Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Apologies for the newbie question, but Pact of the Tome specifically states that its spells count as warlock spells, but the other invocations that grant spells don't specify that. For example, Silent Image is not normally on the warlock spell list, but it can be obtained via warlock invocation. Does that make it a "warlock spell" for other purposes?
A strict reading of the rules would say no, since there's nothing there saying it makes it a Warlock spell. There's a rule saying that if a feature grants a spell as "always prepared" then it counts as a Warlock spell, but the invocations (kind of pointedly) do not use the term "always prepared".
The problem with this is that technically if they're not Warlock spells, there's no rule telling you which spellcasting ability to use for them, or enabling you to use a spellcasting focus with the ones that have material components, since both of those parts of the Pact Magic feature explicitly only apply to Warlock spells. Thus it seems extremely unlikely that that's the intended interpretation.
In my experience, regardless of what the rules technically say, pretty much everyone just treats them as though they count as Warlock spells and calls it a day.
pronouns: he/she/they
I treat them as Warlock spells.
I count them as Warlock Spells because they specifically call them "Warlock Spells". Normal eldritch invocations such as Armor of Shadows or something gives a spell you can use without expending a spell slot or material components, whereas additional spells from "Pact of the Tome" use your pact slots, unless I'm misinterpreting the rulings.
For example normal Invocations, they work like
featscantrips. If you have "Fey Touched" as well, you can use a spell slot as your warlock spell,cast a bonus action cantrip, use an eldritch invocation, use misty step from fey touched and use the spell from fey touched, all in the same turn, since in the 2024 rules you are only using a single spell slot.No they don't. As noted in the OP, only Pact of the Tome uses that wording, not any of the other Invocations which was the whole reason for the question. These other Invocations do not count as Warlock spells unless the spell appears on the Warlock Spell List.
These Invocations don't say anything about not requiring material components so they do not provide that feature.
No they don't. Feats and Invocations each specify their own methods for casting Spells. Feats generally declare that the spell is always prepared and/or counts as a class spell. Invocations don't do that.
The rest of your example is likely to run into action economy limitations.
It looks like the two spells where this could come into play, assuming that these spells do not appear on the Warlock Spell List, are Disguise Self and Silent Image because you have to be able to calculate your Spell Save DC. We might apply the rule from casting from a magic item without a spellcasting ability by setting the modifier to +0, but it's probably more correct to just say that you don't have a Spell Save DC when casting these spells in this manner, which slightly nerfs these spells, which is fine. If an enemy decides to take the Study action to examine these illusions they just automatically succeed in detecting them.
For the first part of your reply, i didn't word it properly. I meant that warlock invocations from pact of the tome work like that. Normal invocations can be cast without using a spell slots while invocations, like feats that let you cast a once-per-day spell, let you cast them at will without expending a spell slot or material components like cantrips. The extra spells you get from Pact of the Tome act like normal spells you need to expend pact slots to use.
However, i did make a mistake, you would only be able to use a spell slot as an action or bonus action when you use an invocation at will. (Essentially replacing a cantrip with an invocation)
Interesting -- neither the physical book nor the DNDBeyond text for the Warlock class matches with what you are quoting for Armor of Shadows or Misty Visions with respect to bypassing the need for material components. Are you sure you are not accidentally accessing the 2014 version of these rules?
I think this agrees with what you've just said, but just in case . . . even in 2014 the term "at will" did not mean "no action required". For spellcasting, it generally just meant that the spell can be cast without a spell slot and without any special spell preparation procedures, such as how cantrips work. To cast a cantrip, for example, you still have to expend whichever type of action is required by the spell description. In 2024, this term has mostly been eliminated although it does come up often in the Monster Manual as a category of things that a creature can do with its action (whichever action type it's listed under). Again, this generally refers to casting a spell without a spell slot.
Yeah, that screenshot is definitely of a 5e Warlock. You can also tell by how it's listed as a 2nd level feature; Eldritch Invocations is granted at 1st level in 5.5e.
The "without material components" was removed from all the spell-granting invocations in 5.5e, and the character sheet and character builder do reflect that if you're actually using the 5.5e Warlock class.
pronouns: he/she/they
Sorry if I'm late to the party and/or low-key necro'ing this, but I came from a conversation over on Reddit looking for more detailed answers about this myself. The skinny is, the pact magic feature specifies that spell preps that come from Warlock class features count as Warlock spells. Invocations which grant at-will casts fall under this purview, and they count as Warlock spells.
To cast a spell, it must be prepped. That's just how spellcasting works in 5e, regardless of class. 5e has no separate language for spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary abilities the way previous editions did; they're just all resolved as prepared spells, even though the clear design intent is for them to "replicate" previous editions' spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary abilities.
My read on the rulebooks' language is that it skips the typical "you always have X spell prepped and can cast it Y number of times per short/long rest, and with any spell slots you have" language because there are no restrictions on how many times that spell can be cast. In that light, it would be redundant to say "you always have X spell prepared and can cast it at-will".
As far as what does and doesn't count in the bigger picture...the "Warlock spells" property isn't transitive. You might take Lessons of the First Ones, but that grants an origin feat; if you pick an origin feat that grants spell preps, the feat is the source of those spells, not the invocation itself. Those don't count as Warlock spells.
The same goes for Ability Score Improvement; ASI is a class feature, but it grants the opportunity to select a feat. If you pick a feat that grants spell preps (like for instance, Fey Touched), the source of those preps is the feat rather than the class feature, and they don't count as Warlock spells.
That's where tome pact's unique language comes in; it has to have an exception carved for it, because the additional spells don't actually come from the invocation itself. The invocation lets you summon the Book of Shadows, and that's it. The invocation's text just happens to go on to explain what the Book of Shadows is and what it does. The additional preps come from the book, so without "...and they function as Warlock spells for you," they wouldn't actually count as Warlock spells.
For the record, this is not true; there are lots of features and abilities in 5e and 5.5e that allow casting spells without having them prepared. A spell doesn't count as "prepared" just because you have the ability to cast it; it's not prepared unless something says it's prepared. The Invocations don't say their spells are prepared, which is why this whole issue exists.
It's perfectly reasonable to treat the Invocation spells as Warlock spells, and it's what pretty much everyone does in practice, but there is nothing in the rules that actually says that.
While this is a common misconception, it is not how "class spells" work in 5.5e. Per Sage Advice here, a spell is a Warlock spell if it's on the Warlock spell list or if a feature says it counts as a Warlock spell. It does not need to be a spell you got from a Warlock class feature to count as a Warlock spell. Spells you get from features like Lessons of the First Ones might or might not be Warlock spells, depending on whether they're on the Warlock spell list.
pronouns: he/she/they
That was the case in 2014/5.0e; not so much in 2024/5.5e. The language was -- for the most part -- cleaned up, including the relevant section under Chapter 10: Spellcasting, which makes it clear spells must be prepped before casting. X/day or X/rest spells are likewise considered prepped, for PC's as well as NPC's, regardless of whether they can be cast with spell slots in addition to fixed-use casts. There is absolutely no reason to infer at-will spells are not, nor should not be considered, prepped.
Sage Advice is not errata.
Moreover, that particular Sage Advice response is a comparatively poorly-written one and something of a spectacular non-answer, because it doesn't fully answer the question, or respond to the clear intent of the question: which actually matters, whether a spell is on a class' spell list, or received by way of a feature that isn't that class' Spellcasting feature? The "class spell list" exists to establish which spells a character can acquire through their Spellcasting feature; the source of a spell is what matters for the purposes of which class or subclass features apply.
Fire bolt may be on the "Sorcerer spell list," but an infernal tiefling cannot use Innate Sorcery to get advantage on attack rolls with it unless they also selected it as a cantrip through the Sorcerer's Spellcasting feature. Fire bolt to that character is a species spell, acquired through the Fiendish Legacy (Infernal) feature.
Or, a more direct example: if I'm playing a sorlock and my Warlock subclass is Great Old One, and I have charm person prepped through my Sorcerer Spellcasting feature, it is not a valid spell for use with Psychic Spells. Charm person is a Sorcerer spell for me, not a Warlock spell, despite the fact charm person is on both classes' "spell lists." I gained it through the Sorcerer's Spellcasting feature, not the Warlock's Pact Magic feature. Chapter 2, under multiclassing: "Each spell you prepare is associated with one of your classes..."
Same reason that same sorlock couldn't benefit from Innate Sorcery and Agonizing Blast on the same true strike. True strike is on both class' spell lists, but can only be prepped or cast as one or the other; if it's prepped as a Warlock cantrip it won't benefit from Innate Sorcery, and if it's prepped as a Sorcerer cantrip it's not a valid target for Agonizing Blast.
Even if I'm an evoker wizard, have Magic Initiate (Wizard), and my spell picks through MI (Wizard) are acid splash, fire bolt, and burning hands...
...acid splash and fire bolt will work with Potent Cantrip, because that feature works with any cantrip.
...Sculpt Spells will work with both acid splash and burning hands, because they're both Evocation spells that incur saving throws to avoid damage.
...none of them work with Empowered Evocation or Overchannel, because they were acquired through a feat, not a Wizard class feature (and the feat does not specify those spells count as class spells for the character). They're feat spells. That they're on the "Wizard class list" has no bearing on the source of those spells.
That is, indeed, a common interpretation of what the "class spell" concept means, and it's definitely how a lot of people (including me) interpreted it in 5e, though I think that Sage Advice answer is pretty clear on that not being how it's actually intended to work in 5.5e. Regardless of whether you feel it's poorly written, it's still the only official ruling on the matter. It's perfectly reasonable to ignore that and house-rule that it works the other way if that's what works at your table, but that doesn't change what the official ruling is.
It's also worth noting that the rules for spellcasting saying you need to have a spell prepared to cast it is an example of a general rule; there are a variety of features and abilities that say you can cast specific spells in specific situations without having them prepared, and these are specific rules that overrides the general rule in these cases. The Eldritch Invocations that allow casting spells without having them prepared are an example of this sort of "specific beats general" structure. The fact that an Invocation says you can cast a spell doesn't mean that spell is prepared; it means you can cast that spell even though you don't have it prepared.
pronouns: he/she/they
Except, that Sage Advice answer predates 2024, and hadn't been changed in any way to account for the transition from 5.0, through the OneD&D playtest, to 5.5e. And, it still doesn't answer the core issue of class and subclass features applying to spells as a function of source, not whether that spell exists in a vacuum on a class' "spell list". They must by necessity, because those are the spells accessed through those classes' Spellcasting feature. But, that doesn't mean a spell that happens to be on that list, but prepared through a non-class feature, suddenly becomes a class spell for them.
The principle of "specific beats general" only applies when there's a contradiction or conflict between the general and specific. For instance, there's no application of the principle with the Sentinel feat and opportunity attacks: Sentinel simply adds two additional triggers for when a character may make an AoO, and a rider to successful AoO's; Sentinel doesn't override or conflict with the rule. By contrast, the 5.0e zealot barbarian's Rage Beyond Death feature does apply the principle, because that feature overrides the general rule for what happens when characters hit 0 hit points.
There's no contradiction or conflict with invocations that grant at-will spells. There would be if the invocation specifically stated the spell is not considered prepared, but otherwise the general rule that spells must be prepared to be cast, and that invocations grant at-will casts, co-exist without conflict and it is safely inferred those at-will spells are to be considered prepared (if not in some cases, modified). That's where "specific beats general" applies here: for example, mechanically, Otherworldly Leap grants an at-will preparation of jump that modifies its Range from "Touch" to "Self."
There are just no use cases for which a character may desire to instead cast those spells using a spell slot, and adding the language is simply redundant while doing more harm than good. I mean, let's actually look at how Otherworldly Leap (since I've already used it as an example) would have to read, for maximum clarity and to differentiate it from other "always prepared" spell features:
"You always have the jump spell prepared, and can cast it on yourself without expending a spell slot. You cannot cast the spell using any spell slots you have."
It's absolute nonsense.
This is false. Neither the Eldritch Invocations feature description nor the descriptions for the individual invocations (except for Pact of the Tome) mention anything about having the spell always prepared, so that doesn't happen. Since that doesn't happen, the spell is not considered to be a Warlock spell via the Pact Magic feature. In these cases, it's only a Warlock spell if the spell itself appears on the Warlock Spell List.
Likewise, these invocations do not state or infer that these spells are "learned" or "known" which is the sort of terminology that is used to indicate that certain spells, such as cantrips, are always available (prepared) in your mind without the need to actually prepare them. Instead, with an invocation, you learn a piece of forbidden knowledge which imbues you with an "abiding magical ability" to be able to cast that spell without actually casting it "from your mind". This is why none of the mental stats apply -- you are not casting the spell from your mind at all, you are using a different magical ability to cast it. In this way, a specific vs general exception to the rule that a spell must be prepared in the mind is created by this feature.
The term "at will" has been removed from the 2024 versions of the Invocations because it's just redundant flavor text that means the same thing as "without expending a spell slot". However, the phrase "without expending a spell slot" IS explicitly written into these invocations. But that phrase has nothing to do with whether or not that spell is "always prepared" -- that's a different mechanic. Compare with the wording for many other feats and features which explicitly declare both things to be true:
Magic Initiate: "You always have that spell prepared. You can cast it once without a spell slot . . ."
Remember, the term "prepared spells" generally refers to leveled spells which are cast with a spell slot. If such a spell can also be cast without a spell slot, the feature would have to explicitly say so. In this case, the opposite is true. You actually cannot cast these Eldritch Invocation spells with your spell slots since they are not prepared spells. EDIT: Let me rephrase. The reason why you cannot use your spell slots for these spells is because they are not Warlock spells and the text for the invocation does not explicitly say that you can use your spell slots for these spells.
It doesn't work like that. By default, a Warlock spell is a spell which appears on the Warlock Spell List. It has nothing to do with the "source" of the spell. If the spell is not on the Warlock spell list, then you must gain that spell with a feature which explicitly declares that the spell counts as a Warlock spell. It doesn't matter if that feature is a class feature, a trait, a Feat, or some other type of feature, and class features do not automatically do this by virtue of being a class feature alone -- the class feature must explicitly do this just like any other feature.
This is not true. Many of the rules and mechanics for monsters / NPCs are different than for PCs, especially when it comes to spellcasting. X/day or X/rest spells are only considered to be prepared if there is a rule that says so. In the case of monsters, we do have one line in the PHB which reads like this:
"Most spellcasting monsters don’t change their lists of prepared spells, but the DM is free to alter them."
We also have the general rules for how to read a stat block, found in the Monster Manual, as well as the actual text which appears within those stat blocks:
Note that this description does not actually say that such spells are considered to be "prepared" at all.
As for the text within the stat blocks, let's look at an example from the Ancient Blue Dragon:
This ALSO makes NO mention of these spells being "prepared".
However, even if we did find some text to confirm that such stat blocks are displaying a list of prepared (or more likely, known) spells, this applies only to stat blocks. PCs do NOT have stat blocks. They have character sheets. Those character sheets list Class Features and other features to which that character has access. Those features must explicitly declare that the spells that are mentioned are prepared spells, otherwise they are not. There is no general rule which supports the idea that a spell should be considered to be prepared by default. That is why every spellcasting class has a feature which outlines a specific method for preparing spells that were previously unprepared.
It doesn't actually work that way according to the written rules.
Because Fire Bolt is on the Sorcerer Spell List, it is a Sorcerer spell. If this Infernal Tiefling has one level of the Sorcerer class, it gains access to the Innate Sorcery class feature. Therefore, it CAN gain advantage on attack rolls for that spell because that spell is a Sorcerer spell and you are indeed casting it:
Again, this was a common interpretation for a long time, but it does not actually work that way according to the written rules.
Charm Person is both a Warlock spell and a Sorcerer spell because it appears on both lists. True strike also appears on both lists.
For the Wizard example, the spells in question, acquired from a Feat, are Wizard spells because they appear on the Wizard Spell List.
__________
As for the multiclass clause regarding "Each spell you prepare is associated with one of your classes..." That whole purpose of that clause is for how to deal with having more than one Spellcasting class feature. When you actually use one of those features to prepare a spell, you keep track of that so that when that spell is cast you are required to "use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell." That's all. Reading anything more into it than that is a misinterpretation. Rules only do what they say. None of that has anything at all to do with whether or not the spell itself is classified as a Warlock spell, a Sorcerer spell, and so on. Those are two totally unrelated mechanics.
That's simply not a thing. Features apply to whatever spells they say that they do. In general, features do what they say.
I don't think there's much point in responding to the rest, but I will just point out that none of this is true. The Sage Advice answer I linked to does not predate 2024; it is from the 5.5e version of Sage Advice that was released in April 2025. It did not exist in the 5e version of Sage Advice at all.
pronouns: he/she/they
Pact of the Tome has unique language because the spells gained via Book of Shadows are explicitly not "always prepared". Spells granted via Book of Shadows are prepared only so long as the character's Book of Shadows is on their person. The invocation itself grants only the ability to summon a Book of Shadows. This is in marked difference to any invocation which grants a spell, because the invocation itself grants the ability to cast the spell, as opposed to a middleman mechanic which happens to grant spells in turn.
The difference between "learned," "known," and "prepared" spells was completely deprecated in 5.5e. They are now considered all "preparations," regardless of the theoretical/fluff behind the preparation's source. A Wizard's memorization, Bard's rote learning, Sorcerer's innate understanding, Cleric's divine grant, or Warlock's bargaining, are mechanically identical in 5.5e. And likewise, 5e in any iteration makes absolutely zero distinction between spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or extraordinary abilities as did previous editions; they are, for the purposes of game mechanics, all considered "preparations" as a prerequisite for casting that respective spell.
"None of the mental stats apply..." are you suggesting the Intelligence (Investigation) check DC of disguise self as cast via Mask of Many Faces would be 8 + Proficiency Bonus, as it would have no affixed SAM? Follow your own reasoning to its natural conclusion, here. That would make it the one -- and only one -- spell in the game, as far as I know, that doesn't get SAM added to its spell save DC -- and that's one hell of an exception. I'd really like to know where you stand on this one, in plain language and in front of the entire forum, if you're that certain in your own thought process.
"At-will" and "without expending a spell slot" are synonymous; the former is simply the mechanical shorthand. A spell that can be cast without expending a spell slot, or not cast a certain number of times per short or long rest, can be cast at-will -- in the sense there are no finite resources other than action economy in play. Using the latter language while reserving the former for character sheets (such as on D&D Beyond, which still uses "at-will") is simply a clarification pass. There are no mechanical implications in using the language interchangeably (which, again, is what D&DB does) -- other than to keep munchkins from trying to claim "at-will" means "without regard for action economy," at any rate.
No, cantrips absolutely have to be prepared, and count as preps even though they are categorized separately from leveled spells. This is precisely why you cannot cast a cantrip you do not have prepared. A level 1 Warlock has two cantrip preparations, and if friends is not one of those preps, that Warlock cannot cast friends. Again, the fluff behind that preparation does not matter; preparations are still preparations. End of story.
This has everything to do with the source of a given spell, and whether the source of that spell is a class/subclass feature, as pertains to which class/subclass features apply to it. You keep citing rules as-written here, but you provide absolutely zero RAW citation for it. Please do.
I'll be more than happy to screenshot D&DB test characters I created earlier, where I added "Sorcerer spells" to a sorlock through not only MI (Wizard) but multiclassing as well, where Innate Sorcery does not apply to those selfsame "Sorcerer spells," as a counterexample. You'd agree that Hasbro's own officially-sanctioned virtual resource should accurately and appropriately reflect your own interpretation of the official rules, correct?
"Each spell you prepare is associated with one of your classes..." is the plain language of the relevant excerpt. No more, no less. You're right to say the rules do only what they say; in this case, what the rules say is a given spell is associated with one of your classes. The direct implication of that being only the class or subclass features which apply to that association, apply. That is not solely restricted to SAM; if it were, the rules would say so. Because the rules only do what they say. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
Now, as far as NPC stat blocks go? NPC stat blocks -- particularly, 5.0e ones or those published in the period while 5.5e was still in playtest as OneD&D -- are all over the place on actually listing Proficiency Bonuses. If "it's not in the stat block it doesn't exist" is true, are we to understand any monster without a published Proficiency Bonus has a PB of +0, or are we to infer their PB from the difference between proficient skills/saves, and attack modifiers?
Or, can we take a lesson from that shorthand and accept that if a monster has a Spellcasting feature, the spells it can cast are understood to be prepared?
You are conflating a few concepts here. First, we agree that the general rule for spellcasting states that the spell must be "prepared in your mind". Features that do this must explicitly say so. No general rule automatically assumes that a spell that is mentioned is prepared in your mind already.
There are a few standard ways that this can be done. You might "learn" or "know" the spell, and in 5.5e this is most often seen with Cantrips, but there are also some Feats and species traits which use this terminology as well. This is akin to permanently memorizing the spell so that you don't have to worry about it anymore -- it essentially becomes "always prepared" using that method. It's like being in long-term memory. Next, there is the concept of "preparing a list of Level 1+ spells". This is a preparation procedure which results in that spell becoming "prepared in your mind" for casting. The Spellcasting and Pact Magic features for all spellcasting classes now use this method for Level 1+ spells. In 5e, this preparation procedure required some time spent studying or praying in order to make it so that those spells become "prepared in your mind". That level of detail has since been eliminated, but this still remains a preparation procedure which does NOT cause these spells to become "always prepared" but instead causes them to simply be "prepared", which could be swapped in and out later on. This is akin to cramming for a test, putting the information into short-term memory which can be replaced by future studying / preparing.
But again, the point is, a feature must use one of those phrases such as "know" or "learn" or "prepare", otherwise that feature does not prepare that spell. Features do what they say.
I addressed this earlier. But yes. There are two reasonable ways for a DM to rule that situation. The first is to use the formula that is used when casting from a Magic Item when you do not have a spellcasting ability. But there isn't really a rule that says that you can do that. The more accurate way to handle this is to actually declare that that casting of that particular spell (and also for Silent Image from Misty Visions) has NO DC. Meaning, if an enemy actually thinks to take the Study action (and is ok with burning his action to do so) to examine your illusion, they will automatically succeed their check. This is a modest nerf to those spells for the benefit of being able to cast them without a spell slot. Other Eldritch Invocation spells are also nerfed -- you can cast Mage Armor, but only on yourself. You can cast Levitate, but only on yourself. Same with Invisibility and Jump. If you select those Invocations, you sign up for those limitations.
Ok, we agree on that then. I may have mixed up your take with someone else's. I thought you were saying that these clauses also somehow imply that the spell in question is automatically "always prepared". Neither of those above two clauses imply that whatsoever. If a feature intends to provide a spell that is always prepared, it must actually say so.
No, cantrips are generally "known" or "learned" and it is through that mechanism that they become "prepared in your mind". They are generally not "prepared spells" in the sense of appearing on any list of prepared spells that you are required to prepare. Again, the whole reason why cantrips are able to become "prepared in your mind" without using the word "prepare" within their features is because those features DO use words such as "know" or "learn". A feature cannot simply say nothing at all and cause a spell to become prepared in your mind. It has to explicitly state that it happens somehow.
This really is wrong. Neither the text within the rulebooks nor the Sage Advice explanation back up this interpretation. This used to be a common interpretation. But it's simply not what is written.
Here are some RAW citations:
Bard: (It's the same for all spellcasting classes)
The only general rule on the subject says this:
So, if you are a Bard and a feature explicitly says that the spell is a Bard spell for you or if it explicitly says that the spell is added to the Bard Spell List, then that's what happens. Otherwise, if it's on the Bard Spell List, then it's a Bard Spell, and if it's not, then it's not. This mechanic does not care at all about the "source" of the spell.
Now, for the mechanic in question -- for Warlocks -- admittedly it does get a bit tricky because there are a few logical steps. It goes like this:
Warlock --> Pact Magic:
Warlock --> Eldritch Invocations: (does NOT say that it grants spells that are "known" or "learned" or "always prepared")
The specific Invocations also mention nothing about the spell being "always prepared":
Instead, this spell is never prepared at all. The general knowledge about how spellcasting works requires the spell to be "prepared in your mind" by some method. However, you have unearthed "forbidden knowledge" which imbues you with an ability to break these rules. Because of this forbidden knowledge, you don't use your mind at all to cast these spells. You use some other unknown technique / "ability" to do it. Casting spells in this manner has pros and cons compared to typical spellcasting. The main benefit is that you can do this without using spell slots, which is great for Warlocks. But there are costs. Costs such as spells being slightly nerfed, and not being able to use a spellcasting focus, which could cause "free hand" issues and so on (more so under the 2014 rules). Another cost is that these spells do not count as Warlock Spells for the purposes of those other feature interactions.
These implementations are notoriously buggy and inaccurate in a great many ways. Whenever a discrepancy exists between the implementation and the rule books, the rule books always win. The rule books tell us what is the RAW.
This is totally incorrect.
That multiclass section is simply a discussion of what to do when you have more than one Spellcasting feature and you have already decided to use one of those features to prepare a spell. When you do that, you must use the corresponding spellcasting ability that is listed within that same feature from that same class. But wait! You've prepared a bunch of spells. How do you know which class feature you used? Well, you keep track of this when you prepare the spell. In other words, "each spell you prepare is associated with one of your classes". That's how you know which spellcasting ability to use when you cast it.
As an example, I am a Sorcerer/Wizard. I use my Wizard Spellcasting feature to prepare the Level 4 spell "Banishment". As it turns out, Banishment IS a Wizard spell AND a Sorcerer spell. But that's not all. It's ALSO a Cleric spell AND a Paladin spell AND a Warlock spell. When I cast that spell, if I have another feature that cares about whether or not the spell is a Sorcerer spell -- it is, by rule. Now, in order to actually cast that spell, I am required to use INT as my spellcasting ability because I must use my Wizard Spellcasting feature to cast it. That's because when that particular spell was prepared, it became associated with my Wizard class for that purpose.
Now, to extend that example further, suppose you are a Bard. You somehow take a Feat that grants you the ability to cast Banishment without a spell slot and the feat says nothing else. When you cast it, did you cast a Bard spell? No. Was that spell "prepared"? No.
Next, suppose that a new Bard subclass was recently published and you choose that subclass. Instead of gaining the ability to cast Banishment from a Feat as above, you instead gain the ability to cast Banishment from a feature within your Bard subclass. The feature says only that you can cast it without a spell slot and nothing more. When you cast it, is it a Bard spell? No. But wait, what about the Bard feature that says that if a Bard feature gives you a spell that's "always prepared", then that spell is a Bard spell for you? Well, did the new subclass feature say that the Banishment spell is "always prepared"? No. So, no, it's not a Bard spell when you cast it.
The point here is that rules for stat blocks are rules for stat blocks. Those rules do not automatically apply to PCs. Even if we can find a monster stat block which lists Banishment as a spell that it can cast and we also find a general rule for stat blocks which confirms that when it is listed there then this means that the monster has that spell "prepared" . . . that does NOT mean that the feature which grants you the ability to cast Banishment causes it to be "always prepared" for you. For that to happen, it must actually say so.