Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SilentBoba" data-source="post: 6370168" data-attributes="member: 6692389">Let me make sure I understand, because this thread was a bit mind blowing for me.&nbsp; I'm still not convinced it's as simple as &quot;levels is levels is levels&quot; 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).&nbsp; 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 &quot;level&quot; as a prerequisite (e.g. some warlock invocations such as Dreadful Word at 7th level) and &quot;level&quot; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Ditto for the every 4 levels stat bumps, since they're also apparently class features.&nbsp; 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 &quot;level&quot; is still murky at times, since it begs the question of &quot;what level do you mean?&nbsp; character?&nbsp; class?&nbsp; spell?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SilentBoba, post: 6370168, member: 6692389"] 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?" [/QUOTE]

Verification