Multiclass Druid/Cleric/Wizard - Full access to 9th level spells from all classes?

[Grynning]

Hello, Playground. Long time, no see, but as I dive back into D&D with gusto (I love 5th ed!) I find I once again need the collective wisdom of the internets to solve rules conundrums.

So, after reading the multiclassing rules several times, I've concluded that while they do limit the capabilities of casters with a limited number of spells known as one would expect, it does not seem they do the same for prepared casters with no limit on their access to their class spell lists (clerics, druids, and wizards). Based on how these classes prepare spells, it seems they only need to have a slot available to prepare a spell of the appropriate level. This means that regardless of their number of levels in Cleric or Druid, they can access all that classes spells up to the level of slot they have on the table, and also any Wizard spells from their spellbook (which is a bit more of a limitation, but since wizards can still theoretically scribe any spell of a slot they can cast into their book, they can get all the goodies too). So, Wiz 18/Clr 1/Dru 1 can pick from all the spells for Cleric and Druid, plus any Wizard spells in their book, when they prep for the day.

While the nature of the spell slot system does limit this theoretical character a bit, it seems like you could have a ridiculously versatile character with this dipping method. Am I missing something crucial? Was this an oversight that will likely be eratta'ed? Or was it intentional?

[Grynning]

Just in case is wasn't clear, I'm trying to determine if my interpretation of these rules is correct. I have a feeling they aren't, but I can't figure out where or why.

[Prophet_of_Io]

As I understand it you would get full spell slots but you wouldn't get higher spell levels in cleric and Druid. You could cast your first level spells in the higher level spell slots but you'd still only have access to first level cleric and Druid spells.

[Grynning]

See, that's what I thought, based on a common sense interpretation, but I see no actual rule that dictates that. The multiclass rules only state that you can't prepare spells if you don't know them from one of your classes that has a spells known mechanic (like the ranger/wizard in the example). The preparation rules for Cleric and Druid say: "...choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level. The spells must be of a level for which your have spell slots."

[pwykersotz]

The multiclass rules explicitly call this out, unfortunately.

Read PHB page 164: Spell Slots, third paragraph and it refers to what you are saying.

[Grynning]

I'm looking at that paragraph, and it's still referring to spells known. The example they are using doesn't clarify this situation at all. Clerics and druids have no spells known list. They can prepare any spell they have a slot for. That's the problem I'm calling out.

[Twelvetrees]

You determine what spells you know as if you were single-classed. It's under Spells Known and Prepared.

[Grynning]

Right...it says "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."
However, as I quoted above, Clerics and Druids prepare spells based purely on what slots they have available, which are determined by the multiclass spellcaster table. So if your other class is another full caster, nothing is stopping you from preparing any spell from either class.

[Grynning]

Other than rule 0, of course, but I'm just talking about RAW here. There's going to be some errata for this book I'm sure and I'm just wondering if this is one of the things they'll address.

[Chaosvii7]

I'm looking at that paragraph, and it's still referring to spells known. The example they are using doesn't clarify this situation at all. Clerics and druids have no spells known list. They can prepare any spell they have a slot for. That's the problem I'm calling out.

I see what's missing from this; You only get access to the spells based on the level of the class you're in, not based on your total class levels. If you took Wizard 18/Cleric 1/Druid 1 you'd only be able to prepare spells as a first level Cleric or Druid, despite having more slots.

This also means that if you're a Wizard 10/Cleric 5/Druid 5, you only have access to 5th level Wizard spells as well as 3rd level Cleric and Druid spells, but you have all 9 levels worth of spell slots. You can use those slots to cast the spells you know at higher levels, but you do not get access to higher spell levels just by virtue of having the slots for it.

Multiclass levels only count towards your spell slots, and the spells you can prepare as are still determined by your class and it's level.

To that effect, a Wizard's spellbook does not interact with divine spells. Even if you could access higher level spells with preparation, you still can't just put divine spells into your book.

[pwykersotz]

Well, RAW is ambiguous. The RAI is fairly clear though, so it probably won't be errata'd. "As if you were single classed" means strip away that lovely combined multiclass spell table you're using. Use the single progression one instead and only count your levels in that particular class. Then choose your spells and recombine. It's a thing that's going to be common in 5e, as they are trying to write it in natural language to make it accessible. RAW-thralls won't get much support, I believe.

So yeah, if you choose the "excessive" interpretation of RAW, you can crack the game wide open with your Sorc/Wiz/Druid/Cleric casting quite nicely. You're still limited on spells for now, but your versatility will be unmatched.

[Grynning]

I have no intention of playing this, that's not my purpose. I was trying to figure out why it was written that way...the language doesn't seem particularly natural to me. It would have been fairly simple to include a clarifying phrase or two to prevent the ambiguity.

[pwykersotz]

I have no intention of playing this, that's not my purpose. I was trying to figure out why it was written that way...the language doesn't seem particularly natural to me. It would have been fairly simple to include a clarifying phrase or two to prevent the ambiguity.

Doesn't the example listed qualify as the clarifying phrase? By your reading, the example caster would gain both third level Wizard spells and 2nd level Ranger spells.

[Grynning]

No, because both the Ranger and the Wizard have a natural limitation Clerics and Druids do not in the form of a spells known list and a spellbook. That's my whole point. The example is geared entirely around combining those types of casters and doesn't address casters who prepare using the method Clerics and Druids do.

I bring it up, because if I found it and interpreted it that way just reading the book on the toilet this morning, other people will too and people will start talking about the return of CoDzilla and the Wizardpocalypse or whatever.

[pwykersotz]

No, because both the Ranger and the Wizard have a natural limitation Clerics and Druids do not in the form of a spells known list and a spellbook. That's my whole point. The example is geared entirely around combining those types of casters and doesn't address casters who prepare using the method Clerics and Druids do.

I bring it up, because if I found it and interpreted it that way just reading the book on the toilet this morning, other people will too and people will start talking about the return of CoDzilla and the Wizardpocalypse or whatever,

I see, we're still on the the Multiclass spell table. Short answer, I would not expect errata/clarification anytime soon.

[Grynning]

Hey, I'm just getting the debate out here to save time later. Gamers being gamers, many of them try to get away with whatever they can in the framework of the rules. Since pretty much everyone here agrees it doesn't work the way I thought, I'm going to rule it the way everyone seems to think it should. I just wanted to make sure I was right; I mean, if that was intended and maybe not as powerful as I thought, I wanted to know if I should allow it.

Given that I'm supposed to be DM'ing like, 3 different Tyranny of Dragons groups over the next few months, I just want to make sure I understand all the systems. Thanks for the answers.

[HugeC]

"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

So you're a wizard 18 / druid 1 / cleric 1. When you prepare your druid spells, you ignore your wizard and cleric levels as the sentence above indicates. You therefore only have access to 1st level spell slots. This means you can only prepare 1st level druid spells. Same with cleric. I see no issue here.

[manykittens]

This discussion seems centered on assumed RAI versus RAW. The RAI as I see it is that multiclassing between two spellcasting classes should be less powerful for each one while not making doing so completely unattractive to those who would consider doing it. For comparison, the creators of 3.5e limited the power of the cleric wizard hybrid by giving them two individual spell progressions and then mad the combination somewhat attractive by introducing the mystic theurge prestige class. in 5e they have made them unattractive by limiting the progression of bonuses like ability score increases, domain powers, and specialization perks. additionally they have made it so there is no bonus to the total number of spells that a multiclass character would get. the only hint in the RAW that suggests that the full array of spells that are able to be prepared is limited by anything more than the list of spells known by each class is the poorly worded ranger/wizard example.
one more line of elaboration or the slight alteration to cleric instead of wizard would have left no room for ambiguous interpretation. as far as overpowered-ness goes, i do not feel that access to a full array of spells from several different classes breaks the game, nor is it without major penalty.
The RAI as I see them are intended to do just that: limit individual character power and make make customization attractive, but not too attractive.
If I were running a game with a smaller number of characters, I would actually encourage exploiting this rule (or at least lack of clarity) to provide the necessary diversity to successfully accomplish tasks. a full sized party would not need to multiclass like this (unless other characters were similarly diversifying) because of the unnecessary reduction in power that doing so would incur.
so, I am nor sure how the rules were intended, but they were written with unnecessary ambiguity. I would really like to see a clarification about the RAI from wizards.

[Ghost Nappa]

I don't think so.

You would get the Spell Slots as a Character of Level X, and be able to use any of the slots as you wished; BUT, you're limited spell-wise by your class level in each class individually.

So someone whose Wizard 5 / Cleric 5 / Druid 5 doesn't receive ANY spells she would get for her 6th Wizard, Cleric, OR Druid level. Her spell list - the actual spells she knows - are all listed under Cantrips, Level 1 Spells, Level 2 Spells, and Level 3 Spells. She can take any spell she knows and put it in that 9th level spell slot if she has it, but she does NOT receive any High-level spells like Wish, Teleport, etc.

tl;dr Spell Slots are based on Total Character Level; Spells Known are based on Individual Class Levels.