For the Warlock's Eldritch Invocations feature, a lot have a prerequisite of X Level. Is that for Warlock level or character level? I assumed it was Warlock level, but I can't see where or if it explicitly states that.
I would assume it's character level.
If you look through the various classes, you'll see that some list the class name and level requirement for some items. Looks to be that if it doesn't say class name + level, then it's character level only.
However, notice the way Warlock Invocations are gained. You have to gain a Warlock level to add or change an invocation, so if you started with 3 levels of warlock and then switched to something else, but want that 15th level invocation, you'll need to go back to warlock at that level or one above it.
I'm hoping these requirements are addressed in errata soon.
IxidorRS wrote:
I asked Mearls, and got an answer of (paraphased) "Pick the interpretation that works better for your table"
kilpatds wrote:
For what it's worth, the AL answer (from Chris Tulach) is also (paraphrased) "whatever the DM feels is right"[2]
[1] This thread: https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/502920360300269570 Yeah, my question mentioned the wrong invocation name. I clarified it in a different tweet.
[2] AL comment from a comment in the facebook group. I quote it here https://plus.google.com/communities/116845114885776540103
Chris Tulach wrote:
kilpatds wrote:
So, if you go to one particular AL game, your Warlock might be able to have invocations based on character level. But if you take that same character to a different AL game where Warlock invocations are based on class level, what do you do? Reselect your invocations on the spot? Or is a character that is legal at one table somehow illegal at another?
Xetheral wrote:
As I've said for a year now, the primary design criterion of 5th Edition is that the design team not be accountable for quality control. This is simply a slightly more blatant admission of that fact than usual.
I do like that 5E is simplier in layout than 3.5. It simplies grappling, mounted combat, all the little bonuses, etc. with simple mechanics. You only have few pages for combat, less than a page for multi-classing, etc. Yet, these types of questions/issues come up. It amazes me that they don't just have a one sentence rule in the multi-classing section which says "All class selected abilities which require prerequisite levels is based on (insert class or character) level." Done.
Balance wise, I guess character level is fine, but that still means that a Wizard 9/Warlock 2 gets to pick evocations which would require a normal Warlock 9 levels to pick up.
In any case... I don't see why WotC isn't a bit more proactive on this and has a "non-official FAQ" with plans for an errata and FAQ. It has been a month. No reason to keep lots of these minor things around.
BW0222 wrote:
erachima wrote:
For me the issue is academic. I already am not playing the game due to its stance RE: Warlords, I can't play it less than that.
Polaris wrote:
kilpatds wrote:
Sorry. I meant a Barb2/Warlock3 who has two attacks from an attack action. (IE, did a retrain to move an existing invocation to the multi-attack one, now that he qualifies. Two questionable rulings required, RAI is against them)
Actually, that brings up another question. Is the RAI about Warlock retraining supposed to be "No, you can't have all your invocations be the higher level ones", or "yes, you CAN have all your invocations be the higher level ones"?
kilpatds wrote:
kilpatds wrote:
I wasn't asking about the AL rebuild rules, but rather the retrain rules you're assuming have the RAI of "yes, you CAN have all your invocations be higher level"
The retrain rules in question.
PHB wrote:
kilpatds wrote:
It's quite annoying having "level" and "class level" used in different areas. All Spellcaster's magic descriptions include class level.
Things that directly state"class level," where it's not directly stated in the progression chart.
The Cleric's domain spells, Divine Intervention, and a few of the Channel Divinity features. The Druid's Wild Shape, Natural Recovery, Circle Forms. The Fighter's Second Wind. The Monk's Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Wholeness of Body, Quivering Palm. The Paladin's Lay on Hands. The Ranger's Ranger's Companion. The Warlock's Dark One's Blessing, Book of Ancient Secrets. The Wizard's Arcane Recovery, Arcane Ward, Undead Thralls. All spellcaster entries also list this in the casting a spell descriptions.
There are also a number of features which state, "in this class."
The Bard's Song of Rest. The Fighter's Extra Attack. The Monk's Elemental Discipline (which specifically says you must be that level "in this class" to meet pre-reqs). Sorcerer's Draconic Resilience. Warlock's Eldritch Invocations (stating you can retrain one when you gain a level "in this class").
Note the difference in the way the Monk's Elemental Discipline is worded versus the way the Warlock's Eldricth Invocations is worded. Either they intended for them to be different and that's what happened or they intended them to work the same way and there was an oversight in editing to show how the requirements worked.
But if it isn't just character level in situations where it doesn't say class level, then why was there a necessity to state "in this class" on the Monk feature? That indicates an exception to a rule. So, I continue my stance that in plain RAW, it looks like if there is not a class indicated before the word level, then the level is character level and not class level.
And again, I really hope this is addressed in errata or something. It needs to be definite. Especially for AL.
Not that I think it solves it in anyway, but I wonder if the concept that 'multi-classing is an optional rule' had any influence on allowing termanology mixtures like this from being corrected?
erachima wrote:
quayside_dog wrote:
To me it's quite clear that unless it talks about "class levels" or "levels in this class", levels refer to character levels. So yes, a warlock2/fighter18 would be firing 5 eldritch blasts at 1d10+cha.
quayside_dog wrote:
Otakkun wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Yunru wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
A ruling will have to be made for organized play, so it is silly for the devs to avoid answering the question.
Yunru wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
OgreBane99 wrote:
What's that mean in the context of a single-class Warlock? (after all, that's the most common context in which that sentence will be read). It means that when you hit 6th level (and don't gain another invocation) that you can replace that lame invocation you learned at 2nd level and pick up another one that has a 5th level preq.
Ok. Why does it's meaning change in a multi-class warlock situation?
kilpatds wrote:
Removed due to the statement being incorrect.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
kilpatds wrote:
I already pointed out in the rules where it says that when you replace an invocation, you pick one that you could pick at (your warlock) level.
The issue with Extra Attack is not its "stacking via multiclass" but ir was used as an example of a feature acquired at a certain level in a class. If this is too confusing because Extra Attack has special rules for multiclassing, consider instead Monk abilities such as "Shadow Step" or "Stillness of Mind." They do not mention a class level, so any Monk 1 that reaches 7th character level learns Stillness of Mind?
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think what we have here is a mistake on the devs parts. They most likely assumed that since Eldritch Invocations were in the Warlock class section that people would reason that these were class features which were dependent on being a warlock and/or being a warlock at a certain level.
The reason I said they made a mistake is because they made this assumption as it pertains to nerds and geeks. As we all know, nerds will deconstruct anything and everything, especially if it isn't explicitly stated. They should've learned this from previous editions. Heh.
Ah well. It's pretty clear to me what was intended. For example, since these are warlock features it wouldn't make sense that you can just take 2 levels of warlock and 13 levels of rogue and grab the Master of Myriad Forms invocation (Prerequisite: 15th Level). A second level warlock isn't powerful enough to cast that invocation. A 13th level rogue can't cast any invocations at all. So, why then would a warlock 2/rogue 13 be able to cast it? Does that truly make sense?
Nachturnus wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Inaubryyn wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
The Fighter Extra Attack feature uses both "5th level" (without mentioning "in this class") and "11th level in this class." The implication here is that both sentences mean "in this class." Therefore, when a feature of a class mentions "Level X," it defaults to mean "level in this class."
No... they're both clearly refer to that specific class because they're listed in that classes progression table. Unlike Invocations, which are not.
That argument was already addressed earlier in the thread. Invocations are listed on the Warlock class table.
No, they're not. The number of Invocations are, but not the Invocations themselves.
The invocations themselves are defined in the Warlock class, unlike spells. The ability to gain invocations is listed under the Warlock class and appears on the Warlock class table. All invocations that have a level prerequisite share that level with a level at which a Warlock gains a new invocation on the class table, i.e.: a Warlock class level.
Personally I see no issue with invocations being as written (Class level) as long as you are not allowed to change your invocations unless you gain a warlock level. Unlike classes with the Spell Casting class feature that stack together nicely with each other, Pact Magic class levels would become irrelavant pretty quickly for multiclass characters at higher levels if it did not scale in some way with class level. Providing this scaling through invocations works well and I have yet to see or hear anything game breaking by doing so.
Peskat wrote:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/529655572862210048
rmn498 wrote: