D&D 5E For cantrips is "level" level or class level?

[SilentBoba]

The book's actually pretty clear, if one can divorce oneself from knowledge of prior editions. (It's difficult for me, but I'm getting there.)

If you simply take the rules as written, without any prior-edition interpretation... The concept of "class level" isn't even called out as something that exists. It's vaguely implied here and there--how multiclass features like spells and multiple attacks do and don't stack--but only somewhat, and only in those very specific instances. Everywhere else in the book, it says "levels." Not "class levels." Not "some levels."

I really don't think there's a question or need for clarification on this one. Levels is levels is levels.

Let me make sure I understand, because this thread was a bit mind blowing for me. I'm still not convinced it's as simple as "levels is levels is levels" though.

Class features that are tied to levels require X number of class levels (such as choosing a class archetype at 3rd, a fighter's Action Surge, or even the maximum spell level you have access to). If this weren't true, there's be no reason not to take 1 level in each class and by 20th level, you'd be 20th level everything.

However, you and others are saying that "level" as a prerequisite (e.g. some warlock invocations such as Dreadful Word at 7th level) and "level" as a means of determining how powerful something is (like 2 Eldritch Bolts at level 5) is based on CHARACTER level?

So a 15/2 Paladin/Warlock with a 20 Charisma is going to be tossing around 4 Eldritch Blasts at 1d10+5 damage each at will (assuming he takes Agonizing Blast invocation, since otherwise he could be tossing around 4 1d10 bolts with ONE warlock level). What bothers me about this is that a 17th level warlock can do no better in terms of damage output with what is essentially their primary weapon than a paladin can do with what is essentially a little side skill he picked up from a correspondence school.

So we have that exploitable loophole on the one hand, yet on the other, mixing melee classes that both offer a second attack at CLASS level 5 don't allow you to use your CHARACTER level to do so. Ditto for the every 4 levels stat bumps, since they're also apparently class features. Yet you can take any caster levels (whether divine or arcane) and mix them together to determine your number of slots, and any spell within any of those classes that you know is castable at your total character level.

So "level" is still murky at times, since it begs the question of "what level do you mean? character? class? spell?"

 

[Andor]

Consider that a Paladin 20, or a Rogue 20 for that matter could cast those 4d10 eldritch bolts bytaking the Spell Sniper feat.

What they are not doing is casting 9th level spells.

Class features, which include spell casting, are tied to a specific class. Non-class features which, and this is admittedly a subtle point, includes spells are not tied to an individual class for level effects.

 

[SilentBoba]

Consider that a Paladin 20, or a Rogue 20 for that matter could cast those 4d10 eldritch bolts bytaking the Spell Sniper feat.

What they are not doing is casting 9th level spells.

Class features, which include spell casting, are tied to a specific class. Non-class features which, and this is admittedly a subtle point, includes spells are not tied to an individual class for level effects.

Hmm...true. I would "fix" your second statement though by phrasing it this way:

"Class features, which include maximum castable spell level, are tied to a specific class. ". If there is a "level" incremental upgrade path within the spell, it's based on character level and not class leve. I think such upgrade paths were intended as a holdover from 4E to keep cantrips viable as "at-wills" for caster classes at higher levels, but as a result of this, they made cantrips potentially far more powerful than low-level spells that no longer automatically progress in power by caster level (instead you cast them with a higher slot). They're trivial to obtain, but hit like sledge hammers.

 

[keterys]

They're trivial to obtain, but hit like sledge hammers.

They really don't. They hit like normalish or slightly substandard attacks.

The example rogue certainly would rather do a normal attack with sneak attack for, say, 11d6+5 (probably plus a couple more due to magic weapon, maybe even more) instead of 4d10.

 

[SilentBoba]

They really don't. They hit like normalish or slightly substandard attacks.

The example rogue certainly would rather do a normal attack with sneak attack for, say, 11d6+5 (probably plus a couple more due to magic weapon, maybe even more) instead of 4d10.

The rogue would gain sneak attack bonus on one of the bolts he hits with (sneak attack works with "an attack"), so conceivably he's doing 4d10 + 10d6, with the only limitation that the target has to be within 5 feet of an unfriendly (to the target, not the rogue). Like I said, sledgehammer.

EDIT: the first blast that hits will hit for 1d10 + 10d6, so it's on par with anything else the rogue might have used to land the sneak attack. Then he gets three more blasts. This is assuming a 19th level rogue, of course.

A 5th level rogue would still get two blasts and therefore two chances at range to hit for sneak damage.

EDIT 2: I'm an idiot. The rogue gets sneak attack only on weapons.

 

[Runny]

Sneak attack only works with weapons.

 

[SilentBoba]

Sneak attack only works with weapons.

I am ashamed of the fact that I missed that, but you are correct.

Still, a rogue with Spell Sniper could switch between attacks based on whether or not the sneak was set up.

 

[the Jester]

Let me make sure I understand, because this thread was a bit mind blowing for me. I'm still not convinced it's as simple as "levels is levels is levels" though.

Class features that are tied to levels require X number of class levels (such as choosing a class archetype at 3rd, a fighter's Action Surge, or even the maximum spell level you have access to). If this weren't true, there's be no reason not to take 1 level in each class and by 20th level, you'd be 20th level everything.

For clarity, it isn't that a given feature "requires X number of class levels"; it's that a given feature only appears once you've reached a certain level in the class. Nowhere does the PH mention a certain number of class levels being required. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the PH never mentions the concept of "class levels" vs. "Just levels", with the exception of one or two class features that specifically mention, for instance, "your warlock level".

However, you and others are saying that "level" as a prerequisite (e.g. some warlock invocations such as Dreadful Word at 7th level) and "level" as a means of determining how powerful something is (like 2 Eldritch Bolts at level 5) is based on CHARACTER level?

So a 15/2 Paladin/Warlock with a 20 Charisma is going to be tossing around 4 Eldritch Blasts at 1d10+5 damage each at will (assuming he takes Agonizing Blast invocation, since otherwise he could be tossing around 4 1d10 bolts with ONE warlock level). What bothers me about this is that a 17th level warlock can do no better in terms of damage output with what is essentially their primary weapon than a paladin can do with what is essentially a little side skill he picked up from a correspondence school.

I suspect he can. Between smites and other various damage-boosting class abilities, I think a paladin 15 is generally going to be better off smacking bad guys than zapping them. Note that I've neither played nor playtested 5e at the high end yet, though, so I may end up being wrong.

So we have that exploitable loophole on the one hand, yet on the other, mixing melee classes that both offer a second attack at CLASS level 5 don't allow you to use your CHARACTER level to do so. Ditto for the every 4 levels stat bumps, since they're also apparently class features. Yet you can take any caster levels (whether divine or arcane) and mix them together to determine your number of slots, and any spell within any of those classes that you know is castable at your total character level.

A spell's caster level doesn't really matter in 5e; only the slot that it's cast in. And casting a 1st level spell in a 3rd level slot is generally inferior to using that slot on a 3rd level spell.

So "level" is still murky at times, since it begs the question of "what level do you mean? character? class? spell?"

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, I would read "level" to mean "level". Not spell level, not class level, just plain level. Until you find class level defined somewhere in the PH- and you won't- I'd discard the entire notion of it being the answer to any rules-related questions on 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

Hmm...true. I would "fix" your second statement though by phrasing it this way:

"Class features, which include maximum castable spell level, are tied to a specific class. ". If there is a "level" incremental upgrade path within the spell, it's based on character level and not class leve. I think such upgrade paths were intended as a holdover from 4E to keep cantrips viable as "at-wills" for caster classes at higher levels, but as a result of this, they made cantrips potentially far more powerful than low-level spells that no longer automatically progress in power by caster level (instead you cast them with a higher slot). They're trivial to obtain, but hit like sledge hammers.

But that really isn't the intent. If you're an 11th level wizard, you have a 6th level spell slot. If you then take a level in cleric, you can prepare a cure wounds spell, as an example. You can use your 6th level spell slot to cast cure wounds as a 6th level spell.

Put succinctly, the efficacy of spells is mediated purely by the spell slot level. The efficacy of cantrips is mediated purely by character level.

You can, of course, change this if you want, but I'm not sure exactly what aesthetic preference you're trying to meet.

 

[Runny]

I think Jester is spot on. I appreciate the analysis. Also, it is very hard to balance multiclassing, so I'd rather the err on the side of giving the Melee Paladin a great ranged attack with only a two level dip in warlock if it means that a two level dip in paladin allows for an awesome Melee warlock.

Another thought... I bet they made the warlock more multiclass friendly on purpose as a bone to 4E fans. The Melee warlock hybrid is one of the favorites in 4E. Also, warlock uses lots of warlock powers from 4E. The whole debate about Melee warlocks sucking is kinda irrelevant from a 4E perspective (where you always were a hybrid warlock if you went Melee).

Anyone read the Stormlight books? Paladin 2 / Warlock 3 is totally a shard bearer. Even makes sense for levels 1-4 because you wield a shard hammer (maul) until you earn your Shardblade.