Potent Dragonmark and Spell Preparation. (Eberron: Forge of the Artificer)

Quote from Ancoulainn >>

You keep referencing statements from the PHB that don't make the statement you think they do. Yes, class features and feats are enumerated separately in the Rhythm of Play section, but that's an enumeration, not a definition. If you read it as if it were a definition, you're reading it wrong. You're grasping at straws as I see it and completely misunderstand what the rules and rulings actually say and read into them. 

The rules aren't rules? When taken collectively, it is clear that the rules treat specific feats and class features as separate.

In regards to the Sage Advice, Spellcasting > Spells Prepared.

Each spell you prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell.

If you are reading the rules and think a prepared spell is associated with multiple classes, you are reading them wrong. 

Quote from Ancoulainn>>

The ruling on Wild Surge says

A Wizard multiclasses into a Sorcerer with the Wild Magic Sorcery subclass. Do spells cast from their spellbook trigger Wild Magic Surge if they are on the Sorcerer spell list, or do they have to gain them from Sorcerer to trigger?

From the multiclassing rules: “Each spell you prepare is associated with one of your classes.” This rule means only the spells prepared as part of your Sorcerer class features trigger Wild Magic Surge.

It says that the spell has to be prepared as part of theSorcerer class features, not that it has to be specifically the Sorcerer Spellcasting feature. The Sorcerer Spellcasting feature is just one of the Sorcerer class features. I think I've corrected that now about half a dozen times and you still keep confusing it. 

Potent Dragonmark is not a Sorcerer Class feature so it does not allow any prepared spells to trigger Wild Magic and it also does not prepare them as part of the Sorcerer Class Feature which says "If another Sorcerer feature gives you spells that you always have prepared, those spells don’t count against the number of spells you can prepare with this feature, but those spells otherwise count as Sorcerer spells for you."

This is the same reason why taking Magic Initiate (Cleric) to get Cure Wounds isn't going to make Cure Wounds a Sorcerer Spell, casting it isn't going trigger Sorcerer class or subclass features, and you can't use an Arcane Focus with it. 

Quote from Ancoulainn>>

D&D provides a framework or foundation of rules based on which DMs are expected to run games. Mike Mearls called it a "living rules system". As such, not every aspect or interaction is determined by the rules. As such, there is no "rule 0" on this matter, only what we as DMs decide based on how we see things. You see it one way and I see it another way.

And no, the aforementioned quote isn't in the 2024 DMG/PHB as far as I know, not that it would matter as there is no indication that WotC's philosophy would have changed in that regard. Not that they could anyway as it is impossible to make a rule on every single niche situation that the players could come up with over the years. Jeremy Crawford called it a foundation of rules which DMs build upon in his quote:

"Rule 0" is a common name for the principle and you may see it called such in other systems. I believe it was labeled as such in 3.x, but I don't know about 4e. Gary Gygax posited a similar philosophy well before Jeremy Crawford. You have dismissed rule 0 without understanding what it represents.

Quote from Ancoulainn >>

I repeat: The “right way” to play D&D is the way you and your players agree to and enjoy.

So, if you think the rules as you read them are "silly", why would you think that WotC made a "silly" rule?

I'll leave this here:

Quote from Elgate >>

Sometimes RAW is silly.

D&D’s rules cannot account for everything and do not intend to. Sometimes RAW might result in things that don’t make much sense. For example, see the PHB (2014 & 2024 p.364 ) / Basic Rules (2014/2024)  rules on High Jumping:

When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump.

 

These are good rules that apply well to most PCs and creatures.
But now let's have a look at a cat’s (2014)  Strength score. Ooh, 3 (-4).
So 3 + -4 = 0 minimum, which means cats cannot jump by the rules as written. (Note how the Cat (2024) now has a Jumper trait to fix this!)

Now let’s have a look at an Elephant (2014) which has a strength score of 22 (+6). Elephants can jump a terrifying 9 ft into the air. Fear them.

Now of course you might think this silly as cats are known to be great at jumping and elephants rather poor at it in real life. Yet this is what the rules say, so if asked on this forum, this is what we’d be obliged to inform you of. Of course, you can choose to simply not rule it this way in your own game and it'd be sensible of you to do so.

So remember that when someone is trying to inform you of what the rules say, this isn’t them saying that is how you must play it. They’re not trying to ruin your fun, prevent you using a cool idea, or convince you to terrify your players with elephants. They’re just trying to help explain what the rules say. However, saying that, for answers where RAW doesn’t seem to be the most helpful answer, focusing on it to the exclusion of all else will not be helpful either.

The rules are the rules. What they say is silly sometimes. Understand what they actually say before changing them and you will (generally) be better off for it.

I used to judge HeroClix and they have a rule for tournaments that I think D&D tables would generally benefit from. Basically, during a tournament (game session), if a judge (DM) gets a rule wrong, it is correct for that tournament (game session).

I am not trying to tell you that you are playing the game wrong.

To clarify, I simply disagree with

When taken collectively, it is clear that the rules treat specific feats and class features as separate.

and consider this a too far-reaching interpretation, given that ASIs are considered feats and ASIs are explicitly listed under class features in the class sections. From all the passages you quoted, the only distinction between feats and class features is that the latter are class specific whereas the former are available to all classes and any further distinction is grasping at straws. And this applies in particular to the application of feats because, even if we classify them as distinct, that would still not mean that feats would be applied differently as classification and application are two different things and one cannot conclude from one to the other. Anything in this area is unclear - as you once said initially but then did a 180 - and creates a gap for the individual DM to fill. 

And in the end, it's a pointless discussion since everyone does whatever they consider "best" or "most fun" at their table anyway. So, I leave with a slightly altered quote of what you posted:

However, saying that, for answers where RAW doesn’t seem to be the most helpful answer [or no answer at all as in this case], focusing on it to the exclusion of all else will not be helpful either.

Personally I prefer the interpretation that you need to be getting the spell directly from leveling up or a class/subclass feature to treat it as a class spell because a) it substantially future proofs class spell based effects from getting unintended interactions with outside spells and b) narratively fits because if you acquired the ability to cast the spell from something other than a class feature then it’s not operating on the same wavelength and shouldn’t be influenced by powers/effects explicitly tied to spells acquired on the class’ wavelength.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Personally I prefer the interpretation that you need to be getting the spell directly from leveling up or a class/subclass feature to treat it as a class spell because a) it substantially future proofs class spell based effects from getting unintended interactions with outside spells and b) narratively fits because if you acquired the ability to cast the spell from something other than a class feature then it’s not operating on the same wavelength and shouldn’t be influenced by powers/effects explicitly tied to spells acquired on the class’ wavelength.

 Frankly... it makes sense.

If I had N whishes, one would be to Command WotC to review those SAC answers and/or clarify in the books interactions like the one discussed in this thread.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Personally I prefer the interpretation that you need to be getting the spell directly from leveling up or a class/subclass feature to treat it as a class spell because a) it substantially future proofs class spell based effects from getting unintended interactions with outside spells and b) narratively fits because if you acquired the ability to cast the spell from something other than a class feature then it’s not operating on the same wavelength and shouldn’t be influenced by powers/effects explicitly tied to spells acquired on the class’ wavelength.

I am fairly certain that is RAI as well. I am just not a fan. I prefer the, if it's prepared, it's prepared approach. There may be exploits, but I am not too concerned. And in discussions, I am clear that it is a house rule.