Extra Invocation as Feat for Warlock?

[carrdrivesyou]

I was toying around with the idea of having a feat that basically grants a bonus invocation for people with warlock levels. Seeing as how some invocations are more powerful than others, and are generally on the same power level as feats, is there anything that make this a terrible idea?

Additionally, would this be something that anyone could take if they had warlock spells (such as from overlapping spell lists or the Magic Initiate feat)?

Let me know what you think Playgrounders!

[Keravath]

I don't think it would break anything.

However, you may want to consider requiring the character to have at least 2 levels of warlock and have unlocked invocations before being allowed to take this feat. The main reason is that I could see folks taking one level of hexblade and perhaps taking this feat to obtain agonizing blast.

Another consideration is that it seems like it might be pretty weak as a feat on its own depending on which invocation is chosen. Some of them are very cool and thematic offering some nice out of combat abilities but aren't necessarily that "powerful" so, unless it is too much work or too complicated, you could designate some invocations as 1/2 feats including a +1 boost to a specific stat while others require a full feat. Alternatively, you could have some of the invocations designated as weaker so you could pick two of them for the feat ... Eyes of the Rune Keeper and Eldritch Sight for example would be an interesting combination but neither one would be worth a feat separately.

On the other hand, devils sight, agonizing blast, repelling blast can be some of the more powerful invocations depending on the character build.

[Expected]

It's not a terrible idea, but I don't see any reason for min-maxers, like myself, to take it. Polearm Bladelocks are feat heavy and need to take GWM, PAM, Sentinel as well as get Cha to 20 while Blastlocks need War Caster and/or Resilient: Constitution as as 20 Cha. I'd have a hard time justifying pushing back one of those feats for an extra Eldritch Invocation. Maybe make it a half-feat or add two Invocations instead of one?

[KorvinStarmast]

I was toying around with the idea of having a feat that basically grants a bonus invocation for people with warlock levels. Seeing as how some invocations are more powerful than others, and are generally on the same power level as feats, is there anything that make this a terrible idea?

Additionally, would this be something that anyone could take if they had warlock spells (such as from overlapping spell lists or the Magic Initiate feat)?

Let me know what you think Playgrounders! I think a feat should offer two. (See Skilled, and Magic Initiate)

[Sparky McDibben]

Honestly, my first thought is "Why restrict this for warlocks?" An arcane trickster would burn a feat for Mask of Many Faces in a heartbeat!

Second thought: There's a lot of variation in power among the various invocations. Fortunately, WotC already gated these with prerequisites for some of the invocations. Yay! Here's what I would do:

"You have gained the notice of greater beings than yourself, and they have unveiled for you the dark first steps on the road to power. You gain one of the following options:


You gain two warlock invocations, provided neither invocation has a prerequisite
You gain one warlock invocation with a prerequisite, provided you satisfy the conditions of that prerequisite


You may not gain this feat multiple times."

[carrdrivesyou]

So how about this:

Prerequisite: Warlock level 3
Bonuses:
1. Increase Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
2. Gain one invocation of choice from those available to the warlock and for which you qualify.

OR
Prerequisite: Warlock level 3
Bonuses:
1. Gain two invocations of choice from those available to the warlock and for which you qualify from the following list of pairs:
Armor of Shadows + One With Shadows, Eldritch Sight + Eyes of the Rune Keeper, Fiendish Vigor + Gift of the Everliving Ones, Mask of Many Faces + Misty Visions, etc.

How does that look?

[KorvinStarmast]

So how about this:

Prerequisite: Warlock level 3
Bonuses:
1. Increase Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
2. Gain one invocation of choice from those available to the warlock and for which you qualify.

OR

Prerequisite: Warlock level 3
Bonuses:
1. Gain two invocations of choice from those available to the warlock and for which you qualify from the following list of pairs:

Armor of Shadows + One With Shadows,
Eldritch Sight + Eyes of the Rune Keeper,
Fiendish Vigor + Gift of the Everliving Ones,
Mask of Many Faces + Misty Visions, etc.

How does that look? Your first one fits the original feat list from PHB a bit better. But I honestly like what you did with the second one. Here's what I suggest for your first one, as a slight edit:

Feat: Arcane Adept
Prerequisite: Warlock level 4

1. Increase Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
2. Gain one invocation of choice from those available to the warlock and for which you qualify.
3. Gain one additional cantrip from the Warlock spell list.

Why level 4? That's the first time one is eligible, and it prevents the vHuman feat at level 1 (which also would not make sense since pact boon is level 3 anyway.

[diplomancer]

I would definitely keep the Warlock levels prerequisite, and probably the "at least 2 warlock levels" suggested, or the Hexblade dip will be even more overpowered than it already is. With those caveats, I'd say the average invocation is slightly weaker than the average feat, so that would be a flavorful and not overpowered option.

[carrdrivesyou]

Your first one fits the original feat list from PHB a bit better. But I honestly like what you did with the second one. Here's what I suggest for your first one, as a slight edit:

Feat: Arcane Adept
Prerequisite: Warlock level 4

1. Increase Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
2. Gain one invocation of choice from those available to the warlock and for which you qualify.
3. Gain one additional cantrip from the Warlock spell list.

Why level 4? That's the first time one is eligible, and it prevents the vHuman feat at level 1 (which also would not make sense since pact boon is level 3 anyway.

One invocation and one cantrip...that puts this feat on par with something akin to Spell Sniper, so power-wise, it seems legit. Although, the Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast combo seems a bit overpowered; given the level requirement, it makes more sense. Although, that would make the sun soul monk a bit of a rival.


I would definitely keep the Warlock levels prerequisite, and probably the "at least 2 warlock levels" suggested, or the Hexblade dip will be even more overpowered than it already is. With those caveats, I'd say the average invocation is slightly weaker than the average feat, so that would be a flavorful and not overpowered option.


I'm not too good with Hexblades, so can you explain this please?

[diplomancer]

Basically, taking just one hexblade level allows people to attack with charisma, to have medium armor and shield proficiency, the shield spell, and Hexblade curse (which allows you to have extended crit range and extra damage against one creature per short rest). It's already very powerful as it is for all Cha based characters (and to some other particular builds, like the nuclear wizard).

Adding to all of this the possibility of not having to get a 2nd level in warlock (which has a somewhat significant opportunity cost) to get access to invocations, allowing them to choose just that one invocation that completes their build, is adding insult to injury.

[Sigreid]

I'd be more inclined to have it as an epic boon that could be earned.

[Greywander]

What I currently have as a homebrew feat is that you get two invocations the first time you take the feat, and one invocation every time thereafter. No requirements. This should, hopefully, balance the feat around taking it once on your way to 20, and then taking it multiple times as epic boons after reaching 20.

An alternate version of the same feat created as a racial feat for an undead race allows you to take specific invocations, even if you don't meet the requirements, such as One with Shadows or Ghostly Gaze (or you can take any invocation you do qualify for). So you could do a generic feat that gives extra invocations, or a flavored feat that gives extra invocations but allows specific invocations without needing to meet the requirements. Which specific invocations you allow can add some flavor to the feat, and it allows you to cherry pick which invocations you think would be okay for a non-warlock to get.

I'd probably suggest if you do make a feat that allows specific invocations without needing to meet the requirements, that you don't allow invocations that are specific to a pact boon. Otherwise, you make that invocation available to warlocks with a different pact boon, thus devaluing that specific pact boon.

[bid]

You gain one warlock invocation with a prerequisite, provided you satisfy the conditions of that prerequisite.
All of those are gated behind warlock levels, so that'd be useful for warlocks only.

And all feats are taken once, as stated on page 165. See elemental adept for the exception.

[Sparky McDibben]

All of those are gated behind warlock levels, so that'd be useful for warlocks only.

And all feats are taken once, as stated on page 165. See elemental adept for the exception.

There are a couple that have Pact requirements or spell requirements. And I'm AFB but I recall them saying level, not warlock level. And with something like this I find it's best to be explicit.

[ad_hoc]

One of the major design uses of feats is to allow characters to dip into other classes' abilities.

Restricting it to Warlock defeats the purpose for me.

I think it would also be the only feat that differs in power depending on when it is taken due to the prerequisites.

So something like:

+1 Charisma
Gain 1 Invocation that does not have a prerequisite.

I haven't looked at them all but that is probably fine.

[bid]

There are a couple that have Pact requirements or spell requirements. And I'm AFB but I recall them saying level, not warlock level. And with something like this I find it's best to be explicit.
Anything in the Classes chapter uses class level, as it assumes you are single-classed.
MC assumes you use each of your classes features independently and separately, as if your other class levels didn't exist.

Maybe you want your wizard 1 / cleric 16 to cast wish, but it's a big no-no.

[Sparky McDibben]

Anything in the Classes chapter uses class level, as it assumes you are single-classed.
MC assumes you use each of your classes features independently and separately, as if your other class levels didn't exist.

Maybe you want your wizard 1 / cleric 16 to cast wish, but it's a big no-no.

A load if nonsense. If the designers meant warlock level, they would have said that. For clarification, see the paladin lay on hands ability and the cleric's divine intervention ability.

[diplomancer]

A load if nonsense. If the designers meant warlock level, they would have said that. For clarification, see the paladin lay on hands ability and the cleric's divine intervention ability.

Not only did they mean it, they errata'ed it to make it clear that this is what they meant.

[ad_hoc]

A load if nonsense. If the designers meant warlock level, they would have said that. For clarification, see the paladin lay on hands ability and the cleric's divine intervention ability.

Multiclassing is a variant.

The rules for multiclassing are in the multiclassing rules. All rules outside of that aren't written assuming multiclassing.

[bid]

A load if nonsense. If the designers meant warlock level, they would have said that. For clarification, see the paladin lay on hands ability and the cleric's divine intervention ability.
Right. So you want your wizard 1 / cleric 16 to cast wish?

There's no point in beating a dead horse, this issue has been resolved a long time ago.

[Anderlith]

Model it after the Maneuvers Feat. Give them a basic Invocation once a long rest

[Sparky McDibben]

Not only did they mean it, they errata'ed it to make it clear that this is what they meant.

1. The language I deployed was defimitely rude and somewhat confrontational. I'm sorry for that.
2. I don't have the errata version. Thank you for pointing that out. I find it odd they would miss that when they were fairly clear throughout the rest of the PHB.
3. This is for Bid, not diplomancer, but your hypothesis doesn't scan. Why would I cast wish when I could use divine intervention? As to the broader question behind your question, I think that's handled by the multiclassing rules, no?

[bid]

3. This is for Bid, not diplomancer, but your hypothesis doesn't scan. Why would I cast wish when I could use divine intervention? As to the broader question behind your question, I think that's handled by the multiclassing rules, no?
First, DI has a 15% chance of success. Second, wish is a placeholder for any 9th spell. Now as to why it matters...

If you are wizard 1 / cleric 16, your MC combination gives you the spell slot of a level 17 caster which includes a 9th slot.
Wish is a 9th spell.
A wizard's spellcasting feature allows you to add spells to your spellbook, "of a level for which you have spell slots"
Those 3 points are RAW and the interpretation hangs on: "do you have a 9th spell slot or not?"

1) If your wizard-self only uses its wizard level for wizard features, you act as any level 1 wizard. You have 2 1st slots and can only add 1st level spells to your spellbook.

2) If wizard features use your entire character, your wizard 1 has a 9th spell slot (from MC) and can write wish in its spellbook.


If you allow character level on warlock invocation, you necessarily allow (gate, true resurrection, true polymorph, wish) on character level. Which includes a bard 1 / cleric 1 / druid 13 / sorcerer 1 / wizard 1 character or any other combo with a 9th slot.

[Greywander]

If you are wizard 1 / cleric 16, your MC combination gives you the spell slot of a level 17 caster which includes a 9th slot.
Wish is a 9th spell.
A wizard's spellcasting feature allows you to add spells to your spellbook, "of a level for which you have spell slots"
[...]
If you allow character level on warlock invocation, you necessarily allow (gate, true resurrection, true polymorph, wish) on character level. Which includes a bard 1 / cleric 1 / druid 13 / sorcerer 1 / wizard 1 character or any other combo with a 9th slot.
As far as I'm aware, no one has mentioned anything like this in the thread. It's spelled out pretty clearly that a wizard 1 / cleric 16 can't learn or cast Wish. You're the first person to suggest otherwise, so the only argument you've debunked is your own. It's true that there is ambiguity about this in the Spellcasting feature description, but this ambiguity is specifically addressed and clarified in the section on Multiclassing. No one except you is talking about this, you're the first person to bring it up.

I think what's being argued right now is if "your level" means your level in that class, or your character level. In the case of warlock invocations, it may not have been clear initially but it's been errata'd that they do, in fact, mean your warlock level.

[bid]

As far as I'm aware, no one has mentioned anything like this in the thread.
Maybe you aren't familiar with reductio ad absurdum. It's a way to demonstrate something by showing the opposite is impossible.

Allowing character levels for warlock invocations implies that you allow 9th spells to anyone who gained a 9th slot from MC. If you don't think that's absurd...

Does that ring a bell, or have you never met that kind of proof?

[Sparky McDibben]

Maybe you aren't familiar with reductio ad absurdum. It's a way to demonstrate something by showing the opposite is impossible.

Allowing character levels for warlock invocations implies that you allow 9th spells to anyone who gained a 9th slot from MC. If you don't think that's absurd...

Does that ring a bell, or have you never met that kind of proof?

Dude, that's condescending. I'm sorry. Let it be.

The OPs question stands. We have some warlock invocations that are utility and low power and probably would be two to a feat. We have some that are high power and would be one to a feat. I think my initial design works, but only if this is open only to warlocks. We could amend it thusly-wise:

"If you do not have sufficient warlock levels to qualify for an invocation, you may substitute your total character levels at the DMs discretion.

If an invocation requires the use of warlock spell slots you do not have, you may only use the spell granted by the invocation once, and regain the ability to cast it after a long rest."

Thoughts?

[Greywander]

Maybe you aren't familiar with reductio ad absurdum. It's a way to demonstrate something by showing the opposite is impossible.

Allowing character levels for warlock invocations implies that you allow 9th spells to anyone who gained a 9th slot from MC. If you don't think that's absurd...

Does that ring a bell, or have you never met that kind of proof?
If the Earth was round, then people living in the Southern Hemisphere would fall off. You can't take a demonstrably false example and use it to prove something more ambiguous. It is specifically called out in the rules that a multiclassed character can have 9th level slots but not be able to learn any 9th level spells. This has nothing to do with whether the level requirements for an invocation refer to your character level or warlock level, as until the clarification from the errata, there were no clear rules about this.

Reductio ad absurdum would require you to find a similar case with similar ambiguity where the ability breaks down if it is allowed to scale with character level rather than class level. The Spellcasting feature would be a good example of this, if the ambiguity wasn't clarified elsewhere in the rules already.

We already have an example of the opposite with cantrips, which do scale with character level, not class level. This means we have a precedent for abilities to scale with character level rather than class level. Not every ability will work this way, but what it means is that some of them could, and do.

[bid]

Reductio ad absurdum would require you to find a similar case with similar ambiguity where the ability breaks down if it is allowed to scale with character level rather than class level.

Allowing character levels for warlock invocations implies that you allow 9th spells to anyone who gained a 9th slot from MC.
I'm sorry. I thought I was clear enough the other 2 times.

[ad_hoc]

If the Earth was round, then people living in the Southern Hemisphere would fall off. You can't take a demonstrably false example and use it to prove something more ambiguous. It is specifically called out in the rules that a multiclassed character can have 9th level slots but not be able to learn any 9th level spells. This has nothing to do with whether the level requirements for an invocation refer to your character level or warlock level, as until the clarification from the errata, there were no clear rules about this.

Reductio ad absurdum would require you to find a similar case with similar ambiguity where the ability breaks down if it is allowed to scale with character level rather than class level. The Spellcasting feature would be a good example of this, if the ambiguity wasn't clarified elsewhere in the rules already.

We already have an example of the opposite with cantrips, which do scale with character level, not class level. This means we have a precedent for abilities to scale with character level rather than class level. Not every ability will work this way, but what it means is that some of them could, and do.

Cantrips only scale with character level because the rules on pg 164 say so.

There is nothing on pages 163 and 164 that says Warlock Invocation prerequisites are character level, so they aren't.

I will repeat: The rules for multiclassing are on pages 163 and 164. They are variant rules. The rest of the rules are not written to refer to the multiclassing rules. They are not part of the base game.

[diplomancer]

Cantrips only scale with character level because the rules on pg 164 say so.

There is nothing on pages 163 and 164 that says Warlock Invocation prerequisites are character level, so they aren't.

I will repeat: The rules for multiclassing are on pages 163 and 164. They are variant rules. The rest of the rules are not written to refer to the multiclassing rules. They are not part of the base game.

While I agree with you, it's also true that some abilities look like they are written to specify your class levels (like Paladin Lay on Hands), and others don't specify it (like the warlock invocations before the errata). There is some room for confusion.

[ff7hero]

Hey OP, I really like this idea for an Invocation feat. I'm glad you made this thread to discuss it.
That's all I have to say on the topic, so now I'm going to stop posting.

[Greywander]

I'm sorry. I thought I was clear enough the other 2 times.
The fact that you continue to use the same argument after being refuted twice says more about you than it does about me.

But fine, let's try one last time.

Do creatures have a penalty in sunlight? If they don't, then that means that drow wouldn't have a penalty, which is ridiculous. Since drow should have a penalty in sunlight, that means that every single creature has to also have a penalty while in sunlight.

Oh wait, there's a specific rule that says that drow, specifically, have a penalty while in sunlight. In fact, the presence of this specific rule would imply that normally a creature doesn't have a penalty while in sunlight.

This is your argument, in a nut shell. You're saying "if spellcasting worked this way...", but it doesn't. There is a specific rule that describes how spellcasting works. This specific rule overrides any general rule. It tells us nothing about what the general rule might be, and in fact implies that the general rule must work differently. Yes, if spellcasting worked that way, it would break the game, which is probably why they wrote a specific rule about spellcasting, specifically, that says it doesn't work that way. This tells us nothing about how other class features might work.

You must use an example that doesn't have a specific rule attached to it, and would rely on a general rule to interpret. Then you can demonstrate that interpreting the general rule in one way would break that example, thus the general rule must work differently. This simply doesn't work if the example you're citing doesn't use the general rule.

If you want to continue using the same argument, you must use something other than spellcasting as your example.


Cantrips only scale with character level because the rules on pg 164 say so.

There is nothing on pages 163 and 164 that says Warlock Invocation prerequisites are character level, so they aren't.

I will repeat: The rules for multiclassing are on pages 163 and 164. They are variant rules. The rest of the rules are not written to refer to the multiclassing rules. They are not part of the base game.
My point is that there obviously are some abilities that are meant to scale with character level rather than class level. And the thing is, they could very easily distinguish between the two by contrasting "your level" versus "your [class] level". We can't assume that an ability scales with class level because there are abilities that scale with character level. Invocations, specifically, have been errata'd to clarify that the prerequisites are based on your warlock level, not your character level. This has no bearing on any other feature that scales with "your level".

That said, I believe most class features do specify that they scale with your level in that class, if they scale at all. Abilities that scale with character level are more often racial traits or feats, but this doesn't preclude the idea of class features that scale with character level.

[bid]

but this doesn't preclude the idea of class features that scale with character level.
I thought I pretty clearly demonstrated that was absurd. All I got was some sidestepping that since it was spelled out for warlock invocation it couldn't be true.

AFAIK, the only point that stops 9th spell is that every feature in the Classes chapter uses the class level. No other point was raised to cover this.

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey OP, I really like this idea for an Invocation feat. I'm glad you made this thread to discuss it.
That's all I have to say on the topic, so now I'm going to stop posting.

I second this.

[ad_hoc]

That said, I believe most class features do specify that they scale with your level in that class, if they scale at all. Abilities that scale with character level are more often racial traits or feats, but this doesn't preclude the idea of class features that scale with character level.

Character level class features as something separate doesn't make sense because in the game the character's level is the character's class level. They're the same thing.

There is a variant module that changes this. The rules for that module are laid out in the rules for the module.

[carrdrivesyou]

Hey OP, I really like this idea for an Invocation feat. I'm glad you made this thread to discuss it.
That's all I have to say on the topic, so now I'm going to stop posting.

Thanks bud!

But yea, it seems that Invocations are quite close to feats in straight power, so i was curious if your table would allow such a homebrew feat (if they allow homebrew)?

[Sparky McDibben]

Thanks bud!

But yea, it seems that Invocations are quite close to feats in straight power, so i was curious if your table would allow such a homebrew feat (if they allow homebrew)?

Definitely.

[Joe the Rat]

Given the nature of Pacts and Warlocks, this would be really good as a boon, but I like it from a build perspective as well.


+1 Charisma
Gain 1 Invocation that does not have a prerequisite.

This is simple, and avoids all of the worry-case situations. Early basic invocations, no agonizer multi-class, no pact-based extractions.

Warlocks can use this for utility, and use the Actual Warlock Invocations for the fun stuff. I'd skip any prereqs here - a little gift from a Being of Wealth and Taste can go to anyone.

Anything requiring a spell slot (thief of five fates?) Can be cast as-is - essentially the feat comes with a one-a-day slot, as with Magic Initiate. An odd choice, yeah, but best to have it covered.

[Greywander]

I thought I pretty clearly demonstrated that was absurd.
The only thing you've managed to demonstrate is your inability to engage in an argument with good faith. Once, twice, thrice your argument has been refuted, and instead of addressing the counterargument, all you've done is reassert your original argument and talk down to me as if I somehow didn't understand what you said.


AFAIK, the only point that stops 9th spell
...is the specific rule in the multiclass section that specifically forbids doing this exact thing. I've explained this three times now, and not once have you even acknowledged what I've said. Warlock invocations have nothing to do with what you're talking about. Nothing.

Thanks for wasting my time.


Character level class features as something separate doesn't make sense because in the game the character's level is the character's class level. They're the same thing.
Look, I understand what you're saying. The base rules are written in such a way that you don't need to know anything about multiclassing to play the game. This doesn't change the fact that multiclassing is used, and frequently, by many, many tables. When it comes to designing content for 5e, you can't just pretend that multiclassing doesn't exist. This is why class features need to make a distinction between character level and class level.

Furthermore, I'd argue that even with a single classed character, class level and character level are merely correlated. Although no such rules exist that I'm aware of, there is design space to manipulate class level and character level independently. You could be a 5th level character who is a 10th level fighter, or a 10th level character who is a 5th level fighter. Although related, the two concepts are independent of one another, and multiclassing is just one example of how you could have a character level that does not equal your class level.


There is a variant module that changes this. The rules for that module are laid out in the rules for the module.
Well, not quite. They're optional rules. Variant rules change something, optional rules add something. Multiclassing doesn't change the way class and character levels work, or how leveling up works, and you can have a single classed character alongside a multiclassed character with no issues. Nothing has actually changed, we just have more options to choose from.

Optional or not, multiclassing still exist, and we need to understand how different parts of the base rules fit into the optional rules. Like it or not, multiclassing means that there is a distinction between class level and character level, so it becomes necessary for class features to specify which one they're using.


Going back to the topic of the thread, I'll repost the homebrew feat I use for this:

A feat that gives you two invocations. You can take the feat more than once, but only get one invocation each time after the first.
You must meet any requirements to take an invocation, making this feat more useful to warlocks. If you want to add some flavor to the feat, you can allow specific invocations to be taken, even if you don't meet the requirements. Or, you can even create new invocations and make them available through this feat (this is a good choice for invocations that boost non-warlock cantrips). You can choose whether these new invocations are available to warlocks without the feat, or if you need the feat in order to access these invocations.

I think that's pretty straightforward. Haven't had too much play experience with this yet, so it's hard to say if some quirks might shake out. It might be that one invocation rather than two is plenty. I've done similar things with other class features, like one that grants you a metamagic option, or gives you a fighting style. It can be a nice way to pick up something outside your class, or get an extra one if you are that class.

[bid]

...is the specific rule in the multiclass section that specifically forbids doing this exact thing.
Good! Now I understand your point.
I missed that point with all the flat-earthers and sun-haters attempts at explaining reductio ad absurdum.

[Greywander]

Good! Now I understand your point.
I missed that point with all the flat-earthers and sun-haters attempts at explaining reductio ad absurdum.
Oh, good! I'm sorry, I got frustrated and let it get to me a little bit.

I was going to type up a reply trying to get back to the core of your argument, as you did seem to be getting caught up on some of the more extraneous parts of my posts, but maybe this isn't necessary any more? Still, I'll give it a shot.

As far as I could understand, your original claim was this:

Anything in the Classes chapter uses class level, as it assumes you are single-classed.
While I'm not sure if I agree with this claim, the claim itself wasn't what I was disputing. And your claim may very well be correct.

Now to the argument you used to back up your claim, the "reductio ad absurdum". I couldn't find a specific quote from you that laid out your full argument, so I'll try to summarize what I understand it to be:

"If the claim (see above quote) is false, then a cleric 16 / wizard 1 would be able to cast Wish, due to the wording of the Spellcasting feature. This is clearly not what the rules intend, ergo the claim must be true."

This argument would be valid, as it does demonstrate that the rules cause clearly unintended behavior if the claim is false, except that there's a specific rule for the Spellcasting feature that addresses this already. By the way, that rule is found on page 164 of the PHB: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." It seems you weren't aware of this rule? (Heck, not that long ago, I ran into someone who thought proficiency bonus scaled with class level, not character level, so multiclassed characters had a lower proficiency bonus. We've all missed critical parts of the rules after skimming through. I know I have.)

My problem with your argument was that you were trying to derive a general rule ("level" means class level) using an example (Spellcasting) that already had a specific rule (on page 164) that overrides the general rule. Because the specific rule overrides the general rule, the Spellcasting feature can't tell us anything about what the general rule is. This doesn't mean your claim is wrong, just that your argument doesn't support your claim.

Is this summary of our argument accurate? Does my counterargument make sense to you now? Let me know if I misunderstood your argument, as that will of course make my counterargument make no sense. But it seemed like you finally understood my point, according to your last post, so I think we're finally on the same page.

My counterexample using drow and sunlight sensitivity was an attempt to demonstrate a similar argument: trying to derive a general rule (creatures get a penalty in sunlight) using an example (drow) that already had a specific rule (the Sunlight Sensitivity trait) that overrides the general rule. Hopefully this makes more sense now?

[carrdrivesyou]

A feat that gives you two invocations. You can take the feat more than once, but only get one invocation each time after the first.
You must meet any requirements to take an invocation, making this feat more useful to warlocks. If you want to add some flavor to the feat, you can allow specific invocations to be taken, even if you don't meet the requirements. Or, you can even create new invocations and make them available through this feat (this is a good choice for invocations that boost non-warlock cantrips). You can choose whether these new invocations are available to warlocks without the feat, or if you need the feat in order to access these invocations.

I think that's pretty straightforward. Haven't had too much play experience with this yet, so it's hard to say if some quirks might shake out. It might be that one invocation rather than two is plenty. I've done similar things with other class features, like one that grants you a metamagic option, or gives you a fighting style. It can be a nice way to pick up something outside your class, or get an extra one if you are that class.

How would you write this on paper? At least, in the style of WotC?

[Greywander]

How would you write this on paper? At least, in the style of WotC?
Here's the racial feat for the undead race I was working on a while back.

Undead Invocations

By binding the dark magic that animates your body, you are able to gain the benefits of two Eldritch Invocations of your choice from the warlock class. These invocations must be ones that you qualify for, or any of the following: One with Shadows, Whispers of the Grave, Witch Sight, Cloak of Flies, Ghostly Gaze, and Tomb of Levistus. If you have warlock levels, these extra invocations don’t count against the number shown on the Warlock Table.

You may take this feat more than once, but you only gain one additional invocation for each time after the first.

[bid]

Oh, good! I'm sorry, I got frustrated and let it get to me a little bit.
Oh you weren't alone.
And your whole reductio ad absurdum point makes sense when 9th can't happen by RAW.

I'm sorry and it's not the first time I have that problem with you. :smallredface:
I was a "vertical reader" because I could read anything that I saw. I'm also trained to read code, vertically once again. Now my eyesight has gone down and I only read what I look at. I have become an horizontal reader.

So I cheat, reading the first line and skipping to the end of the paragraph if it "doesn't matter". I'm somewhat PO'd that I skipped the not-quite "doesn't matter" 3 times in a row. I'd prolly still be running in circle if you hadn't answered to "AFAIK, the only point that stops 9th spell" with your one-liner. Thank you for clearing that up.

I'll have to slow down and carefully read what you write next time we butt heads.:smallbiggrin: