact bow, knocking giants, dragons, etc over at long range, dealing piles of additional damage, with no save. If that's cool for you then play it your way. but don't pretend that because you like it better that it is somehow broken or doesn't align with the rules. rules as written, it's warlock slots. There's nothing to align. The book says warlock slots, the confirmation is that it's warlock slots. There's nothing out of line with it being different from paladin smites, they're different things for a different class.

- edit - I somehow missed that you're trying to argue semantics by saying warlock slots don't exist. Does the warlock have spell slots? do they increase based on warlock level? they're warlock spell slots. they're granted by the Pact Magic feature instead of the Spellcasting feature like other classes have. but they are warlock spell slots.

[Talamare]

Snip
So in the end, you're arguing a Warlock gaining Spell Slots from his unique Pact Magic feature cannot be considered Warlock Spell Slots.

[ThePolarBear]

While the wording could be slightly better

There is ZERO implication that you can knock prone for free

Actually you can read it either way. As for how is phrased it would be more likely to be the case of being able to knock down 1/turn on a hit without expending resources since for how it is written it seems to be on the same level of "you can spend" and not "to deal".


Thank you.

According to PHB 164, under the Multiclassing rules, particularly under the Pact Magic rules, that slots are interchangable.

[snip]

You do not know the spells you gain from the invocation. You do not prepare those spells. You cannot use slots from the "Spellcasting" feature to cast those spells. It doesn't matter how interchangeable those slots are for casting known and prepared spells.

The paladin had a problem: when multiclassed he no longer had "paladin" spell slots - slots gained from being a paladin. He would count those levels for the "multiclass" slots.
A Warlock does not have this problem. At least until another class comes to expand multiclassing in a way where this is a problem, he will always have slots that can come only from being a warlock, that are determined by the Warlock table, granted by a warlock feature. Warlock spell slots.

[Dudewithknives]

Simple question then if warlock spell slots do not exist, and slots are slots are slots.

When my warlock 2 /sorcerer 13 takes a short rest, does he get back all spell slots?

P.S. we all know the answer to this, but feel free to argue that there are no warlock spell slots.

[Ganymede]

This thread was way more fun and way less nasty when we were talking about concentration and short rests.

[DivisibleByZero]

@Polar
So what happens when another class or subclass gets released that uses Pact Magic?
Errata, because then it becomes a useless feature, because spell slots are not tied to any class, just like the devs have told us in the past.
They wrote it wrong. Warlock spell slots do not exist, because slots are not tied to a class. Those are the words of the devs, not my words.

[ThePolarBear]

@Polar
So what happens when another class or subclass gets released that uses Pact Magic?
Errata, because then it becomes a useless feature, because spell slots are not tied to any class, just like the devs have told us in the past.
They wrote it wrong. Warlock spell slots do not exist, because slots are not tied to a class. Those are the words of the devs, not my words.

What happens? It depends because there are no rules for how to handle two classes both having Pact Magic. So there would be a need to have an integration. That's the problem that would appear. It doesn't become an useless feature unless said problem is addressed, and then even with the lack of said rule, you would still have 2 classes with slots gained differently each as written. The multiclass rule modifies "Spellcasting" in regards to slot attribution. Pact Magic is a subsection that handles how spellcasting interacts with pact magic (and therefore how pact magic interacts with spellcasting.) in regards to what spells you can cast with which slot. But slots from a Wizard Spellcasting feature are still slots gained from the Wizard spellcasting feature if the multiclass is with a Warlock.


"If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class."

Then there's the exception specific for pact magic.

The fact that you can use those slots for more things if you multiclass doesn't change where you get those slots from for the Warlock.

[Vaz]

- edit - I somehow missed that you're trying to argue semantics by saying warlock slots don't exist. Does the warlock have spell slots? do they increase based on warlock level? they're warlock spell slots. they're granted by the Pact Magic feature instead of the Spellcasting feature like other classes have. but they are warlock spell slots.
I mean, yeah, you're free to say that the rule has no beaeing because you ignore the fact that without, those Invocations do nothing, but that'snothing more than a houserule.

JC says that RAI and RAW are inline with one another, we say RACSD, via prior established norms, make that a wrong line to take, and that if you really wanna get into RAW, then there's no such thing.

Replace 'Warlock Spell Slots' with 'Searchable item A'. You will not find a reference to 'Searchable item A' in regards to it being a resource you can expend.

Choosing to ignore the argument doesn't make the argument incorrect.

[ThePolarBear]

I mean, yeah, you're free to say that the rule has no beaeing because you ignore the fact that without, those Invocations do nothing, but that'snothing more than a houserule.

JC says that RAI and RAW are inline with one another, we say RACSD, via prior established norms, make that a wrong line to take, and that if you really wanna get into RAW, then there's no such thing.

Replace 'Warlock Spell Slots' with 'Searchable item A'. You will not find a reference to 'Searchable item A' in regards to it being a resource you can expend.

Choosing to ignore the argument doesn't make the argument incorrect.

The fallacy with this argument is that it ignores the natural language. A paladin Divine Smite is not a paladins' Divine Smite. The same applies to Spellcasting and Pact Magic. Wizard Spellcasting is different from Cleric Spellcasting, while both being of their respective characters'.

A Warlock spell slot is plenty clear on what is it. Would it have been worded better as "Slot granted by the Pact Magic feature"? Yes. It's also way more wordy and unnecessary unless you try to bend meaning.

[LeonBH]

Though it has no bearing on RAW, it is worth mentioning that a popular and widely used homebrew class, Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter, uses Pact Magic as well. I believe you figure out your Pact Magic level by adding a third of your Blood Hunter levels (rounded down) to your Warlock levels. In those games, the question of what is a Warlock spell slot becomes relevant. It is homebrew so, of course, the table wouldn't be picky about just house ruling the issue away.

But it's not out of the question that a new class or subclass will be introduced with Pact Magic. In such an instance, there will be problems. Alternatively, WotC has locked itself out of producing another class/subclass that uses Pact Magic entirely, and the design space around the Warlock is entirely closed off.

[Malifice]

Though it has no bearing on RAW, it is worth mentioning that a popular and widely used homebrew class, Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter, uses Pact Magic as well. I believe you figure out your Pact Magic level by adding a third of your Blood Hunter levels (rounded down) to your Warlock levels. In those games, the question of what is a Warlock spell slot becomes relevant. It is homebrew so, of course, the table wouldn't be lucky about just house ruling the issue away.

But it's not out of the question that a new class or subclass will be introduced with Pact Magic. In such an instance, there will be problems. Alternatively, WotC has locked itself out of producing another class/subclass that uses Pact Magic entirely, and the design space around the Warlock is entirely closed off.

Or they just clarify how it works with mcing like they do with extra attack and so forth.

[LeonBH]

Or they just clarify how it works with mcing like they do with extra attack and so forth.

Any "clarification" they will do, in that case, must involve some form of back pedaling on "Warlock spell slots." They must either say Warlock spell slots don't exist or that the things we currently think of as Warlock spell slots must be converted to Pact Magic spell slots, and the invocations that currently use Warlock spell slots may use any Pact Magic spell slot instead.

But at that point, it is hardly a clarification as it is a rule change.

At any rate, those who believe this should be house ruled away (like me) will do so, as the game seems to be much more satisfying if Eldritch Smite behaves more intuitively.

[lperkins2]

So, I can see why invocations can only use Warlock slots, and it sorta makes sense. Invocations tend to be powerful effects, and they are concerned that letting you spam them out 12 extra times a day might break something. This would be sorta like letting a Cleric use spell slots in place of channel divinity. The cleric is supposed to be able to do it once per short rest, but suddenly can dump half a dozen uses in one fight. It also opens the door to some wonkiness. What if the Warlock has some ability (not a spell) that consumes a spell slot to use? Something along the lines of the Ranger's burn a slot to tell if there are dragons in the area. If the invocation comes online at level 5, the warlock slot is a level 3 slot. Nothing in the invocation says it requires a level 3 slot, but the Warlock will never again have Warlock slots below level 3. If you let any slot work, not only would it let the warlock drop an extra bunch of uses a day, it would let you use your level 1 slots for it. Now, you could modify the invocations to list the minimum level slot, or like the Ranger's ability, specify what effect there is per level, but that inherently assumes multiclassing, so I can see wanting to avoid it.

While I can see why JC and co. decided to do it that way, I do think it's dumb. Why? Because it doesn't solve the problem they fear. Specifically, a sorlock can shuffle non warlock spell slots through sorcery points into warlock spell slots and then go to town on spamming invocations. Also, it's pretty much a moot point, since pretty much every spell-slot-consuming invocation out there is pretty weak, compared to just casting a spell with that slot, especially if the warlock is multiclassed and effectively behind the other PCs in terms of warlockiness.

If they wanted to limit some invocation power, say the invocation can only be used once per rest and have done with it. If you really want it to burn a spell slot, have it burn a slot *and* only be usable once or twice per rest.

[Arkhios]

At this point I'm sure that someone else has already noticed the same thing, but for me, Eldritch Smite is really good because, as both respective features (eldritch smite and divine smite) are written, you can pop both smites simultaneously on a same attack roll. Imagine the destruction caused by a single critical hit from a Paladin 11/Warlock 9; and all that with warlock's spell slots, which are replenished after short rest!

[Astofel]

While I can see why JC and co. decided to do it that way, I do think it's dumb. Why? Because it doesn't solve the problem they fear. Specifically, a sorlock can shuffle non warlock spell slots through sorcery points into warlock spell slots and then go to town on spamming invocations. Also, it's pretty much a moot point, since pretty much every spell-slot-consuming invocation out there is pretty weak, compared to just casting a spell with that slot, especially if the warlock is multiclassed and effectively behind the other PCs in terms of warlockiness.


But can the spell slots you create count as Pact Magic spell slots, now that they're officially a Different Thing? I'll admit I haven't actually played a multiclassed warlock before, though. Are the slots you get from being a warlock tracked separately, or is it more 'because I am a warlock I recover two spell slots of x level after a short rest'? I'm starting to see why some people think this design choice is stupid, but I can also see the designer's intent. The whole conundrum is solved if you replace any mention of 'warlock spell slots' with 'Pact Magic spell slots', and track those separately from Spellcasting spell slots, so a sorc 1/warlock 2 has 2 1st level Spellcasting slots and 2 1st level Pact Magic slots and can cast any spell they know with either kind of slot, but can only create Spellcasting slots with Sorcery Points. At the very least, that's how I'll run it in my games.

[DivisibleByZero]

But can the spell slots you create count as Pact Magic spell slots, now that they're officially a Different Thing?

According to previous rulings they can (that was specifically the question asked, and the answer was Yes), because slots are not tied to any class.... Until now when they're changing everything that they said previously.

This ruling is going to force retro changes of a TON off other rulings.
That's been my entire point this whole time. Every single other ruling made to date has indicated that the word warlock was redundant in that text. That was even the word that they used in a previous answer: redundant.

Noe all of a sudden it isn't redundant, and slots are now tied to a class when they weren't before, and a whole slew of previous rulings need to be reevaluated because they no longer make sense.

Except that they all do make sense, and this is the one that doesn't.

[Spiritchaser]

This ruling is going to force retro changes of a TON off other rulings.


It doesn’t need to.

I’d say taken in isolation this text is clear and the ruling makes sense.

If you feel you need to re-evaluate previous decisions, by all means do so, but this decision is this decision. The situation is not the same as other spell slot compatibility and the conclusion can be different.

[Daphne]

This ruling is going to force retro changes of a TON off other rulings.
You're wrong, this changes nothing. Go ask Crawford if you want.

[Lombra]

To be fair, when I said that I assumed he'd follow his multiple previous rulings and the Multiclass rules on phb164 instead of inventing new rules out of nowhere which applied to "warlock spell slots" that don't even exist.

The answer was perfectly clear. He just decided to ignore everything his previous rulings and tweets and sage advice, and even ignore what the phb said, and make stuff up instead.

To be fair, pact magic does not interact with multiclass slots at all, so it is not unreasonable to think that warlock slots are a thing, since they come from an exclusive class feature.

I'm aware of his rulings for paladin slots and smites, but through multiclassing the spellcasting slots merge, while the pact magic ones don't. Still unintuitive and poorly directed, but it can make sense.

[DivisibleByZero]

It doesn’t need to.

It most certainly does need to.
This ruling DIRECTLY contradicts a host of other rulings. Either this one needs to be changed, or all of the other ones need to be changed.

[Vaz]

You're wrong, this changes nothing. Go ask Crawford if you want.
The guy who thinks warlock spell slots are a thing? What validation does he provide to the rules when he doesn't even understand the rules he writes?

[Spiritchaser]

It most certainly does need to.
This ruling DIRECTLY contradicts a host of other rulings. Either this one needs to be changed, or all of the other ones need to be changed.

Apples are apples.

Oranges are oranges.

The other circumstances are not the same. I’m quite certain that if you felt the need to argue the finer points of why they were different, you would find yourself well equipped to do so.

[Naanomi]

It most certainly does need to.
This ruling DIRECTLY contradicts a host of other rulings. Either this one needs to be changed, or all of the other ones need to be changed.
I don’t have a dog in this fight either way, but isn’t ‘specific beats general’ a core 5e rule; one emphasized in the ‘things to remember’ chapter of XHtE in fact?

That this *specific* ability is different than the *general* way we treat spell slots; and that doesn’t require a broad rewriting of spell-slot rules, is totally acceptable within 5e design, right?

[DivisibleByZero]

I don’t have a dog in this fight either way, but isn’t ‘specific beats general’ a core 5e rule; one emphasized in the ‘things to remember’ chapter of XHtE in fact?

That this *specific* ability is different than the *general* way we treat spell slots; and that doesn’t require a broad rewriting of spell-slot rules, is totally acceptable within 5e design, right?

That would be perfectly valid.... if Warlock spell slots were a thing that actually existed....

[Lombra]

That would be perfectly valid.... if Warlock spell slots were a thing that actually existed....

If the intent were to make it work only with spell slots granted by Pact Magic, they should have written so.

"You can expen a slot provided by your Pact Magic feature..."

You can't unsee that pact magic and spellcasting have two different slot lists that don't merge.

[Naanomi]

That would be perfectly valid.... if Warlock spell slots were a thing that actually existed....
Yeah if this were 3.X where pedantry ruled the day, I’d expect some explination about ‘only spell slots from Pact Magic’ or the like... but as a whole this edition seems to be ok with more ‘intuative’ rather than technical wording. I’m not sure who, outside of a debate, wouldn’t accept that specifically worded ‘warlock spell spell slots’ are functionally equivalent to ‘spell slots granted by Pact Magic’.

Heck, even the multiclassing rules specifically say ‘Pact Magic granted by the Warlock Class’ in its own references

[Talamare]

Though it has no bearing on RAW, it is worth mentioning that a popular and widely used homebrew class, Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter, uses Pact Magic as well. I believe you figure out your Pact Magic level by adding a third of your Blood Hunter levels (rounded down) to your Warlock levels. In those games, the question of what is a Warlock spell slot becomes relevant. It is homebrew so, of course, the table wouldn't be picky about just house ruling the issue away.

But it's not out of the question that a new class or subclass will be introduced with Pact Magic. In such an instance, there will be problems. Alternatively, WotC has locked itself out of producing another class/subclass that uses Pact Magic entirely, and the design space around the Warlock is entirely closed off.

or they just call it something different despite having the exact same mechanics?

[LeonBH]

or they just call it something different despite having the exact same mechanics?

And then when people multiclass into that class/subclass, they can earn Pact Magic (or its equivalent mechanic but under a different name) twice.

[Naanomi]

And then when people multiclass into that class/subclass, they can earn Pact Magic (or its equivalent mechanic but under a different name) twice.
Right now it seems that way, since the multiclassing rules specifically say ‘Pact Magic class feature from the Warlock Class’... presumably solvable by some ‘counts as a warlock’ language in subclass itself; which would also allow access to Rod of the Pact Keeper and the like

[DivisibleByZero]

Yeah if this were 3.X where pedantry ruled the day, I’d expect some explination about ‘only spell slots from Pact Magic’ or the like... but as a whole this edition seems to be ok with more ‘intuative’ rather than technical wording. I’m not sure who, outside of a debate, wouldn’t accept that specifically worded ‘warlock spell spell slots’ are functionally equivalent to ‘spell slots granted by Pact Magic’.

Heck, even the multiclassing rules specifically say ‘Pact Magic granted by the Warlock Class’ in its own references

Wizard spell slots? They don't exist.
Cleric spell slots? They don't exist.
Bard spell slots? They don't exist.
Sorcerer spell slots? They don't exist.
Paladin spell slots? They don't exist.
Ranger spell slots? They don't exist.
Arcane Trickster spell slots? They don't exist.
Eldritch Knight spell slots? They don't exist.
Spell slots granted through the Spellcasting feature? Those exist. Slots are not tied to a class.

Warlock spell slots? They do not exist.
Spell slots granted through the Pact Magic feature? Those exist.
That all aligns.

But now, suddenly, the previous statement that slots are not tied to a class has been revoked.
You can argue semantics if you want to, but the difference is real, and that difference shakes the foundations of other rulings that has been made in the past.
What it means is that....
Wizard spell slots? They don't exist.
Cleric spell slots? They don't exist.
Bard spell slots? They don't exist.
Sorcerer spell slots? They don't exist.
Paladin spell slots? They don't exist.
Ranger spell slots? They don't exist.
Arcane Trickster spell slots? They don't exist.
Eldritch Knight spell slots? They don't exist.
Spell slots granted through the Spellcasting feature? Those exist. Slots are not tied to a class.
Warlock spell slots? They do not exist.
Spell slots granted through the Pact Magic feature? Those exist.
...None of that is true any longer.

[Naanomi]

Warlock spell slots? They do not exist.
Spell slots granted through the Pact Magic feature? Those exist.
That all aligns.
Rod of the Pact Keeper in fact lets you ‘regain one warlock spell slot’, so the terminology is already in use that way since the DMG was published

[Talamare]

And then when people multiclass into that class/subclass, they can earn Pact Magic (or its equivalent mechanic but under a different name) twice.

You see nukes and fire, I see a brook and meadow

Do you complain that a Avatar Monk & Warlock have 2 different mechanics, that both refill on a short rest, to cast spells?

[LeonBH]

Right now it seems that way, since the multiclassing rules specifically say ‘Pact Magic class feature from the Warlock Class’... presumably solvable by some ‘counts as a warlock’ language in subclass itself; which would also allow access to Rod of the Pact Keeper and the like

I was responding to Talamare's own response to when I noted that, either WotC will introduce a new class/subclass that also uses Pact Magic (causing problems with the multiclassing), or they never do to avoid this problem and the design space around warlocks is completely closed off.

Talamare's response was, they could introduce a new class/subclass with Pact Magic-like mechanics but differently named.

My response was if they do so, they can earn Pact Magic twice. Let's call the theoretical class, a Pseudolock. A Pseudolock 5/Warlock 5 will have four 3rd level slots that recharge on a short rest.

Given that, I'm a little confused as to your response. Are you agreeing that you can earn Pact Magic twice this way?

[Daphne]

Rod of the Pact Keeper in fact lets you ‘regain one warlock spell slot’, so the terminology is already in use that way since the DMG was published

This terminology was already in use since the release of the PHB, lots of invocations mention "warlock spell slots".

[ThePolarBear]

But can the spell slots you create count as Pact Magic spell slots, now that they're officially a Different Thing? I'll admit I haven't actually played a multiclassed warlock before, though. Are the slots you get from being a warlock tracked separately, or is it more 'because I am a warlock I recover two spell slots of x level after a short rest'? I'm starting to see why some people think this design choice is stupid, but I can also see the designer's intent. The whole conundrum is solved if you replace any mention of 'warlock spell slots' with 'Pact Magic spell slots', and track those separately from Spellcasting spell slots, so a sorc 1/warlock 2 has 2 1st level Spellcasting slots and 2 1st level Pact Magic slots and can cast any spell they know with either kind of slot, but can only create Spellcasting slots with Sorcery Points. At the very least, that's how I'll run it in my games.


According to previous rulings they can (that was specifically the question asked, and the answer was Yes), because slots are not tied to any class.... Until now when they're changing everything that they said previously.

This ruling is going to force retro changes of a TON off other rulings.
That's been my entire point this whole time. Every single other ruling made to date has indicated that the word warlock was redundant in that text. That was even the word that they used in a previous answer: redundant.

Noe all of a sudden it isn't redundant, and slots are now tied to a class when they weren't before, and a whole slew of previous rulings need to be reevaluated because they no longer make sense.

Except that they all do make sense, and this is the one that doesn't.

Actually, according to previous rulings the answer is a resounding no.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/788651958605185024

Look for the other tweet, the one from JC just below the answer. You can't. And yes, there is a difference, so saying "exactly" at "kind of doesn't matter" is not entirely correct.

[LeonBH]

You see nukes and fire, I see a brook and meadow

Do you complain that a Avatar Monk & Warlock have 2 different mechanics, that both refill on a short rest, to cast spells?

No. Do you complain that when you multiclass into a cleric from a wizard, you do not get six first level spell slots?

[Naanomi]

Given that, I'm a little confused as to your response. Are you agreeing that you can earn Pact Magic twice this way?
Unless the subclass has specific wording to avoid it, or if they errata the PHB with the release of said new subclass, it would appear as though you’d gain it twice yes (or... not at all since the multiclassing pages don’t have anything about ‘subclass-X’ casting... but I wouldn’t lean that way)

[Talamare]

No. Do you complain that when you multiclass into a cleric from a wizard, you do not get six first level spell slots?

Those 2 things aren't equivalent?

Cleric and Wizard both have the exact same feature called Spellcasting, it's why a Lv5 Fighter and a Lv5 Barbarian can't attack 3x (using the Attack Action).

Warlock does NOT get the exact same feature as other classes.

If a New Fauxlock was released and he got a feature called Fauxpack. It would stack just fine with Warlock Pack Magic, and other Spell Slots.
He would have however many resources from Fauxlock, however many resources from Pact Magic, however many resources from other Spellcasting classes
... Let's keep going, he is also a Battle Master Fighter, Barbarian, and a Monk!
however many resources from BM Fighter, however many resources from Barbarian, however many resources from Monk.

A new class coming to existence that uses Pack Magic by a different name would not disrupt anything.

[LeonBH]

Actually, according to previous rulings the answer is a resounding no.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/788651958605185024

Look for the other tweet, the one from JC just below the answer. You can't. And yes, there is a difference, so saying "exactly" at "kind of doesn't matter" is not entirely correct.

Help me out here.

Mourisse said: "Please, answer: Can a warlock/sorcerer covert sorcery points to warlock spell slots?"

JC said: "Multiclassing: Spell slots from Spellcasting and Pact Magic are interchangeable (PH, 164). Flexible Casting cares about slot level."

Amos Baker said: "so the answer is no but you can use your sorcerer spell slots to cast so it kind of doesn't matter"

JC said: "Exactly."

How did Amos Baker and JC come to that conclusion based on JC's initial response?

[LeonBH]

Those 2 things aren't equivalent?

Cleric and Wizard both have the exact same feature called Spellcasting, it's why a Lv5 Fighter and a Lv5 Barbarian can't attack 3x.

Warlock does NOT get the exact same feature as other classes.

If a New Fauxlock was released and he got a feature called Fauxpack. It would stack just fine with Warlock Pack Magic, and other Spell Slots.
He would have however many resources from Fauxlock, however many resources from Pact Magic, however many resources from other Spellcasting classes
... Let's keep going, he is also a Battle Master Fighter, Barbarian, and a Monk!
however many resources from BM Fighter, however many resources from Barbarian, however many resources from Monk.

A new class coming to existence that uses Pack Magic by a different name would not disrupt anything.

Do you genuinely think this is a real strategy they can adapt, and are you genuinely saying you think WotC should move forward with this approach if they decide to release Fauxlock in the future?

[ThePolarBear]

Unless the subclass has specific wording to avoid it, or if they errata the PHB with the release of said new subclass, it would appear as though you’d gain it twice yes (or... not at all since the multiclassing pages don’t have anything about ‘subclass-X’ casting... but I wouldn’t lean that way)

There's no need to errata the PHB. There just needs to be an extention on the multiclass rules on the book where the new pact magic class gets published. Specific is always > than generic. It's a non-problem for now, since there's no official material about that and non-official material should have rules on how to treat the problem.

[ThePolarBear]

Help me out here.

Mourisse said: "Please, answer: Can a warlock/sorcerer covert sorcery points to warlock spell slots?"

JC said: "Multiclassing: Spell slots from Spellcasting and Pact Magic are interchangeable (PH, 164). Flexible Casting cares about slot level."

Amos Baker said: "so the answer is no but you can use your sorcerer spell slots to cast so it kind of doesn't matter"

JC said: "Exactly."

How did Amos Baker and JC come to that conclusion based on JC's initial response?

I have no idea. But the "exactly" is the important part. If i were to guess, you create a "flexible casting" spell slot, that due to being a sorcerer feature would count as a "sorcerer spell slot" - a slot you gain due to be a sorcerer. Since there's nothing that requires specifically sorcerer spell slots that quickly becomes a non-issue.

Edit: To elaborate a bit: It's not coming from either the Spellcasting feature or the Pact Magic feature. It cannot be a "warlock spell slot" since that means "coming from pact magic"

Also notice that, RAW, you can regain all spell expended spell slots if you short rest and have pact magic, not just "warlock spell slots" or "pact magic spell slots". The intent is probably been made manifest multiple times and WOTC probably considers it still a "common sense" thing, but RAW is still there. All of these discussions hinge on twisting the meaning of warlock spell slot - which is APPARENT AND EXPLICIT in the tweet regarding Eldritch Smite - by adding layers of nonsense on top of it.

When you see a "Warlock spell slot" read "a slot granted by pact magic".

The world is not exploding. Single class characters care little for the fact that their slots is a class slot. Multiclass characters with two spellcasting features have the rules on how to deal with slots and no Spellcasting class has a requirement for "x spell slot" anymore. Warlock, a non Spellcasting class, still has. He can track easily the source that grants those spell slots, no matter how many official multiclasses.

It's a non-issue ever since the paladin errata.

[Talamare]

Do you genuinely think this is a real strategy they can adapt, and are you genuinely saying you think WotC should move forward with this approach if they decide to release Fauxlock in the future?

You need to provide a reason as to 'why' I shouldn't think this way.

[DivisibleByZero]

I have no idea. But the "exactly" is the important part. If i were to guess, you create a "flexible casting" spell slot, that due to being a sorcerer feature would count as a "sorcerer spell slot" - a slot you gain due to be a sorcerer. Since there's nothing that requires specifically sorcerer spell slots that quickly becomes a non-issue.
There was nothing requiring it and it was a non-issue because up until now, there was no such thing as a "sorcerer spell slot."


When you see a "Warlock spell slot" read "a slot granted by pact magic".

It's a non-issue ever since the paladin errata.
Then why, oh why, did they write it that way?
Everyone has claimed that the text was written that was purposefully. But if that were the case, then why didn't they write it correctly? If it were so explicit and clear, then why did they intentionally (according to your claim that it was explicit and clear) use language that would only serve to muddy the waters?
That's the part that I'm having trouble with, and that's the reason that it was never anywhere near as clear and explicit as you are all claiming. According to your logic, they tried to make it clear by intentionally using terminology which they knew full well would only confuse the issue.

We've been down this road before.
When we went down that road, we were lead to a certain place.
No we're going down that road again and being lead to an entirely different place.
How that can be considered "clear" to any of you is beyond me.

[LeonBH]

You need to provide a reason as to 'why' I shouldn't think this way.

No, I don't

[Dudewithknives]

Warlocks do not gain the spell casting class feature so their spell slots are independent always.
This is why they do not add to your spell caster effective total level when multi classing.
This is why all invocations specify a Warlock spell level.
This is why Warlock spell slots and only Pact Magic spell slots renew on a short rest.

All spell casting spell slots are the same.
A Paladin 3/ Sorcerer 5 has X number of spell casting slots.
A Paladin 3/ Warlock 5, does not. They have 3 levels worth of slots from the spell casting feature, and they have 5 levels worth of slots from the pact magic class feature.

These slots can all be used to cast any spell that you know, but Warlock invocations specify that you must use Warlock spell slots, not just spell slots.
This has been the same since the PHB, no errata, no changing, nothing.

It is just that simple.
The pact magic class feature is not the same as spell casting class feature, it has its own rules.

If everything was the same than anyone who had even 1 level of warlock would get all their spell slots back on a short rest, and pact magic levels would add to other spell casting levels to determine you caster level.

Nothing requires errata, because it is spelled out from the beginning.

In the PHB alone it says Warlock Spell Slots for 5 different invocations, and in Xanathar's they added more.

Nothing is wrong, people just will not accept that they are incorrect even when the lead rules designer of the game tells them they are wrong.

[ThePolarBear]

There was nothing requiring it and it was a non-issue because up until now, there was no such thing as a "sorcerer spell slot."

Even now is a non issue. It is not a slot coming from the pact magic feature.


Then why, oh why, did they write it that way?

Word count and counting on natural english being enough to make people understand that a "warlock spell slot" means a slot that comes from being a warlock? Ask JC, not me, if you want something more than my opinion.


Everyone has claimed that the text was written that was purposefully.

It is a pretty safe claim. I do not see shopping lists anywhere in the PHB, so i assume that what is written has a reason to be there. It's a safe assumption since there's not an apparent reason to think otherwise. There's no great clash about features that strikes as incredibly odd (such as a multiclass paladin would, or the ability to regain all spell slots expended if you are a Warlock, no matter the source).


But if that were the case, then why didn't they write it correctly?

I see no spelling errors. Why they didn't write it in a different way? Ask them. For me it is clear enough that it is a slot that comes from a warlock feature that has to be used to fuel another warlock feature. Apparently that was always the intent for these SPECIFIC features. It might become a problem if in the future there will be patrons that will give "free slots" of some form.


If it were so explicit and clear, then why did they intentionally (according to your claim that it was explicit and clear) use language that would only serve to muddy the waters?[/quote]

That the language in the tweet is explicit and clear, if you refer to my last post. Not that the book is explicit and clear.
The fact that the book is also clear enough to be easily understandable by me and that it was my expectation to be as easily readable for others... that is just mine.

Again, word count, prehaps? Or the intention of the edition being going by how much natural language possible to keep it simple? Distraction? Drugs? I have no idea. Fact is that a "warlock spell slot" is something that has to be both "warlock" and "spell slot". It is now explicit for Eldritch Smite that a general rule does not go as far as override a specific request and that request is what was apparent to me in the first place. I feel that it's also explicit that the very same tweet explains that "warlock spell slot" means "granted by pact magic".

If i have to think about it a little more i find it troubling that for you a 6th level warlock/1st level cleric could use one of the Spellcasting slots to cast Bestow curse, even if just once a day.

A first level slot to cast a third level spell, no question asked if this might be an incorrect reading. It might have been correct, mind you. But i would honestly have asked for confirmations on RAI and absolutely asked my DM about it if i was to play a warlock.


That's the part that I'm having trouble with, and that's the reason that it was never anywhere near as clear and explicit as you are all claiming. According to your logic, they tried to make it clear by intentionally using terminology which they knew full well would only confuse the issue.

We've been down this road before.
When we went down that road, we were lead to a certain place.
No we're going down that road again and being lead to an entirely different place.
How that can be considered "clear" to any of you is beyond me.

Or they didn't think that there could be confusion. Or they made a mistake. Occam's razor?

Is it more reasonable to think that they underestimated the ability of people of reading too much into something and deliberately made things murky or simply didn't think about it? Edit: This doesn't mean that what was written is less deliberate. They consistently wrote "warlock spell slot" over and over. It might have been a refuse, an error. But there was a time when someone, thought it was a good idea, over some iteration. Or at least that's the most likely case imho.

Follow your advice, ask them. I cannot speak for them. I can give you my opinion and try to apply logic together with you about the issue. The same as the BB thread - i do not expect this to impact the game of anyone in a way or shape different from "well we had a discussion about it, and some points were raised. I did like, not like, realized something. I will do this /not do this anyway".

[PhoenixPhyre]

These slots can all be used to cast any spell that you know, but Warlock invocations specify that you must use Warlock spell slots, not just spell slots.
This has been the same since the PHB, no errata, no changing, nothing.


And this is true because the multiclassing section explicitly says so. If it weren't for that paragraph, then multi-classed Pact Magic users and Spellcasting users would not interact at all.

Remember everyone--5e is an exception-based design. That means that only explicit interactions are real.

At the current time, there are two "flavors" of slots that only interact through that one paragraph.

*Spellcasting slots (follow the multiclassing rules).
*Pact magic slots (separate except for casting spells). By metynomy, Pact Magic slots in the warlock class description use "warlock slots" instead of "pact magic slots". But that's purely semantics, and the differences are called out in the multiclassing section more explicitly.

[Talamare]

No, I don't

Amazing
Then why are you quoting and responding?

A forum is a place for discussion, not childish retorts.

[Tanarii]

Nothing is wrong, people just will not accept that they are incorrect even when the lead rules designer of the game tells them they are wrong.
Situation normal. :smallamused:

[DivisibleByZero]

Even now is a non issue. It is not a slot coming from the pact magic feature.

What?!?!?
Then where, pray tell, do Warlocks get their spell slots from?
They get them from the Pact Magic feature.

From the PHB: under Class Features:
Spellcasting: for all the casters. That's the feature which grants spell slots.
Pact Magic: for Warlocks (and any potential other future Pact Magic users). That's the feature which grants spell slots.

It's one or the other. You either have Spellcasting, or you have Pact Magic.
But there are no spell slots.

And then we have:
From the PHB: under the multiclass rules:
Pact Magic:
<snip> [i]" the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature"

So, yeah. It is a slot coming from the Pact Magic feature. It is not a Warlock spell slot. Those do not exist.

[LeonBH]

Amazing
Then why are you quoting and responding?

A forum is a place for discussion, not childish retorts.

Well, it seems unreasonable to ask me to tell you what you should think. I asked you what you thought, and you responded by asking me to tell you what to think. Don't you have your own thoughts on the matter? If you don't, then just say so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What?!?!?
Then where, pray tell, do Warlocks get their spell slots from?
They get them from the Pact Magic feature.

From the PHB: under Class Features:
Spellcasting: for all the casters. That's the feature which grants spell slots.
Pact Magic: for Warlocks (and any potential other future Pact Magic users). That's the feature which grants spell slots.

It's one or the other. You either have Spellcasting, or you have Pact Magic.
But there are no spell slots.

And then we have:
From the PHB: under the multiclass rules:
Pact Magic:
<snip> [i]" the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature"

So, yeah. It is a slot coming from the Pact Magic feature. It is not a Warlock spell slot. Those do not exist.

Metynomy. Metynomy. The part for the whole. Within a single class entry, "Pact Magic slot" === "warlock slot." Since there are no other conflicts, the two are completely identical at this time.

Based on the design so far, Pact Magic is unique. If they create another base class that uses the warlock chassis (limited number of SR slots, invocations, etc), it won't have Pact Magic. It will have something else and there will be an explicit line in the class that covers multiclassing. Since everything is independent, that's all that's needed. No other interactions are allowed.

[Arkhios]

Metynomy. Metynomy. The part for the whole. Within a single class entry, "Pact Magic slot" === "warlock slot." Since there are no other conflicts, the two are completely identical at this time.

Based on the design so far, Pact Magic is unique. If they create another base class that uses the warlock chassis (limited number of SR slots, invocations, etc), it won't have Pact Magic. It will have something else and there will be an explicit line in the class that covers multiclassing. Since everything is independent, that's all that's needed. No other interactions are allowed.

I'm inclined to agree here.

Imho, Pact Magic is clearly a Specific Rule that supersedes General Rule (Spellcasting). While using spell slots gained from Pact Magic produces similar results with Spellcasting, it doesn't mean that every feature had to work under both Spellcasting and Pact Magic as equal. If they (Designers) want to explicitly restrict Eldritch Smites to work only with Pact Magic spell slots, it's their right to do so, and frankly, it should be, too.

[Naanomi]

So, yeah. It is a slot coming from the Pact Magic feature. It is not a Warlock spell slot. Those do not exist.
What does the Rod of the Pact Keeper give back then? Any spell slot? What a powerful magic item for a Warlock 2/Sorcerer X; to get back your highest level spell slot... a bonus 9th level spell from an uncommon item!

[LeonBH]

I'm inclined to agree here.

Imho, Pact Magic is clearly a Specific Rule that supersedes General Rule (Spellcasting). While using spell slots gained from Pact Magic produces similar results with Spellcasting, it doesn't mean that every feature had to work under both Spellcasting and Pact Magic as equal. If they (Designers) want to explicitly restrict Eldritch Smites to work only with Pact Magic spell slots, it's their right to do so, and frankly, it should be, too.

Agree the designers have the right to design how they want. Disagree with their decision of keeping Eldritch Smite restricted to Pact Magic spell slots.

Though I don't think Spellcasting is a "general rule" since it's a feature granted to specific classes. It's not how magic needs to work. It's just how magic works for those classes that get that feature.

[DivisibleByZero]

Metynomy. Metynomy. The part for the whole.

PolarBear: It is not a slot coming from the pact magic feature.
PHB: the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature

There is nothing to dispute here.
You can claim it to be semantics if you want to, but the distinction is definite, and PB's claim was wrong.
A very large portion of this defense is based on inaccurate statements and is therefore not a legitimate defense in that regard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm inclined to agree here.

Imho, Pact Magic is clearly a Specific Rule that supersedes General Rule (Spellcasting). While using spell slots gained from Pact Magic produces similar results with Spellcasting, it doesn't mean that every feature had to work under both Spellcasting and Pact Magic as equal. If they (Designers) want to explicitly restrict Eldritch Smites to work only with Pact Magic spell slots, it's their right to do so, and frankly, it should be, too.

One thing--there is no general "Spellcasting thing" there are two exceptions--Pact Magic and Spellcasting. Both of those are exceptions to the general "cast a spell (ie, you can't)" rule.

Edit: to be more clear--

The general rule of spellcasting is that you can't cast spells. There are rules that apply to those that can, but the mechanism (spell slots, spell levels, etc) are null references for anyone without a magical ability feature. The two exceptions at the current time are

*Spellcasting
*Pact Magic.

They're both at the same level of generality--they're both exceptions. There's no inheritance or interaction from one to the other unless specifically stated.

[Arkhios]

Agree the designers have the right to design how they want. Disagree with their decision of keeping Eldritch Smite restricted to Pact Magic spell slots.

Allow me to elaborate why I do think Eldritch Smite (as written) ought to be restricted to Pact Magic slots. It's fairly clear (to me, at least) that the intent is for the invocation to be equal in damage potential compared to Divine Smite (including Improved Divine Smite) = up to 6d8 extra damage; that the Divine Smite deals one more extra damage vs. Fiend and Undead targets is easily countered by the ability to knock the target prone without a save. Plus the damage type (force) is far more superior compared to radiant.

If they intended for Eldritch Smite to work with spell slots other than Pact Magic, they would've allowed the invocation be as powerful as 10d8 with a 9th level spell slots. Far too powerful compared to the precedent Divine Smite.

They should've just said that the damage caps at 5th level slots, and this debate might not exist at all.

[ThePolarBear]

PolarBear: It is not a slot coming from the pact magic feature.
PHB: the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature

Go back, read, and realize that what you quoted was about slots granted by Flexible Casting.

[DivisibleByZero]

Go back, read, and realize that what you quoted was about slots granted by Flexible Casting.

In that case you're avoiding the issue. That being that there's no such thing as a "sorcerer spell slot."
You're all going on about how it makes perfect sense and it's crystal clear, but your explanation for why use nonsense terms that don't even exist in the game.
That's the opposite of clear.

I understand that it makes perfect sense to you.
I even understand exactly how you got to that point.
What I'm saying is that the game rules, and the previous rulings/statements, and the game terminology, all point to this ability being written/worded incorrectly.
Had they worded it correctly, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

[LeonBH]

Allow me to elaborate why I do think Eldritch Smite (as written) ought to be restricted to Pact Magic slots. It's fairly clear (to me, at least) that the intent is for the invocation to be equal in damage potential compared to Divine Smite (including Improved Divine Smite) = up to 6d8 extra damage; that the Divine Smite deals one more extra damage vs. Fiend and Undead targets is easily countered by the ability to knock the target prone without a save. Plus the damage type (force) is far more superior compared to radiant.

If they intended for Eldritch Smite to work with spell slots other than Pact Magic, they would've allowed the invocation be as powerful as 10d8 with a 9th level spell slots. Far too powerful compared to the precedent Divine Smite.

They should've just said that the damage caps at 5th level slots, and this debate might not exist at all.

I think it's not a problem to use Eldritch Smite that way, considering we're talking about 9th level slots here. On a Sorcerer or Wizard, that could have been an AoE Meteor Swarm. This is almost benign in comparison.

But in terms of stacking it up against Divine Smite, Eldritch Smite can work up to one per turn only. Divine Smite can be used any number of times the Paladin can hit. This means the Paladin can smite for 10d8 radiance (two 5th level slots) if they multiclassed. If they multiclassed into Sorcerer, they could even Quicken a Fireball for extra damage, or cast Haste and deal 15d8 radiance damage on three attacks.

The 1/turn limitation is already a balancing factor enough to say it is equal to Divine Smite (if it could be used with any spell slots), also considering the ranged capability, the auto-prone, and the superior damage type.

[Max_Killjoy]

@ PhoenixPhyre
@ LeonBH

Jumping over from the other threads where this came up, this thread makes 5e sound just like 3.5e and its variations, in terms of how the rules are full of unclear special cases and contextual pitfalls.

[LeonBH]

@ PhoenixPhyre
@ LeonBH

Jumping over from the other threads where this came up, this thread makes 5e sound just like 3.5e and its variations, in terms of how the rules are full of unclear special cases and contextual pitfalls.

Hmm. Does it? I know what RAW/RAI are. Eldritch Smite works for Pact Magic spell slots only. I can imagine a game where JC's constraints are fulfilled.

I'm just lamenting that particular design decision and justifying why it was a bad design decision, including possible future-proofing.

I will say, XtgE seems to introduce several steps backwards and forwards for 5e.

[DivisibleByZero]

I will say, XtgE seems to introduce several steps backwards and forwards for 5e.

Good thing literally every single word printed in that book is optional. :smallsmile:

[PhoenixPhyre]

@ PhoenixPhyre
@ LeonBH

Jumping over from the other threads where this came up, this thread makes 5e sound just like 3.5e and its variations, in terms of how the rules are full of unclear special cases and contextual pitfalls.

Only if you assume that the rules are supposed to be read like 3.5e's rules were. They're not. The design philosophy is completely different. Every ability depends only on its own text and the general resolution mechanics; interactions between rule elements only happen when explicitly stated. This makes a 2-layer hierarchy--there are general rules (the resolution mechanics) and exceptions. Adding new mechanical bits (like is done here) don't imply changes in older bits unless the new bits say so. A new Pact Magic class would simply state its multiclassing rules straight up in its text, and those changes are bounded to that one class.

Compare this to 3.5 where the hierarchy of primary sources and references and general changes mixed with specific changes made it a mess to try to track down what was happening--the interactions were implicit (not explicit) and the whole system was in (to borrow a programming term) dependency hell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_hell). Small changes in one area with a new spell or ability made drastic, rippling changes across the whole game environment.

When reading one class's entries, everything needed is either there or in the general sections at the end of the PHB. The context is very clear. Even between abilities of the same class, interactions have to be specifically stated. This leads to a lot of duplicated text, but each ability must be considered in isolation.

As an example, Darkvision isn't a defined thing. Each race that has a darkvision entry has it defined separately. They all happen to be the same definition, but that could change without further consequences. Monsters have it defined in the MM. No multiple sources of truth to keep in sync.

[Tanarii]

@ PhoenixPhyre
@ LeonBH

Jumping over from the other threads where this came up, this thread makes 5e sound just like 3.5e and its variations, in terms of how the rules are full of unclear special cases and contextual pitfalls.
From where I'm sitting, some people are trying to parse it like 3.5, and JC came in and made it clear that's not what you're supposed to do. Just read it exactly how it says, and use it that way.

In other words, JC made it clear that 5e works exactly the opposite way from the typical approach people took in 3e + variations. (That's not to say that was the correct approach to take in 3e+variations, just that people did exactly that.)

[DivisibleByZero]

From where I'm sitting, some people are trying to parse it like 3.5, and JC came in and made it clear that's not what you're supposed to do. Just read it exactly how it says, and use it that way.

In other words, JC made it clear that 5e works exactly the opposite way from the typical approach people took in 3e + variations. (That's not to say that was the correct approach to take in 3e+variations, just that people did exactly that.)

And I would be completely fine with that, I'd even applaud it, had it not been for the fact that Ruling B completely contradicts and invalidates Ruling A.
On one hand they tell us that spell slots are not tied to a class, and then on another hand they tie spell slots to a class. And we're supposed to just accept it while people say that it's clear, when it is the opposite of clear because it goes against everything they said before.
So now I ask, which is it? Are slots tied to a class or not?
No matter what that answer comes to, one or more of the previous rulings must be reevaluated. No matter what some of these people are saying, that's the truth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I would be completely fine with that, I'd even applaud it, had it not been for the fact that Ruling B completely contradicts and invalidates Ruling A.
On one hand they tell us that spell slots are not tied to a class, and then on another hand they tie spell slots to a class. And we're supposed to just accept it while people say that it's clear, when it is the opposite of clear because it goes against everything they said before.
So now I ask, which is it? Are slots tied to a class or not?
No matter what that answer comes to, one or more of the previous rulings must be reevaluated. No matter what some of these people are saying, that's the truth.

*Spellcasting* slots are not tied to a class--they're tied to a feature (Spellcasting). Pact magic slots are tied to that feature as well, it's just that there's only one class that uses it. In context of Paladin smites, it's clear. They have spellcasting slots, and the errata purposefully removed the earlier distinction, so there's no restriction on where those slots came from.

Eldritch Smites are intentionally restricted. The two don't interact or contradict in any way, shape, or form except in your head. The two rulings are independent of each other and have nothing to do with each other. There is no general "all slots are the same" rule.

[Talamare]

Well, it seems unreasonable to ask me to tell you what you should think. I asked you what you thought, and you responded by asking me to tell you what to think. Don't you have your own thoughts on the matter? If you don't, then just say so.

Are we really at the point of low level trolling?

God damn this thread is toxic.


I establish a statement, and you make an empty response asking me to confirm if I believe in what I said?
Obviously I do, or I wouldn't say it.

I explain to you the basic rules to a discussion, and you respond with this garbage.
You made some points, like 5 pages ago.
Now you're empty and decide to troll. This is over

[DivisibleByZero]

There is no general "all slots are the same" rule.

Not anymore there's not.
There was prior to this.
That's my whole point.
That there was this ruling is the entire reason that the word "Paladin" was called redundant (that's the word they used) and later errata'd to be removed from the Divine Smite description. That was done upon the declaration that a slot's source didn't matter, and that all slots were the same.
Now that's being changed.

[Klorox]

Jeremy Crawford tweeted this:


Eldritch Smite works with warlock spell slots only—the ones you get from Pact Magic. #DnD

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397

[Dudewithknives]

Jeremy Crawford tweeted this:



<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Eldritch Smite works with warlock spell slots only—the ones you get from Pact Magic. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DnD?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DnD</a> <a href="https://t.co/GeP1aEn1nR">https://t.co/GeP1aEn1nR</a></p>&mdash; Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Yes, we pointed that out yesterday, people are still arguing about it.

[Klorox]

Yes, we pointed that out yesterday, people are still arguing about it.

Kinda hard to argue when Jeremy Crawford says it.

Oh well.

[Dudewithknives]

Kinda hard to argue when Jeremy Crawford says it.

Oh well.

You greatly underestimate the overwhelming ego and arrogance of some of the people who found out they were wrong.

[Tanarii]

Kinda hard to argue when Jeremy Crawford says it.

Oh well.
Arguing that Sage Advice is wrong and terrible and stupid is a time honored tradition. Especially when it contradicts something believed to be right.

I used to do it all the time when Sage Advice was, from my point of view, Skip's House Rules.

[DivisibleByZero]

Kinda hard to argue when Jeremy Crawford says it.

Oh well.

No one is arguing that he said it.
But plenty of people are arguing that there has always been this separation, when before there wasn't a separation.
They're saying that this has always been true, when in fact the opposite was true and now that's been changed.
JC & Co. said one thing before, and now they're saying something completely opposed to that.
They said that slots were not tied to a class. Now they're saying that slots are indeed tied to a class.

I'll say it again: had they said Pact Magic slots instead of Warlock slots, this entire debate would never had happened.
They worded the ability wrong.
It's that simple.

[Max_Killjoy]

You greatly underestimate the overwhelming ego and arrogance of some of the people who found out they were wrong.

Or, on a less insulting possibility, it appears that they're arguing that the RAW and the later statement aren't compatible.

Really, does it help extract the conversation from its downward spiral when one forgoes the possibility of honest disagreement in favor of chalking up disagreement to the other party's supposed personal faults?

[DivisibleByZero]

Or, on a less insulting possibility, it appears that they're arguing that the RAW and the later statement aren't compatible.

Really, does it help extract the conversation from its downward spiral when one forgoes the possibility of honest disagreement in favor of chalking up disagreement to the other party's supposed personal faults?

True.
And it does not.
And you've just witnessed why I never see anything he types except when it get quoted.

[Mikal]

Warlock spell slots only eh?
Good. Makes multi-classing slightly less attractive- though double smiting as a Paladin and Warlock while using Darkness, Devils Sight, and GWMing an additional +10 damage with half-elven triple accuracy does sound fun while keying off of Charisma.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Allow me to elaborate why I do think Eldritch Smite (as written) ought to be restricted to Pact Magic slots. It's fairly clear (to me, at least) that the intent is for the invocation to be equal in damage potential compared to Divine Smite (including Improved Divine Smite) = up to 6d8 extra damage; that the Divine Smite deals one more extra damage vs. Fiend and Undead targets is easily countered by the ability to knock the target prone without a save. Plus the damage type (force) is far more superior compared to radiant.

If they intended for Eldritch Smite to work with spell slots other than Pact Magic, they would've allowed the invocation be as powerful as 10d8 with a 9th level spell slots. Far too powerful compared to the precedent Divine Smite.

They should've just said that the damage caps at 5th level slots, and this debate might not exist at all.Don't forget that there's no melee restriction on Eldritch Smite, either. You want to smite with your Hexbow? Go right ahead.


Kinda hard to argue when Jeremy Crawford says it.

Oh well.

Yeah, I thought that I had worded that specifically enough to avert confusion. I just tweeted him again straight-up asking if "Warlock slots" and "slots granted by Pact Magic" were synonymous, specifically in regards to multiclassing. Awaiting an answer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not anymore there's not.
There was prior to this.
That's my whole point.
That there was this ruling is the entire reason that the word "Paladin" was called redundant (that's the word they used) and later errata'd to be removed from the Divine Smite description. That was done upon the declaration that a slot's source didn't matter, and that all slots were the same.
Now that's being changed.

All *spellcasting* slots are the same. That's what the prior ruling was about. They removed the restriction so that for the purpose of paladin smites (and only for that purpose) the slots were equivalent. That is not a general pattern--it's a specific, for this purpose only, exception. Warlock smites are different. This is a different exception that is completely unrelated to the first one.

You're taking a specific case and trying to inflate it into a general rule. Nothing in a class entry is a general rule. Those are all exceptions. And exceptions are exceptional and don't interact or rely on each other unless they say they do. Stop applying reasoning for Paladin abilities to Warlock ones. They're different, on purpose. There's no contradiction. There is no general rule here.

Edit: Add in metynomy, where because the only class that uses Pact Magic is warlocks, and class entries are written for the single-classed case in mind, and there's no non-trivial difference here. You're arguing semantics, not substance.

[DivisibleByZero]

All *spellcasting* slots are the same. That's what the prior ruling was about.

No.
Because that ruling was made in response to a query about a Paladin using a Pact Magic slot to Divine Smite.
The answer was that it didn't matter where the slot came from, and that the word Paladin was redundant, and that a slot's source didn't matter.

Now that's all being changed.

edit:
As I have said, this is literally the only ability in the entire game that cares about the source of the slot.
Now everyone is going to chime in about the other Invocations that require a slot as requiring "a warlock spell slot," but the multiclass rules regarding Pact magic tell us that those are interchangeable with Spellcasting slots.
So yes, this is the only one in the game. And it comes to us in direct contradiction of what has come before it.
Once again I say that they worded it wrong. If they wanted it to be Pact Magic slots only, then that's what they should have said, and this entire argument would never had happened.
They didn't say that. They said "Warlock spell slots," which do not exist, and lead many of us to follow the "Paladin spell slots" ruling from before.
They worded this ability wrong. It is not clear, as people are claiming.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Damn, JC is on top of his twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397?s=17

He confirms that Warlock slots are the ones that you get from the Pact Magic feature.

[MeeposFire]

From where I'm sitting, some people are trying to parse it like 3.5, and JC came in and made it clear that's not what you're supposed to do. Just read it exactly how it says, and use it that way.

In other words, JC made it clear that 5e works exactly the opposite way from the typical approach people took in 3e + variations. (That's not to say that was the correct approach to take in 3e+variations, just that people did exactly that.)

Funny I see it as the opposite. From my experience back in 3e and 4e message boards (note I can only speak to those boards since I only posted heavily on those boards for those editions) people parsed the rules under the idea of strict RAW (even if it could potentially make some weird things happen such as healing via drowning or the original weapon focus works with implement powers delivered via a weapon in the initial printing of 4e) and frankly by that idea the reading of warlock slots only per JC fits that best. You have to ignore the rules as written where it very specifically says warlock slots and decide to go with an interpretation that is based on a similar but unrelated feature. ON the old OP forums that would be considered bad form. This would be one of those times where the board would agree with the Sage since this time his statement is backed up fairly directly by what is written (if you look at most of the complaints about the Sage it was due to rulings that they felt did not line up with the RAW at least the complaints about him not knowing what he was talking about).

If you look at how JC does most (all?) of his rulings that do not result in an errata (remember divine smite was not just a ruling but also a rule CHANGE which to me is very significant in this discussion as they usually do not change the written rule for something that could just be stated to be a ruling) they are very rules lawyer type reading aka the kind we used to make all the time in 3e and 4e OP boards. As a textbook case look at the magic initiate ruling. It takes a very detailed eye and disregard of how other rules in the game work in order to see how he came into that ruling. It is correct but only through a very technical reading which at the time I did not think fit with how 5e was told to me but since then I have noticed that is how by and large JC does rulings.

[Vaz]

Are we really at the point of low level trolling?

God damn this thread is toxic.
is toxic the new buzzword of the week? Seriously behave yourself.

No-one is forcing your eyes to read this, you are in control of your hands, you are in control of what you read.

[Tanarii]

Damn, JC is on top of his twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/929125148589883397?s=17

He confirms that Warlock slots are the ones that you get from the Pact Magic feature.

That is the original response he made 3 days ago, isn't it?

So where is this "warlock slots != pact magic slots" business still coming from, if this was clarified 3 days ago? Not only is it 3e-era RAW parsing, he's straight out clarified they are the same thing.

[Vaz]

That is the original response he made 3 days ago, isn't it?

So where is this "warlock slots != pact magic slots" business still coming from, if this was clarified 3 days ago? Not only is it 3e-era RAW parsing, he's straight out clarified they are the same thing.

I mean, words have meanings and if he uses words to mean certain things, he should use those words that mean certain things.

The best bit is, Pact Magic Spell Slot aren't a thing either, because if they were, then Warlocks could never cast a spell, because spells are cast out of spell slots, not Pact Magic Spell Slots or Warlocks.

Also, noone is pretending that the RAI isn't what the rules say they do with JC's clarification, but given that the RAW is wrong (release an FAQ or errata or reprint with the correct text then, you're welcome we do your proof reading for you, same guy who can't even ensure that a table matches text) and that is his pretext for the rule, which is against Rule of cool, rule as written and rule as common sense dictates, (can cast a 5th level spell using a nonwarlock spell slot, can't hit target very hard not using warlock spell slot? **** off) you're left with those 3 against 1 rule, which is that JC meant to write something different to what the rule ended up as.

Also

[Astofel]

The best bit is, Pact Magic Spell Slot aren't a thing either, because if they were, then Warlocks could never cast a spell, because spells are cast out of spell slots, not Pact Magic Spell Slots or Warlocks.


I completely fail to see how you could come to this conclusion. That's like saying granny smith apples and delicious apples aren't actually apples, so you can't eat them because you can only eat apples. Spells being cast out of spell slots does not preclude there being different kinds of spell slots, such as Pact Magic spell slots.

[ThePolarBear]

In that case you're avoiding the issue. That being that there's no such thing as a "sorcerer spell slot."

And my whole point of the part you quoted was that, in the end, it is a non issue since no class relies on "sorcerer spell slots" (so if those exist or not is a moot discussion),and those are quite clearly not granted by the Pact Magic class feature. Which is true. But you still replied with a "WHAT" not understandingthat particular chain of comments. It was related to you only in the part where you stated that JC clearly submitted that RAI "According to previous rulings they can (that was specifically the question asked, and the answer was Yes)". I replied with the post reflecting that this was in fact the opposite. Slots you create with Flexible Casting are NOT considered warlock slots.

This was the issue i was tackling. Not if they can be used. If those are considered or are.

So, i repeat, go back and read again. You'll get the context of the answers.


You're all going on about how it makes perfect sense and it's crystal clear

No. I go about saying that the TWEET is crystal clear, and it makes sense FOR ME. And an explanation on why.


but your explanation for why use nonsense terms that don't even exist in the game.

They do not need to exist in the game: its not a Feature. It's an english construct, natural language, just as much as golden apple is. It is not required to be a written magic item for an apple that is golden to exist and be required by a spell.
A warlock spell slot is a slot that only a warlock (class) grants somehow. Logically, its a slot coming from Pact Magic. Do we have confirmation that this is the intention? Yes.


That's the opposite of clear.

Warlock spell slot = granted by Pact Magic. Is it clear? That is what was tweeted.


I understand that it makes perfect sense to you.

I'm honestly flabbergasted at how it doesn't make sense to you.


I even understand exactly how you got to that point. What I'm saying is that the game rules, and the previous rulings/statements, and the game terminology, all point to this ability being written/worded incorrectly.
Had they worded it correctly, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

Again, are there some spelling errors? Then it is worded correctly. It is understandable? Yes, at least one person did so. Could have been better? Yes, i already said so myself. Do the other statement of RAI have any bearing? No, because specific > general. For the specific abilities of a Warlock, there's a distinction from where the slot comes from. This does not invalidate slots are slots are slots, it creates an exception in an exception based system - one that was there from the beginning. One that was there from the beginning for a class that was not the warlock, that created problems, that was errataed because factually problematic. And while discussions on balance can be held, discussing that "class slots" do not exist is like arguing what taste Niagara Falls water tastes like in relation to the swimming speed of athletes in Beijing because what is being asked is where those slots come from. Which is the same question that is in the RAW, so even there there is no possible correlation to an intention made manifest being worded incorrectly.

Why this disagreement exist is, for you, that "class slots do not exist". There's nothing in the RAW that states so. The RAW requires slots granted by a specific class however for some features. Not a specific feature itself ("extra attack does not exist!"), but the origin of a feature, which can and has been asked in english. Since the source CAN be tracked for a warlock, even a multiclassed one, it's not problematic to ask for it.
If the disagreement comes from "it's written incorrectly" then the answer is "No. It is correctly written".
If it is "it is unclear", again not really. It could be better, but it is readily understandable in my opinion, and possible misconceptions can be cleared with a simple "=". You do understand it, too, apparently.

What are you even try to discuss? Arguing for argument sake? That there should be an errata to change something that is already correct? IMHO, no. Provide feedback to WOTC if you think it's needed. But Sage Advice would be the correct place where to put a clarification it it becomes a big enough issue, since this is a simple clarification. Warlock slots = granted by Pact Magic.


I mean, words have meanings and if he uses words to mean certain things, he should use those words that mean certain things.

The best bit is, Pact Magic Spell Slot aren't a thing either, because if they were, then Warlocks could never cast a spell, because spells are cast out of spell slots, not Pact Magic Spell Slots or Warlocks.

Crawford wrote "granted", but i suppose you know. I do not get why this part then, however. (Honestly asking for a reason here)


but given that the RAW is wrong

Except it isn't: How is it wrong to ask for the source of a feature?


and that is his pretext for the rule, which is against Rule of cool

For you. For me it is cool that you can only fuel the infernally granted sword strike of doom to be fueled by actual infernal energy and not those gained via years of studying on a book formulae about how moving things really far with really big explosions. Rule of cool is for DMs, not for intentions.


rule as written

No?


and rule as common sense dictates

Common sense cannot apply to something that is not readily availlable in shared experience. How many people have you smitten with Eldritch powers?
If you mean from a balance perspective...


(can cast a 5th level spell using a nonwarlock spell slot, can't hit target very hard not using warlock spell slot? **** off)

Then change it for your games. If you are playing AL... well, you still can smite at range. If you think about it you are granted spells and some slots to cast those spells, but if you gain slots from some other feature you can still cast those spells... but prehaps it shouldn't make sense to be able to because your patron only wants you to use slots granted by the Pact. So prehaps you shouldn't be able to cast with non warlock slots? Or prehaps the ability to smite is given by the patron, and thus REQUIRES energy from the patron to work? How do this two interpretations do not make sense?

If you want to talk about balance, that's a thing. But it is not common sense even if you can use common sense to try to find balance.


you're left with those 3 against 1 rule, which is that JC meant to write something different to what the rule ended up as.

How do the two parts even correlate? Hopefully JC meant to write what he wrote. He might have made a mistake, might be unbalanced, might be unfun for someone. But really, this is no indication of the fact that he wrote something meaning something else.


Also

Also what? :D

[LeonBH]

ThePolarBear, if we're talking about balance, Divine Smite can trigger on any attack. A paladin can smite with each attack, knowing they will have more to come if one lands a crit. Damage-wise, at 5th level, Divine Smite beats Eldritch Smite by a factor of 2.

Eldritch Smite has the very nice auto-prone effect. It's a poor man's Reckless Attack on a Strength Bladelock. People seem to be crying out that it's powerful because it can drop dragons from the sky, but a grounded dragon is still a dragon. You will not be killing dragons at level 5, but dying from them.

In the end, Divine Smite beats Eldritch Smite in frequency of smites per turn, as well as total number of smites per long rest, assuming a Pally and Lock of equal character levels.

[Vaz]

I completely fail to see how you could come to this conclusion. That's like saying granny smith apples and delicious apples aren't actually apples, so you can't eat them because you can only eat apples. Spells being cast out of spell slots does not preclude there being different kinds of spell slots, such as Pact Magic spell slots.

No, you can only eat Granny Smith Apples, but there are no Granny Smith apples, only non specific apples.

[ThePolarBear]

ThePolarBear, if we're talking about balance, Divine Smite can trigger on any attack. A paladin can smite with each attack, knowing they will have more to come if one lands a crit. Damage-wise, at 5th level, Divine Smite beats Eldritch Smite by a factor of 2.

Actually, a warlock beats a paladin on overall smite damage by a 70 hp margin for max damage between long rests at level 5 considering 2 short rests. If you consider less (or more) short rests, then the warlock goes out of balance. That has been the problem ever since day one on all the warlock discussions, and here is no different.
At level 7, it's 104.
At level 9, it's 88
At level 11, a paladin gains improved divine smite. This makes the paladin make 1d8 extra damage on every strike, no condition. It is difficult to correctly evaluate how much damage this would add, but quite surely the overall damage would end up as a damage increase over all the strikes of the day that is surely impressive. For the comparison, however, i will add it only once for every smite, essentially increasing every single smite by 1d8 for the paladin. It is not indicative however of the amount of damage overall, keep that in mind. Damage difference: Warlock is on top by 120 damage.
Level 16, the level before the warlock increases its damage again, it's a difference of 24 damage in warlock's favour.
Level 17 , it's 72.
level 19 - peak of a paladin spell progression, the difference is down to 24 again.

I do not see this factor of 2 in favour of the paladin.
A paladin has an higher amout of smites, has more versatility, has more burst. Raw damage numbers are warlocks', however, and a high level warlock still has spells at his disposal. If a short rest and bag of rats is possible (no comment) then concentration can be used to cast Hex for the warlock, mitigating the difference from IDS. A high level paladin can use low level slots with little loss of damage to cast useful spells, while casting a single spell hurts the warlock immensely in pure damage compartment, even if that could be worth it (fireball is pretty much always a damage gain, assuming no resistances - for example edit assuming 2 targets).
Smite spells add another layer of bursts in the paladins' arsenal, but are overall a pure damage loss. The raider gain can be worth it.


Eldritch Smite has the very nice auto-prone effect. It's a poor man's Reckless Attack on a Strength Bladelock.

This is a terrible comparison. It is close to impossible to gain advantage on a smite just with Eldritch Smite. A grapple, a spell to force the prone creature to willingly move without raising up or other effects can do it. It is more akin to a control effect, where you grant other people in close range advantage on attacks, but trading disadvantage on distance attacks. It also reduces an enemy mobility and can bring otherwise unreachable enemies into range. The advantage you can gain on subsequent attacks that turn is the icing on the cake.


People seem to be crying out that it's powerful because it can drop dragons from the sky, but a grounded dragon is still a dragon. You will not be killing dragons at level 5, but dying from them.

Not having access to Xanathar yet, so don't know the rules for falling that are in there. E.S. works on all fliers and can possibly also add fall damage. Not all creatures have legendary actions to ignore the prone conditions.


In the end, Divine Smite beats Eldritch Smite in frequency of smites per turn, as well as total number of smites per long rest, assuming a Pally and Lock of equal character levels.

But this is only part of the balance considerations. It's true, absolutely, but it is also true that it is not as simple as it might look on the lid because the two different features have substantial differences that make them suited for different styles, while not being sompletely out of whack as it might appear at first glance. On top of that there are other considerations on how the different classes abilities will interact, and simply comparing the two in the void can bring just that much info to the table. Cha on hit and damage from hexblade, heavy armour, fighting styles... all play a role in it.

If we add Multiclassing on top of it...


No, you can only eat Granny Smith Apples, but there are no Granny Smith apples, only non specific apples.

Unless there's a specific exception that say that there are specific apples.