Is Warlock broken?

[Xelights]

How can a warlock modify an eldritch blast (standard action) with an invocation (standard action)?
Is this an oversight or am I missing something?  Where in the book does it say one or the other becomes free?

___________


"Invocations (Sp): ..A warlock’s invocations are spell-like abilities; using an invocation is therefore a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity." - Pg 7, Warlock class features

"Eldritch Blast (Sp): ... feats cannot improve a warlock’s eldritch blast (because it is a spell-like ability, not a spell)." -Pg 7, Warlock class features.

"Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description, ..." SRD - special abilities
 
"Invocations and Eldritch Blast: Eldritch blast is not an invocation, but some invocations provide a warlock with the ability to modify his eldritch blast or add new eldritch attacks." -Pg 8, Warlock invocations description


Now there's a lot of text about Eldritch Essence/Blast Shape Invocations on pg 8-10, too much to quote even, but I cannot find anything about the subject in it. In fact, the word "free" or "action" do not even appear anywhere.

There's also a small part about modifying eldritch blasts at the invocation list pg 130, however they do not shine light on the issue either. And the invocations themselves have no casting time associated to them (unlike spells).

____________

I've heard a counterargument, that states that perhaps the Eldritch Essence/Blast Shape Invocations simply modify all future Eldritch Blasts, this is false. In many, many descriptions the wording is written so to specifically mention "an eldritch blast" is what is modified, which is singular.
____________

Please let me know if I am missing something!

[NineInchNall]

What kind of action is required to apply an eldritch
essence invocation or blast shape invocation to the
warlock’s eldritch blast? How long do these invocations last
once applied?
No action is required to apply an eldritch essence or blast
shape invocation to the eldritch blast; it’s done as part of using
the eldritch blast itself.
Eldritch essence and blast shape invocations affect only the
eldritch blast to which they are applied. The warlock can apply
them again to later blasts as desired.

This is strongly implied but not explicit in the description in the invocation section of Complete Arcane, which states

They do not produce an effect on their own like regular invocations, but must be used in conjunction with eldritch blast to generate an effect.

[Xelights]

Where can I find this FAQ? I could only find online Errata that didn't specify it. Also is this FAQ supplemental and does it supersede rulings?

About the quote. Yes, There are simular quotes like this to be found in the book. but just because abilities are meant to work together, doesn't mean that one automatically becomes a free action. In fact, most abilities that work like this. are noted "(Ex)" for extraordinary, which are by default free actions as opposed to "(Sp)" Spell-like with standard actions.

[kitep]

You can find FAQs at http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a

The quote in question is in the "v 3.5 Main D&D FAQ"

[linklord231]

There are two valid interpretations based on the text of Complete Arcane.  One interpretation is that you would take a Standard Action to "turn on" an Essence or Blast Shape Invocation, which would then (likely, since no duration is specified) last until it is turned off.  The alternative interpretation is that merely taking an Essence or Blast Shape Invocation allows you to use it as part of the same action of using your Eldritch Blast.

While the question "does the FAQ supersede the books" is still debated, everyone seems to agree that at the very least it has the authority to give a ruling on which of two otherwise valid interpretations of the same rule exist.  This is one such situation, so you should use the ruling it provides. 

[SorO_Lost]

While the question "does the FAQ supersede the books" is still debated

And here is that "debate" in a nut shell.

When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. ...
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity.

vs
"But if I ignore rules text, quote out of context, commit a couple other logical fallacies, built the wrong idea, probably contradict my self at some point, and lull even dumber people into supporting my position, that doesn't mean I'm not right." See also Link calling it debatable because just to simply get that far you have to ignore the Rules Compendium and FAQ.

[Kaelik]

While the question "does the FAQ supersede the books" is still debated

And here is that "debate" in a nut shell.

When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. ...
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity.

vs
"But if I ignore rules text, quote out of context, commit a couple other logical fallacies, built the wrong idea, probably contradict my self at some point, and lull even dumber people into supporting my position, that doesn't mean I'm not right." See also Link calling it debatable because just to simply get that far you have to ignore the Rules Compendium and FAQ.

What the fuck are you smoking? You just quoted a Rules Compendium rule that literally never even mentions the FAQ as apparently support for the FAQ being somehow able to contradict the rules?

You get that when people say the FAQ can't contradict the rules, they are citing the actual FAQ for that proposition right?

No one is ignoring the Rules Compendium to get to the point of the debate where they disagree with an FAQ ruling.

[SorO_Lost]

Hi Welcome!

It's been a while Kaelik, not long enough through, abd I can see in your time off you've matured very little which isn't surprising. The FAQ is inherently part of the rules structure and the rule priority it has, trumping even the original entries, while implied is even more important directly called out through it's entries being specific rulings of interactions was granted to it by the Rules Compendium. Ignoring the FAQ is ignoring the game rules and calling any ruling debatable is ignoring the RC.

Here, have a wonderful comment by a former D&D 3.5 writer who worked on the MM3, SpC, Explorer's Handbook & Dungeonscape.

But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

I promise you, if you can just take that to heart it'll work like a magical key to everything in life. It is one of the easy buttons for life. And yes I said life, not just your ability to debate a forum post solely using ad hominian attacks with no contrary evidence, but it'll actually make your sad life a lot better too.

[eggynack]

Where is the FAQ being part of the rules structure indicated in the rules compendium? That text you cited only indicates that the rules compendium has broad precedence, and the rules compendium is distinct from the FAQ. The rules compendium isn't even that strongly analogous to the FAQ, being a repository of what are explicitly rules rather than rulings. I don't even see where it's implied that the FAQ would have rule power.

Separately, what do you think about situations where the FAQ directly contradicts existing and unambiguous rules? Are we to take something as a valid ruling even where it goes as far as to state the exact opposite of the errata? This situation isn't that situation, because the workings here are significantly more ambiguous, but I think it'd be weird to consider something some kinda absolute rule source over here, and then consider it less than that over there.

[SorO_Lost]

Where is the FAQ being part of the rules structure indicated in the rules compendium?

*sigh*
Link: While the question "does the FAQ supersede the books" is still debated
Lost: Per RC, exception>specific>general. The FAQ's even more specific, perhaps even creating exceptions if needed, becomes an even higher priority entry than the original source much like any other WotC provided rule update.
Kaelik: Trolololololol wre is teh FAQ in the rC? ur wrong stuupid.
Lost: Nice to see you haven't changed much, here is some life advice from the authors on the matter.
Eggy: I didn't read the thread of course, so where is the FAQ reference in the RC?! That's a thing you said right? I demand it! You also cited a board reference that I'm going to imply is too broad and therefor must be ignored. Of course, we're not here to debate what the rules say but which ones I believe we should ignore in order to prove me right. Now let me throw up some questions to hopefully to fish for some kind of exception in your text because we all know your answer is far more complex than black/white and I know you won't take the time to repeat your self in the detailed manner it'd take which is exactly the fuel I'm looking for to derail this thread. But be mindful I will never fucking care to figure what you mean or honestly ever really read any of your posts beyond skimming with an incentive to find something to bitch some more about in most likely the most awful way known to humanity. Because as you can see I cannot offer anything else up but the minor fallacy of begging the question even and even through I'm demanding proof, that you've already provided and I forgot about half way through typing this thing, I do not have to provide any of my own because I am always right, and I need something a little more tangible to throw a bitchfit over. I am literally digging for an argument here and you look like you'd be easy to troll. After all, you did actually respond to lik there, are we even still doing that? Anyway, I'm banking on you to give me something to argue, so come on, give in, GIVE IT TO ME!!!!
And thus concludes about four hours in the life of SorO through his perceptions and perceived understandings of some of the people he is forced to interact with and then some of you people are surprised when his replies take on a bitter twist of flavor to them.

[eggynack]

Lost: Per RC, exception>specific>general. The FAQ's even more specific, perhaps even creating exceptions if needed, becomes an even higher priority entry than the original source much like any other WotC provided rule update.

the specific versus general rules aren't a matter of source but of content. The main question as applies to the FAQ is whether it's valid as a rules source in the first place, in spite of its nature as a source for rulings. It's not like link's post specifically questioned the FAQ on the basis of content, so it's weird that you'd toss out a single rules compendium quote with limited context that doesn't address much of the point of the FAQ arguments at all.

Eggy: I didn't read the thread of course, so where is the FAQ reference in the RC?!

I read the thread, but didn't really need to. As you yourself pointed out, this particular aspect of the conversation starts with the thing you quoted, and doesn't have much external stuff to it. This is just a standard FAQ argument. Not much special about it.

 

You also cited a board reference that I'm going to imply is too broad and therefor must be ignored.

It's not that it's too broad. It's that it's not really about this sort of situation. Not sure how exactly it applies in the first place, actually.

Of course, we're not here to debate what the rules say but which ones I believe we should ignore in order to prove me right.

Not at all what's going on. I have zero vested interest in the warlock having this issue. I'd probably prefer a world where things just easily resolved themselves in the warlock's favor, in fact, because why not? My issue lies solely with the FAQ for the FAQ's, and I think the things I think about it whether the source would help my position or not. And, while I tend to argue against the FAQ, I wasn't so much doing that here as I was merely questioning your citation, which, even with this new context of your purpose for it, doesn't seem to have that much impact on the overall debate.

Now let me throw up some questions to hopefully to fish for some kind of exception in your text because we all know your answer is far more complex than black/white and I know you won't take the time to repeat your self in the detailed manner it'd take which is exactly the fuel I'm looking for to derail this thread.

I'm actually just kinda curious about your stance on this one. To what extent do you consider the FAQ a superseding force? Does it override all sources, errata included? Does it only have impact where the game is ambiguous? I have my own positions on these things, but they wouldn't likely reflect yours because I don't put much stock in the FAQ.

But be mindful I will never fucking care to figure what you mean or honestly ever really read any of your posts beyond skimming with an incentive to find something to bitch some more about in most likely the most awful way known to humanity. Because as you can see I cannot offer anything else up but the minor fallacy of begging the question even and even through I'm demanding proof, that you've already provided and I forgot about half way through typing this thing, I do not have to provide any of my own because I am always right, and I need something a little more tangible to throw a bitchfit over. I am literally digging for an argument here and you look like you'd be easy to troll. After all, you did actually respond to lik there, are we even still doing that? Anyway, I'm banking on you to give me something to argue, so come on, give in, GIVE IT TO ME!!!!

Wow, okay. That's a lot of anger right there at some rather short and standard questions about your claims. I don't even have much of a dog in this fight. I just don't understand your position exactly, because it seems to be rebutting a version of the anti-FAQ argument that doesn't exist. Or maybe it's not. After all, your entire argument boiled down to, "Here's a citation. Figure out exactly how I'm using it." For all I know it solved the FAQ problem exactly.

And thus concludes about four hours in the life of SorO through his perceptions and perceived understandings of some of the people he is forced to interact with and then some of you people are surprised when his replies take on a bitter twist of flavor to them.

Honestly, was expecting at least some anger, cause such is your nature, but this was a lot. You've outdone yourself, I suppose.

[Chemus]

When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. ...
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity.

Emphasis mine.

Which core book or supplement is the FAQ?

[deadkitten]

When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. ...
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity.

Emphasis mine.

Which core book or supplement is the FAQ?

This is mostly beyond my expertise in the game. But he will likely say something along the lines of the faq being a supplement by its very nature, cause it cannot exist without the source it expands upon.

[eggynack]

Emphasis mine.

Which core book or supplement is the FAQ?

I think you're misreading the claim. The FAQ isn't the core book or supplement in this analogy. It's taking the place of the rules compendium, and is thus the thing that takes precedence over the core book or supplement. A thing need not be a core book or supplement to take precedence over a core book or supplement, after all. The errata proves this quite ably, if nothing else does.

[Chemus]

Sure, but FAQ =/= Errata

[eggynack]

Sure, but FAQ =/= Errata

The rules compendium is a lot like errata though. And Soro, if I'm not mistaken, is asserting that the FAQ is analogous to the rules compendium within the specific/general rules in some fashion. I don't really agree with the argument, but it seems like the argument you should be arguing against if that's what you're trying to do.

[Kaelik]

The FAQ is inherently part of the rules structure and the rule priority it has, trumping even the original entries, while implied is even more important directly called out through it's entries being specific rulings of interactions was granted to it by the Rules Compendium.

You know what it means when someone says something is "inherently X" it means they have no evidence that it is X. For example,  you claim that the RC directly calls out the FAQ, except for that thing where it totally doesn't. The FAQ aren't rules. The FAQ specifically says it's not rules. Citing a way of interpreting rules does not magically turn not rules into rules. If I write down a specific exception of a napkin, or ask Monte Cook a specific question, those are more specific than FAQs, but they don't supersede actual rules or FAQs, because they are less authoritative.

calling any ruling debatable is ignoring the RC.

Yeah no, as a lawyer, trust me, all fucking kinds of things are debatable. For starters you can always argue that X and Y don't contradict, so it doesn't even matter which is more specific or general or supersedes or whatever.

Here, have a wonderful comment by a former D&D 3.5 writer who worked on the MM3, SpC, Explorer's Handbook & Dungeonscape.

But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

The part where you are confused is that you assume that assuming the FAQ is special magical rules text that supersedes the actual rules of the game makes the game better. Read the FAQ entry for Freedom of Movement sometime. That shit is just terrible.

Ignoring the FAQ isn't something anyone actually does at all, much less to create problems, but we do recognize the FAQ isn't rules text to avoid the problems created by listen to some random asshole mash the keyboard and output garbage that actually contradicts the rules, and makes the game worse. When the FAQ is useful and outputs good results, no one has any problem just houseruling any change it makes. Or if it doesn't contradict the rules, then we can take the advice. But last I checked, Freedom of Movement does not require me to make up new classifications for all abilities and then apply those, and I'm glad it doesn't, and I'll make whatever assumptions I have to in order to avoid having to do that, because that is straight fucking nonsense.

I like Freedom of Movement preventing Paralysis, like it says it does, and I like Paralyzed creatures to be able to cast SLAs and component less spells like the rules say they can. And I really don't think having to change those because someone suggested that maybe paralysis actually takes away all your actions is a thing without reading the actual rules for paralysis because he was just making up an example to Freedom of Movement about a question that asked about stun.

I promise you, if you can just take that to heart it'll work like a magical key to everything in life. It is one of the easy buttons for life. And yes I said life, not just your ability to debate a forum post solely using ad hominian attacks with no contrary evidence, but it'll actually make your sad life a lot better too.

The weirdest part is that you actually believe I'm the immature one who argues by way of ad hominem.

[linklord231]

So yeah, remember how I said "the question "does the FAQ supersede the books" is still debated"?  This is what I was talking about.

[Solo]

"Invocations and Eldritch Blast: Eldritch blast is not an invocation, but some invocations provide a warlock with the ability to modify his eldritch blast or add new eldritch attacks." -Pg 8, Warlock invocations description

Complete Arcane Errata:
Page 8: Invocations and Eldritch Blast
Change this section as follows:
Invocations and Eldritch Blast: Eldritch blast is an invocation. Other invocations provide a warlock with
the ability to modify his eldritch blast or add new eldritch attacks.

Honestly, the way I've always seen it played is that you have your base Eldritch Blast, which takes a standard action to activate, and you have your Essences and Shapes, which you can activate in conjunction with your Eldritch Blast. Haven't seen many people choose the other interpretation.

[ketaro]

Do you, or do you not, want Warlock to be able to actually work as a viable class?

Since clearly there does not seem to be an answer that some people in this thread consider "official" enough to satisfy, it has to be left up to your own opinion as the entire rest of this thread is also only just opinions, apparently. Pick theirs or pick yours.