D&D 5E Sage Advice!

[Runny]

And here we have the problem with trying to answer questions in 140 characters or fewer.

Guys, I admit I'm doing some educated guessing, but I don't think Mike's answer meant that it was up to the DM whether a warlock's limitations on invocations was based total level or class level. On every other occasion, he's clarified that things based on level (i.e. cantrips) are based on total. He clarified that specifying "paladin spell slot" for divine smite was a mistake. The PHB, as written, does not contain any rules for judging level-dependent effects by "class level." (Well, I guess the multiclass rules for learning spells kind of qualifies, but it's very specifically called out as an exception.)

I think Mike was referring to the "retraining" part of the question which (if one only quickly skims the question) could easily jump out as the primary concern. The PHB doesn't have rules for retraining, except for swapping out spells. I can easily see that being a table-by-table question.

One Invocation is explicitly allowed to be retrained every time you take a warlock level.

 

[Runny]

The warlock thing is rather frustrating. I'm playing a blade lock paladin and these rulings make my life much harder. I can't believe they say yes to shield and weapon but no to two handed weapons. That is insane. A least I can burn warlock slots on smites. That is one fixed ruling and welcome Clarification.

 

[Runny]

And really... Agonizing Blast applies per attack but Empowered Evocation does not on scorching ray. That is super silliness.

 

[Runny]

Why even offer a blade lock option without ANY spells it can cast with a big ol blade? Rangers at least get Hunter's Mark as verbal only. Hex is VSM. Seriously?

 

[Mouseferatu]

One Invocation is explicitly allowed to be retrained every time you take a warlock level.

*headdesk*

I missed that, too, apparently. I am not making a great showing of my rules savvy tonight.

 

[Runny]

No worries, the night is still young! Cheers.

 

[Juriel]

Thanks for the compiling, Morrus!

I wish Mearls didn't answer to stuff he doesn't know. Like the reach weapon ruling or do Warlock invocations mean Warlock level or character level...

Still, Mearls saying 'free action can be used to sheathe your old weapon and draw a new one' does mean that you should be able to just as well do 'sheath old weapon, cast a spell, draw old weapon'. Or to take the hand off the two-hander for a second...

 

[Runny]

I slept on it and think I understand the ruling. You can't wield a two handed weapon and cast. You can hold it in one hand, thus not yielding it, and cast a spell. Then you can hold it with both hands and start wielding it again.

The kicker here is I don't think you can do all of this as a reaction (Hellish Rebuke I'm looking at you). That seems fair... If you want to cast VS spells as a reaction you should take combat caster or use a one handed weapon.

 

[brehobit]

I slept on it and think I understand the ruling. You can't wield a two handed weapon and cast. You can hold it in one hand, thus not yielding it, and cast a spell. Then you can hold it with both hands and start wielding it again.

The kicker here is I don't think you can do all of this as a reaction (Hellish Rebuke I'm looking at you). That seems fair... If you want to cast VS spells as a reaction you should take combat caster or use a one handed weapon.

Fair point. The reaction thing should apply to those with shields also. Apparently clerics could cast VSM reactions with a shield, but not VS? Oyi. I think we need a reasonable FAQ to answer all this in a consistent way. I'm a fan of "DM makes the call" but that should be game specific things, not basic rules. Otherwise organized play is dead in the water as a character goes from useful to useless in a single ruling.

 

[Juriel]

I'm a fan of "DM makes the call" but that should be game specific things, not basic rules. Otherwise organized play is dead in the water as a character goes from useful to useless in a single ruling.

This.