Do cantrips rely on caster class level or character level?

[dev6500]

So, all the cantrips do not specify anything like caster level or even class level when they talk about effects that improve with level. Eldritch blast says "the spell makes more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level..."

so does this mean that a cantrip even if you multiclassed out of the original caster class?

RAW I think it does.

[Eslin]

So, all the cantrips do not specify anything like caster level or even class level when they talk about effects that improve with level. Eldritch blast says "the spell makes more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level..."

so does this mean that a cantrip even if you multiclassed out of the original caster class?

RAW I think it does.

Yes, it does. This is like the third thread I've seen on this, why is this so confusing to people?

[dev6500]

Yes, it does. This is like the third thread I've seen on this, why is this so confusing to people?

When you say yes it does, are you saying yes it does rely on character level or yes it does rely on class level? Also could you explain why you think so?

[MeeposFire]

Yes, it does. This is like the third thread I've seen on this, why is this so confusing to people?

Because it is hard to unlearn what you have learned (in fact it is by far harder to do that than teach something completely new). If you have a lot of experience with something similar but not the same that experience will hinder (and at times help) you with the new material. 5e has the benefits and problems associated with having something that looks superficially like something else even though it is actually quite different. Other examples are Tome of Battle/spells (use a similar rating system of 9 levels but are not actually all that similar otherwise) and 4e powers (use similar format that can be pored to other editions and back but those similar looks can hide a lot of differences).

As for the top question as far as I can recall there is no such thing as caster level so to speak in this edition at all. You cast spells at your character's level (which mostly if not wholly only matters to cantrips) or the spell level of the slot used to cast the spell.

[Eslin]

When you say yes it does, are you saying yes it does rely on character level or yes it does rely on class level? Also could you explain why you think so?

Character level. Because it says level, and spells are independent of classes except for the purposes of abilities that specify class spells like potent spellcasting.

[TheOOB]

Caster level isn't a thing in 5e.

[MeeposFire]

Generally speaking if something is to be based off of a specific class's level it is directly mentioned. Cantrips use the language of when you reach level X with no qualifiers on any specific class which is intended to be when you reach that total level.

Ironically one of the biggest reasons this was done was to reduce confusion by making all your spells cast at the same level rather than with different levels but for those used to a 3e mindset in particular (where caster level can be quite different than not just your character level but also your listed class level) you have to deal with unlearning that.

[Eslin]

Caster level isn't a thing in 5e.

Class level's a rough equivalent, it just doesn't apply to spell effects.

[dev6500]

Thanks for the help guys. I was pretty sure caster level didn't exist anymore since I had not seen it written once but I haven't read the 5th edition player's handbook cover to cover. I sort of just flip to a section that I think has information I want and then flip back. So I wasn't 100% certain on this one.

[heavyfuel]

This is like the third thread I've seen on this, why is this so confusing to people?

Because people that are porting from 3.x (don't know ho it worked in 4e) are so used to caster levels being what dictates the potency of their spell casting. When you come to a new game that uses a similar mechanic (character level), it's completely normal to be confused.

But yeah, there shouldn't be threads about it, after all, that's what the Q&A Thread is for

[Chronos]

I wasn't convinced either, until I considered the Magical Training feat. That gives you cantrips without needing to have a casting class at all, so the only way those could work is if they're based on total level, and there's no mention of those cantrips being different from any others, so cantrips you get from classes are also based on total level.

Without that, it's not at all obvious. Does a multiclassed fighter get more attacks based on his total level? No? Then why should a multiclassed warlock get them?

[Eslin]

Because people that are porting from 3.x (don't know ho it worked in 4e) are so used to caster levels being what dictates the potency of their spell casting. When you come to a new game that uses a similar mechanic (character level), it's completely normal to be confused.

But yeah, there shouldn't be threads about it, after all, that's what the Q&A Thread is for

In 4e every class had the exact same resource system - you had two at-will attacks (which I suppose you could call cantrips for an arcane class, though their effects were usually more interesting than 5e cantrips) and a bunch of abilities usable once per encounter or day.

[MeeposFire]

In 4e every class had the exact same resource system - you had two at-will attacks (which I suppose you could call cantrips for an arcane class, though their effects were usually more interesting than 5e cantrips) and a bunch of abilities usable once per encounter or day.

Not exactly true as some classes had more at wills, some received more than one use of a specific encounter/daily, and some had no daily powers at all. This also ignores things like monk powers (had 2 powers in one that you could use) and psionic attack powers which were different in use than other powers.

More important for this conversation is that cantrips were not always at will and they were separate from your at will attack powers.

More accurately is that 4e classes had more similar resource management systems though they are not exactly the same. As a general rule you could say that each class in 4e had 2+ options that they could use at will, multiple uses of the same or different power that was balanced on an encounter usage, each received a compliment of utility powers, and they received a number of daily use resources OR additional class features to balance as a trade.

[Eslin]

Not exactly true as some classes had more at wills, some received more than one use of a specific encounter/daily, and some had no daily powers at all. This also ignores things like monk powers (had 2 powers in one that you could use) and psionic attack powers which were different in use than other powers.

More important for this conversation is that cantrips were not always at will and they were separate from your at will attack powers.

More accurately is that 4e classes had more similar resource management systems though they are not exactly the same. As a general rule you could say that each class in 4e had 2+ options that they could use at will, multiple uses of the same or different power that was balanced on an encounter usage, each received a compliment of utility powers, and they received a number of daily use resources OR additional class features to balance as a trade.

What? No, every single one had the AEDU system, though towards the end they started playing with it with PHB3 classes like the monk and psion. There was also some essentials stuff that I believe worked differently, but it was so appallingly bad that it immediately sunk the edition.

[MeeposFire]

What? No, every single one had the AEDU system, though towards the end they started playing with it with PHB3 classes like the monk and psion. There was also some essentials stuff that I believe worked differently, but it was so appallingly bad that it immediately sunk the edition.

So you just admitted that they don't all have the same exact thing? Glad we both agree on that.

As for essentials stuff being bad are we talking popular or how it worked mechanically because while not as popular with many of the older 4e players because it harkened to things that they thought 4e shouldn't do they actually work pretty well. Those mechanics had a much higher floor and a slightly lower ceiling than many 4e classes. IN fact many times people would remark that the essentials classes were stronger because to low and normal OP players they were better. Only in high OP games were essentials classes were in various levels of being not as high in potential (though still very much able to compete against the printed monsters). So overall they work pretty well though you cannot break the game with some of them as closely as some of the earlier classes.

Oddly the changes in resource management were not the problem. The biggest problem was the loss of choice. More than anything many 4e players liked to be able to choose their abilities at every juncture so even when a class was strong enough to compete with an original class (such as the slayer fighter) the older class's were still preferred warts and all due to their ability to let you choose.

However the point still stands caster level was not needed in 4e.

[Eslin]

So you just admitted that they don't all have the same exact thing? Glad we both agree on that.

As for essentials stuff being bad are we talking popular or how it worked mechanically because while not as popular with many of the older 4e players because it harkened to things that they thought 4e shouldn't do they actually work pretty well. Those mechanics had a much higher floor and a slightly lower ceiling than many 4e classes. IN fact many times people would remark that the essentials classes were stronger because to low and normal OP players they were better. Only in high OP games were essentials classes were in various levels of being not as high in potential (though still very much able to compete against the printed monsters). So overall they work pretty well though you cannot break the game with some of them as closely as some of the earlier classes.

Oddly the changes in resource management were not the problem. The biggest problem was the loss of choice. More than anything many 4e players liked to be able to choose their abilities at every juncture so even when a class was strong enough to compete with an original class (such as the slayer fighter) the older class's were still preferred warts and all due to their ability to let you choose.

However the point still stands caster level was not needed in 4e.

No, I was talking about the fact that nobody understood what the hell essentials were about. The books never bothered explaining the sudden shift in tone and there was no way to integrate it with the rest of 4e - I mean there probably was, it was just incredibly unclear. And yes, that is absolutely a flaw - it wasn't even like 3.5 where things were needlessly complex, essentials were just confusing. Nobody knew how to use it, so nobody tried.

[MeeposFire]

No, I was talking about the fact that nobody understood what the hell essentials were about. The books never bothered explaining the sudden shift in tone and there was no way to integrate it with the rest of 4e - I mean there probably was, it was just incredibly unclear. And yes, that is absolutely a flaw - it wasn't even like 3.5 where things were needlessly complex, essentials were just confusing. Nobody knew how to use it, so nobody tried.

You seemed to be obsessed about trying to make some value judgement where it is not needed. Did an essentials book run over your dog or something? Since when does a book need to explain why something needs new mechanics in a new book? Did every new 3e book need to make a mission statement on why they made a new mechanic? Of course not they just wrote a new mechanic and said "this is how it works enjoy it".

Of course this conversation is immaterial as the point was that not all 4e classes use the same exact power structure. You then say that yes they do but it shouldn't count because it was "confusing" or unpopular? Even if the confusing and unpopular comments are true that still does not change the fact that not all 4e classes use the same structure.

[Eslin]

You seemed to be obsessed about trying to make some value judgement where it is not needed. Did an essentials book run over your dog or something? Since when does a book need to explain why something needs new mechanics in a new book? Did every new 3e book need to make a mission statement on why they made a new mechanic? Of course not they just wrote a new mechanic and said "this is how it works enjoy it".

Of course this conversation is immaterial as the point was that not all 4e classes use the same exact power structure. You then say that yes they do but it shouldn't count because it was "confusing" or unpopular? Even if the confusing and unpopular comments are true that still does not change the fact that not all 4e classes use the same structure.

It's more that they're not viewed as 4e. Didn't say 4e on the box, didn't get used in 4e games, weren't part of the fourth edition (mostly because they killed it).

And the book doesn't need to have a mission statement, however as we've seen it does need to explain what the hell it is and how you use it - when it doesn't, no-one buys it and they end up cancelling a bunch of planned releases and ending the edition.