8
\$\begingroup\$

Hellfire Warlock prestige class (Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells variant, p. 89) mentions:

Invoking: At each level, you gain new invocations known, increased damage with eldritch blast, and an increase in invoker level as if you had also gained a level in the warlock class. You do not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained.

What does the book mean by invoker level? The term invoker level is not mentioned in Complete Arcane under Warlock class.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

It is a caster level 'substitute' for a class with Invocations class feature.

It affects checks to beat targets' Spell Resistance, level dependent variables of Invocations (of those which have them, obviously), various detection issues, etc.


If you are interested in formal reading, then there is really no such thing as invoker level as a defined game term (as @KRyan points out). Invokers actually do have caster levels and most things that deal with caster level are relevant to them.

So it is an error in term usage and... up to DM? I don't know. To me, it is just too obvious, what Fiendish Codex meant, to question the reading, this answer presents.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ It would probably be worth addressing that this isn’t a defined term that Complete Arcane uses—that book uses “caster level,” and it’s rather relevant that they do so, as they discuss at length, because feats and prestige classes can and do require “caster level” and the warlock is supposed to meet those requirements. Likewise bonuses to “caster level” are supposed to apply to the warlock, and so on and so forth. Fiendish Codex II’s usage here is an error. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Oct 26 at 5:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ The save DC for warlock invocations are calculated by: 10 + spell level + charisma modifier. When that is the case, calling it "invoker level" does not really make sense, thus where the error is. \$\endgroup\$ – UniQuadrion Oct 26 at 19:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ This isn't a “formal reading,” whatever that is, this just the rules. “Invoker level” doesn’t exist, there are no rules for it, nothing. It is simply a mistake in Fiendish Codex II. The book should say “caster level.” I feel like this answer gives readers the wrong impression. “Invoker level” isn’t a “caster level substitute,” warlocks don’t use any such substitute, they use “caster level,” as is. The only “substitution” here was the author and/or editors of FC2 substituting the correct term with an incorrect one. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Oct 26 at 19:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I meant to say substitution term, not substitution game element, if it makes difference. On the other hand, why 'formal' is inappropriate word here? Didn't get it. \$\endgroup\$ – annoying imp Oct 27 at 6:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @UniQuadrion DC's have nothing to do with caster or 'invoker' level. Why bring it here? \$\endgroup\$ – annoying imp Oct 27 at 6:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.