Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
'Level' is defined in the character advancement table. Any time the game refers to level rather than <class> level, it means total character level.
You literally just made the argument against your position. No where does it say class level. When features mean class level they say class level. Invocations specify class level, magic item plans specify class level, epic boons do not. By your own logic your position is homebrew because you are adding to what is written in the rules to get a class level interpretation. Furthermore level is defined in the creating a character chapter, level advancement section and part of gaining a level is to choose a class. That section shows that level is distinct from class level. When features do not specify class level then they don't use class level. A perfect example of this is cantrips. By your ruling a thief rogue who took true strike through a 2 level wizard dip would never get the additional damage since it just says level, like epic boons.
I'll have to double check, but the words "class level" doesn't appear as a description in either the PHB or DMG. In any case, your reply is a diversion from answering the question I presented to you: Where does it say you gain Epic Boons from Total Character Levels? Answer that with the page number, and you win the argument. If you can't, then I consider our discussion over. Thank you in advance.
Pretty clearly what they mean is that when a feature or rule is referring to levels in one specific class, it always says that explicitly. For example, the Fighter class's "Second Wind" feature says that when you use it, you "regain Hit Points equal to 1d10 plus your Fighter level" (emphasis mine). This is how you know it's referring to your level in the Fighter class specifically, not your total character level. In cases where the word "level" appears without the name of a class attached to it like this (like the prerequisites for feats) it refers to your character's total level.
You are not going to find an explicit statement in the rules that minimum levels stated in feat prerequisites refer to character level; if that's the only thing that will convince you, then yes, you should consider the discussion over, because you are clearly determined not to change your mind no matter what. If you are instead willing to actually read what other people are saying and think about it logically, well, the rules that establish this fact have already been pointed out to you several times (most recently by Pantagruel666 in post #61 in this thread).
Feat prerequisites refer to character level simply because to refer to levels in a specific class, they would have to say what class they're talking about (as I described above) because feats are not class features that are specific to a particular class.
pronouns: he/she/they
If they had intended epic boons to be available only according to class level, they could simply have made their prerequisite "Epic Boon class feature". Then it would be clear that you would need 19 levels in a single class to qualify for any epic boon. Since they didn't do that, 19+ levels in any combination works.
That's an excellent point. Fighting Style feats already work that way (the prerequisite being a specific class feature) so there's precedent.
pronouns: he/she/they
I already gave you examples of when the rules specify you need a certain level in a class. Does a thief rogue who took true strike through a wizard dip get the additional damage at level 5, 11, and 17? It just says level, like epic boons does. According to your ruling they don't. The default the game builds in when they say level is character level and when they mean something different they specify. No where in the rules does it use the term total character level and no where in the rules does level mean level in a class without specifying. Even the classes themselves specify that the class features are for level in that class they all have a like this above their table "As a Bard, you gain the following class features when you reach the specified Bard levels." Truly the burden of proof is on you to show that level in a feat's prerequisite means level in a class since all of the precident from the rules says otherwise.
Actually, the term "total character level" is used explicitly in the Multiclassing section of the PHB. For example: "Your proficiency bonus is based on your total character level, not your level in a particular class." Since you were unable to verify this basic rule, I find it difficult to take the rest of your argument seriously. I gave you the opportunity to provide a rules-based citation to support your position, and you failed to do so. Our discussion is over.
Answer this: Let's say you are a Barb 3/Fighter 4 and gain a level and choose Barb. You choose a feat that increases your Con mod by one. Do you increase you HP by 4 or 8?
Here is the relevant text (underline added): "When your Constitution modifier increases by 1, your Hit Point maximum increases by 1 for each level you have attained."
Sigh, when will you answer my questions? Even if I concede that "total character level" is a term why should class level be applied to epic boons when it doesn't say that? Does a thief rogue who took true strike through a wizard dip get the additional damage at character level 5, 11, and 17 or do they never get that damage without getting to those levels in Wizard? It just says level just like epic boons does so it should provide insight into what the developers mean when they reference level without any modifiers. The established precedent is to use level as character level, found through cantrips, and the repeated clarification of using class level when talking about class features. You are the one in the minority and the one choosing to add to the text. It is your burden to explain why and nothing you've said explains why you choose to interpret level as class level instead of character level. I've provided an example where level is character level and provided numerous examples of the text adding the class before "level" to indicate class level. You've provided nothing. It leads one to believe that you have no evidence or proof for your reading and you're on going on "feelz OP" vibes. There's no further point in discussion if you refuse to address my points and questions.