I just got my Player's Handbook (2024) and have been prepping a warlock ahead of my first ever campaign 🙈
I tried to search for an answer to this but the vast majority of answers seemed to be taking wording from perhaps the 2014 rules? Wherein I believe it stated that the warlock can "become invisible" unless I am mistaken.
With the change of wording, does this invocation now require the spell to be learned i.e from the spell list after hitting level 5, or through other means, and prepared, before it can be used?
Apologies if this is an obvious one! I get the vibe this would most likely be a RAW but want to make sure.
You don’t need to learn the spell, you can simply cast Invisibility in Dim light or Darkness. No need to already know it nor does it actually use your spell slots. Also, in D&D Beyond, the basic rules and the warlock section can help with any other problems you may have.
you can simply cast Invisibility in Dim light or Darkness.
That is a huge difference form the actual spell and is a big drawback. Don't forget invocations in general can be cast every turn, not that you want to.
I just got my Player's Handbook (2024) and have been prepping a warlock ahead of my first ever campaign 🙈
I tried to search for an answer to this but the vast majority of answers seemed to be taking wording from perhaps the 2014 rules? Wherein I believe it stated that the warlock can "become invisible" unless I am mistaken.
With the change of wording, does this invocation now require the spell to be learned i.e from the spell list after hitting level 5, or through other means, and prepared, before it can be used?
Apologies if this is an obvious one! I get the vibe this would most likely be a RAW but want to make sure.
Thanks! 🤗
You don't need to apologize. There are plenty of rules to know.
There are several ways to cast a spell without expending a spell slot:
Cantrips. A cantrip is cast without a spell slot.
Rituals. Certain spells have the Ritual tag in the Casting Time entry. Such a spell can be cast following the normal rules for spellcasting, or it can be cast as a Ritual. The Ritual version of a spell takes 10 minutes longer to cast than normal, but it doesn’t expend a spell slot. To cast a spell as a Ritual, a spellcaster must have it prepared.
Special Abilities. Some characters and monsters have special abilities that allow them to cast specific spells without a spell slot. This casting is usually limited in another way, such as being able to cast the spell a limited number of times per day.
Magic Items.Spell Scrolls and some other magic items contain spells that can be cast without a spell slot. The description of such an item specifies how many times a spell can be cast from it.
With the change of wording, does this invocation now require the spell to be learned i.e from the spell list after hitting level 5, or through other means, and prepared, before it can be used?
While I agree with the other answers I thought I might add some more clarification. The invocation allows you to cast the spell with no need of knowing it or having it prepared from another source (but you do need to provide the components as normal for casting a spell). But that also means that you don't know it or get it prepared for any other sort of use (and it doesn't count as a Warlock spell for you). So you can't cast it with any spell/pact slots you otherwise have or upcast it or any such.
That is a huge difference form the actual spell and is a big drawback.
While true it is still quite an improvement from the 2014 version of the invocation where moving or taking actions caused you to lose your invisibility (while also imposing the same limitations on when you could become invisible).
With the change of wording, does this invocation now require the spell to be learned i.e from the spell list after hitting level 5, or through other means, and prepared, before it can be used?
While I agree with the other answers I thought I might add some more clarification. The invocation allows you to cast the spell with no need of knowing it or having it prepared from another source (but you do need to provide the components as normal for casting a spell). But that also means that you don't know it or get it prepared for any other sort of use (and it doesn't count as a Warlock spell for you). So you can't cast it with any spell/pact slots you otherwise have or upcast it or any such.
Yeah, I know this is RAW, but personally I'm ruling Eldritch Invocations are considered Warlock spells.
But if they aren't, the Spellcasting Ability for some spells like Silent Image (Misty Visions) or Disguise Self (Mask of Many Faces) would be undefined, a Spellcasting Focus couldn't be used in some cases (e.g. Armor of Shadows (Mage Armor) or Ascendant Step (Levitate)), and some game features couldn't interact with certain spells.
But if they aren't, the Spellcasting Ability for some spells like Silent Image (Misty Visions) or Disguise Self (Mask of Many Faces) would be undefined, a Spellcasting Focus couldn't be used in some cases (e.g. Armor of Shadows (Mage Armor) or Ascendant Step (Levitate)), and some game features couldn't interact with certain spells.
These minor inconveniences aren't the end of the world though and it can be viewed as one interesting way that spellcasting as a Warlock is a bit unique and different in some ways compared to other classes. It's also an additional way to create a bit more balance and restriction to counter the fact that such spellcasting does not require using a spell slot even though many of these spells are stronger than cantrips.
Not using your spellcasting focus just means that you have to have access to the actual spell component that you carry on your person and it can potentially create a free hand issue, making it slightly less convenient to cast these during combat, but totally fine outside of combat.
Although there isn't really a rule for it, I think that not having a spellcasting ability in cases like this can be explained by just making the ability check in question an auto-success. For example, you create an illusion when you cast Silent Image. If another creature is actually suspicious for some reason and actually goes through the trouble of taking the Study action, then he is just automatically successful when conducting this examination. In this way, it's a slightly weaker version of Silent Image that you get to cast without using a spell slot and I think that's totally fine. As far as I know, there is no Invocation which allows you to cast an offensive spell that requires a creature to make a Saving Throw, and that's probably for this reason.
I realise what was causing the ambiguity for me, and to keep it incredible simple and easy I will likely just run it past my DM before I mess with it :) though I definitely see how else it is interpreted now thank you!
BUT for the clarity of where my confusion came from because I think it was not clear, there are 2 things caused some ambiguity for me.
First is that I have seen many examples so far in reading of a description for a feature or spell explicitly stating something like "the spell is always prepared..." or similar phrases - so in omitting that I was a little unsure if it was just a modifier or did indeed provide the spell as well by default, given how often this seems to be explicitly stated.
And secondly I was thrown just by the syntax of it all, which I do believe still lends to a reasonable amount of ambiguity :') One could say that to look at the sentence as a whole "you can cast invisibility on yourself without using a spell slot" you could absolutely say the meaning of this sentence is to modify the spell to remove the spell slot requirement, and that's all. Whereas if it read more like something along the lines of "...you can cast invisibility on yourself. When cast this way it does not use a spell slot" it would be made unequivocally clearer for me.
But you could of course look at the two parts of this sentence separately and interpret that I now "can cast invisibility" and also do so "without using a spell slot".
But as it reads for me, as a single statement with no breaks, commas, or obvious emphasis (at least not for me), I am definitely left feeling less than 100% sure.
Regardless, thanks for the clarification! I appreciate the the help and the links to other resources and answers re. similar feats.
Thank you so much!! o7
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just got my Player's Handbook (2024) and have been prepping a warlock ahead of my first ever campaign 🙈
I tried to search for an answer to this but the vast majority of answers seemed to be taking wording from perhaps the 2014 rules? Wherein I believe it stated that the warlock can "become invisible" unless I am mistaken.
With the change of wording, does this invocation now require the spell to be learned i.e from the spell list after hitting level 5, or through other means, and prepared, before it can be used?
Apologies if this is an obvious one! I get the vibe this would most likely be a RAW but want to make sure.
Thanks! 🤗
You don’t need to learn the spell, you can simply cast Invisibility in Dim light or Darkness. No need to already know it nor does it actually use your spell slots. Also, in D&D Beyond, the basic rules and the warlock section can help with any other problems you may have.
That is a huge difference form the actual spell and is a big drawback. Don't forget invocations in general can be cast every turn, not that you want to.
You don't need to apologize. There are plenty of rules to know.
It's as ClassicCharismaCaster said, but I wanted to add that since the spell is cast without slots, it's always cast at its lowest possible level. See What level is a spell if you cast it without a spell slot? in the SAC, and:
Also, I'd say your question is similar to Do you need to have See Invisibility prepared to use the Diviner's Third Eye See Invisibility feature?, just for a different feature.
While I agree with the other answers I thought I might add some more clarification. The invocation allows you to cast the spell with no need of knowing it or having it prepared from another source (but you do need to provide the components as normal for casting a spell). But that also means that you don't know it or get it prepared for any other sort of use (and it doesn't count as a Warlock spell for you). So you can't cast it with any spell/pact slots you otherwise have or upcast it or any such.
While true it is still quite an improvement from the 2014 version of the invocation where moving or taking actions caused you to lose your invisibility (while also imposing the same limitations on when you could become invisible).
Yeah, I know this is RAW, but personally I'm ruling Eldritch Invocations are considered Warlock spells.
But if they aren't, the Spellcasting Ability for some spells like Silent Image (Misty Visions) or Disguise Self (Mask of Many Faces) would be undefined, a Spellcasting Focus couldn't be used in some cases (e.g. Armor of Shadows (Mage Armor) or Ascendant Step (Levitate)), and some game features couldn't interact with certain spells.
This long thread might be interesting for the OP or future visitors, this long thread covers the debate on What exactly is considered a Warlock Spell, especially when multiclassing. Worth noting that the answers are pre-5.5e SAC, so the clarification for Which of a character’s spells count as class spells? For example, if I’m playing a Sorcerer, which of my character’s spells are Sorcerer spells? was not taken into account in several posts.
These minor inconveniences aren't the end of the world though and it can be viewed as one interesting way that spellcasting as a Warlock is a bit unique and different in some ways compared to other classes. It's also an additional way to create a bit more balance and restriction to counter the fact that such spellcasting does not require using a spell slot even though many of these spells are stronger than cantrips.
Not using your spellcasting focus just means that you have to have access to the actual spell component that you carry on your person and it can potentially create a free hand issue, making it slightly less convenient to cast these during combat, but totally fine outside of combat.
Although there isn't really a rule for it, I think that not having a spellcasting ability in cases like this can be explained by just making the ability check in question an auto-success. For example, you create an illusion when you cast Silent Image. If another creature is actually suspicious for some reason and actually goes through the trouble of taking the Study action, then he is just automatically successful when conducting this examination. In this way, it's a slightly weaker version of Silent Image that you get to cast without using a spell slot and I think that's totally fine. As far as I know, there is no Invocation which allows you to cast an offensive spell that requires a creature to make a Saving Throw, and that's probably for this reason.
I realise what was causing the ambiguity for me, and to keep it incredible simple and easy I will likely just run it past my DM before I mess with it :) though I definitely see how else it is interpreted now thank you!
BUT for the clarity of where my confusion came from because I think it was not clear, there are 2 things caused some ambiguity for me.
First is that I have seen many examples so far in reading of a description for a feature or spell explicitly stating something like "the spell is always prepared..." or similar phrases - so in omitting that I was a little unsure if it was just a modifier or did indeed provide the spell as well by default, given how often this seems to be explicitly stated.
And secondly I was thrown just by the syntax of it all, which I do believe still lends to a reasonable amount of ambiguity :') One could say that to look at the sentence as a whole "you can cast invisibility on yourself without using a spell slot" you could absolutely say the meaning of this sentence is to modify the spell to remove the spell slot requirement, and that's all. Whereas if it read more like something along the lines of "...you can cast invisibility on yourself. When cast this way it does not use a spell slot" it would be made unequivocally clearer for me.
But you could of course look at the two parts of this sentence separately and interpret that I now "can cast invisibility" and also do so "without using a spell slot".
But as it reads for me, as a single statement with no breaks, commas, or obvious emphasis (at least not for me), I am definitely left feeling less than 100% sure.
Regardless, thanks for the clarification! I appreciate the the help and the links to other resources and answers re. similar feats.
Thank you so much!! o7