Multiclass Wizards and rituals

[Daremonai]

Firstly, to clear any confusion: this is specifically about ritual casting, NOT about normal spellcasting. I already know how it works for proper spell preparation/casting. I'm not asking about the Ritual Caster feat either.

Let's imagine that you have a multiclassed Wizard/Cleric - let's say at cleric 9/wizard 1. The wizard level grants you the ability to cast wizard ritual spells as described:

You can cast a wizard spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell in your spellbook. You don't need to have the spell prepared.

The spellbook section says:

When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a lvevel for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

BUT the multiclass section says:

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

So: Can you scribe and/or ritually cast higher-level wizard spells, even though you can't prepare them for normal casting?

[Myzz]

no you can not scribe or ritually cast spells for which you are unable to cast.

You can not scribe spells into your spell book without being able to cast them (In the side bar it talks about practicing when you translate)...

If you found a Higher Level Caster's spellbook and tried to Ritual Cast a Ritual Spell from there... that would be up to the DM, I spose. Since technically you have a chance to cast it if it was a scroll? But if your DM determines that scrolls function differently then all bets off... But if you could cast the spell from the spellbook it would disapear, whereas if you ritually cast it does it disapear?

Good question about ritual spells on scrolls too I suppose...

BUT to the OP no you couldnt scribe it... most likely not able to ritually cast it, but that would be DM fiat.

[calebrus]

In the sutiation described above, you could use the spells in the spellbook as scrolls (requiring the normal arcana check for spells that you can't normally cast). You could not cast them as rituals. You could only cast level 1 rituals that you have in your spellbook.

[BRC]

There is no such thing as "Wizard Spell Slots" in 5th edition.

The Spellbook section says "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
The fact that you have those Spell Slots from being a Cleric is irrelevant. You are a Wizard with Spell Slots of that level.

A Wizard 1/Cleric 9 can only Prepare 1st level wizard spells. However, he can cast them using spell slots of up to 4th level, and he can KNOW up to 4th level wizard spells (Since they are of a level for which he has spell slots, so he can scribe them into his book).

So a Wizard 1/Cleric 9 can use higher level spells Wizard rituals, even though he could not cast them normally.

[calebrus]

and he can KNOW up to 4th level wizard spells (Since they are of a level for which he has spell slots, so he can scribe them into his book).

This is where you're wrong.
A wizard needs to have the spell in his spellbook to cast it as a ritual. A wizard can only add spells to his spellbook as a wizard of that level, because he knows and prepares spells as a single classed member of that class (in this case, he's a level 1 wizard for these purposes).
Read page 164 of the PHB (all of it).

[Myzz]

There is no such thing as "Wizard Spell Slots" in 5th edition.

The Spellbook section says "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
The fact that you have those Spell Slots from being a Cleric is irrelevant. You are a Wizard with Spell Slots of that level.

A Wizard 1/Cleric 9 can only Prepare 1st level wizard spells. However, he can cast them using spell slots of up to 4th level, and he can KNOW up to 4th level wizard spells (Since they are of a level for which he has spell slots, so he can scribe them into his book).

So a Wizard 1/Cleric 9 can use higher level spells Wizard rituals, even though he could not cast them normally.

See PHB page 164, Spells known and prepared... You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually...

A first level wizard can not know 4th level spells, so can not scribe 4th level spells into his spellbook. Those extra slots he can use to cast the spells his wizard levels have access to at higher levels...

[BRC]

This is where you're wrong.
A wizard needs to have the spell in your spellbook to cast it as a ritual. A wizard can only add spells to his spellbook as a wizard of that level, because he knows and prepares spells as a single classed member of that class.
Read page 164 of the PHB (all of it).

AFB for the moment, and will check when I get home, but going by what's quoted in the OP, no he does not.

There are two ways for Wizards to get spells in their spellbook. They can level up, OR inscribe spells into their book, provided they have spell slots of the spell's level. Wizards are unique in that they can know more spells than their table lists by scribing spells into their spellbook.

You KNOW and PREPARE spells as a single-classed caster. However, scribing is based on Spell Slots, and you possess a single pool of Spell Slots regardless of multiclassing. Scribing gets around the Wizard Table's Spells Known.

Unless the OP misquoted the Scribing rules, and they actually require knowing Wizard Spells of at least the given level, rather than having Spell Slots.

You could also read "In your spellbook" and "Known" as different concepts. A wizard could put a spell "In their spellbook", even if they don't "Know" it.

However, Ritual Casting requires only that the spell be in your spellbook.

[calebrus]

The last paragraph under Spell Slots on page 164 explains it, but no one ever reads that far.

"For example, if you are the aforementioned ranger 4/wizard 3, you count as a 5th level character when determining your spell slots: you have four 1st level slots, three 2nd level slots, and two 3rd level slots. However, you don't know any 3rd level spells, nor do you know any 2nd level ranger spells. You can use the spell slots of those levels to cast the spells you do know - and potentially enhance their effects"

You don't know any 3rd level spells. So you can't cast any 3rd level rituals, even though you have 3rd level slots.

[BRC]

The last paragraph under Spell Slots on page 164 explains it, but no one ever reads that far.

"For example, if you are the aforementioned ranger 4/wizard 3, you count as a 5th level character when determining your spell slots: you have four 1st level slots, three 2nd level slots, and two 3rd level slots. However, you don't know any 3rd level spells, nor do you know any 2nd level ranger spells. You can use the spell slots of those levels to cast the spells you do know - and potentially enhance their effects"

You don't know any 3rd level spells. So you can't cast any 3rd level rituals, even though you have 3rd level slots.

Except that for wizards, Spells Known is not dictated by what is on their table in the PHB, but by what is in their spellbooks. They get some spells in their books automatically by leveling up, but they can add extra spells so long as they have the spell slots.

In addition, the Ritual Casting feature does not require the spell to be KNOWN, it only requires that the spell be in the wizard's spellbook.

Nowhere does it say that a Wizard must know wizard spells of a certain level to put them in their spellbook.

[calebrus]

Nowhere does it say that a Wizard must know wizard spells of a certain level to put them in their spellbook.

Adding a spell to your spellbook means.... you learn the spell.
But you can't learn that spell, because you can't cast it as a wizard. And if you can't learn it, then you can't add it to your spellbook. And if you can't add it to your spellbook, then you can't cast it as a ritual.

You're a sophomore in high school.
You are in geometry class. You know geometry (and algebra) inside and out. You could do geometry with your eyes closed. You can do algebra or geometry without the use of a calculator if you want to.
You know nothing about calculus.
If I hand you a calculus book, ten minutes later you still know nothing about calculus, and you *certainly* can't suddenly do it without a calculator just because I gave you ten minutes with the text book.
Calculus is beyond your current comprehension. You don't *know* calculus just because you have a book in your hand describing it.

[Dalebert]

In the sutiation described above, you could use the spells in the spellbook as scrolls (requiring the normal arcana check for spells that you can't normally cast). You could not cast them as rituals. You could only cast level 1 rituals that you have in your spellbook.

Where are you getting the idea that you can cast spells out of spellbooks as if they were scrolls? I don't think it's right but I'll stand corrected if you can show me where to find it. If you're correct, then that's a HUGE loophole because wizards can make copies of their spellbooks very cheaply (I believe it's 10gp per spell level scribed) but scrolls can get extremely expensive at higher levels. That would be very incongruous. It would make it hard to understand how scrolls are so expensive and I don't think they intend for you to have spare 9th level spells on hand for just 90gp.

[BRC]

Adding a spell to your spellbook means.... you learn the spell.
But you can't learn that spell, because you can't cast it as a wizard. And if you can't learn it, then you can't add it to your spellbook. And if you can't add it to your spellbook, then you can't cast it as a ritual.

I just checked the PDF.

Wizards do not have a Spells Known. They have a Spellbook.

Source (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/PlayerDnDBasicRules_v0.2.pdf)


Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two
wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each
of these spells must be of a level for which you have
spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your
adventures, you might find other spells that you can add
to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).
Wizards have no maximum level for spells KNOWN. Their only limit is on GAINING new spells known, which simply requires having spell slots of that level.

Nowhere does it say that in order to put a spell in your spellbook, you must be able to cast it as a wizard. It merely says that you need spell slots of the spell's level.

Every other class gains spells known when they can cast those spells. A single-classed Wizard will only be able to add spells to his spellbook as he gains the slots he needs to prepare and cast them. A multiclass wizard gets around this.

For Wizards, Learning new spells is limited only by your highest level spell-slots. Find me something that says otherwise, and I will agree with you.

That said, there may be something hiding in the Multiclass rules that prevent this.


Edit: I suppose you are right if "As Shown on the Wizard Table" is rules text, rather than a simple reference. If that is rule text, then "You have spell slots as shown on the Wizard table", which in turn says that 1st level Wizards only have 1st level spell slots, and since you are calculating Spells Known as a single-classed caster, you use that calculation.
If it is a simple reference, then it is just telling you where to look for how you gain Spell Slots, and the Multiclassing rules for having spell slots take precedence.


Edit II: As-written, Wizards also need only "Have spell slots for that level" to Prepare spells. They don't get a certain number of prepared spells per spell level.

So theoretically, a Wiz 1/Cleric 9 could cast 3rd level wizard spells they scribed in their book. It depends on whether or not the "Calculate known/Prepared" as a single-class caster rule means that, for the purpose of preparing and learning wizard spells, they calculate their Spell Slots as a single-class Wizard, rather than using however many Spell Slots they have.


Edit III: Clerics work the same way. So the Multiclassing rule must mean that, when preparing/learning new spells, you only "Have" Spell Slots as a single-classed caster of whatever level you are, regardless of how many spell slots you are actually throwing around.

So, with that in mind, I reverse my position. A Cleric 9/Wiz 1 cannot learn 3rd level wizard spells.

[calebrus]

I already showed you the relevant text on it from page 164, and you already quoted that post.
The class descriptions were written with single classed characters in mind, because multiclassing is an Optional Rule. When you multiclass, you no longer follow the rules in the class description, you follow the rules on pages 163-4 in the PHB.
Those pages specifically tell you that you gain spells known as if you were single classed. None of your other levels matter for the purposes of which spells you can know. As none of the other levels matter, none of the benefits of those levels matter. If none of the benefits of those levels matter, the spell slots gained form those level do not matter.

A wizard 1/cleric 19 knows the spells that a wizard 1 knows, and the spells that a cleric 19 knows.
That wizard 1 can only cast the rituals that any other wizard 1 could cast, which means any 1st level ritual spell that he has in his spellbook. No more, no less.

Once again, I repeat, read all of page 164.
Go home to your book and read it. Don't argue any more until you do.

[BRC]

I already showed you the relevant text on it from page 164, and you already quoted that post.
The class descriptions were written with single classed characters in mind, because multiclassing is an Optional Rule. When you multiclass, you no longer follow the rules in the class description, you follow the rules on pages 163-4 in the PHB.
Those pages specifically tell you that you gain spells known as if you were single classed. None of your other levels matter for the purposes of which spells you can know. As none of the other levels matter, none of the benefits of those levels matter. If none of the benefits of those levels matter, the spell slots gained form those level do not matter.

A wizard 1/cleric 19 knows the spells that a wizard 1 knows, and the spells that a cleric 19 knows.
That wizard 1 can only cast the rituals that any other wizard 1 could cast, which means any 1st level ritual spell that he has in his spellbook. No more, no less.
I made a 3rd edit to my post while you were posting this.

In this case, you did not quote the relevant rule. The PHB class descriptions pin learning/preparing for Wizards and Clerics to their highest level spell slot. Compared to, say ,Sorcerers and Rangers, who learn spells as they level up.

The relevant rule here is that "Calculate your spells known as a single-classed caster" means "For the purposes of determining spells known, you only have spell slots of a single-classed caster". I realized it when looking at Cleric casting, and realizing that to interpret it the other way would mean a Cleric 1/Sorcerer 9 would have access to the same spells as a Cleric 9 (They could just prepare fewer of them).

So I apologize. You are correct sir.

[SharkForce]

Firstly, to clear any confusion: this is specifically about ritual casting, NOT about normal spellcasting. I already know how it works for proper spell preparation/casting. I'm not asking about the Ritual Caster feat either.

Let's imagine that you have a multiclassed Wizard/Cleric - let's say at cleric 9/wizard 1. The wizardlevel grants you the ability to cast wizard ritual spells as described:
"You can cast a wizard spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell in your spellbook. You don't need to have the spell prepared."

The spellbook section says:
"When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a lvevel for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."

BUT the multiclass section says:
"Spells Known and Prepared. You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

So: Can you scribe and/or ritually cast higher-level wizard spells, even though you can't prepare them for normal casting?
(quotes re-added in quotation marks because the boards don't let you quote quotes)

the answer is right here.

the multiclass section tells you you learn spells as if you were a single-classed character of each separate level.

so when you go to scribe a new spell, you do so as a single-classed character. because adding spells to your spellbook is how wizards learn spells.

since you can't learn a level 2 wizard spell as a level 1 wizard, you cannot scribe a level 2 spell. since you cannot scribe a level 2 spell into your spell book, and cannot know, prepare, or learn it even if someone else were to scribe it into your spellbook for you, you cannot cast it as a ritual spell any more than you could have cast it as a regular spell.

[xyianth]

In the sutiation described above, you could use the spells in the spellbook as scrolls (requiring the normal arcana check for spells that you can't normally cast). You could not cast them as rituals. You could only cast level 1 rituals that you have in your spellbook.


Where are you getting the idea that you can cast spells out of spellbooks as if they were scrolls? I don't think it's right but I'll stand corrected if you can show me where to find it. If you're correct, then that's a HUGE loophole because wizards can make copies of their spellbooks very cheaply (I believe it's 10gp per spell level scribed) but scrolls can get extremely expensive at higher levels. That would be very incongruous. It would make it hard to understand how scrolls are so expensive and I don't think they intend for you to have spare 9th level spells on hand for just 90gp.

I think Dalebert has this part right. Allowing spells in a spellbook to be treated as scrolls allows Wizards to ignore their prepared spells limit and spell slots per day limit by simply preparing lots of copies of whatever spells they like and casting them as scrolls. Is there a page cite you might provide for allowing this interpretation? I think it would be ripe for abuse if ruled that way, so I personally wouldn't.

[calebrus]

I think Dalebert has this part right. Allowing spells in a spellbook to be treated as scrolls allows Wizards to ignore their prepared spells limit and spell slots per day limit by simply preparing lots of copies of whatever spells they like and casting them as scrolls. Is there a page cite you might provide for allowing this interpretation? I think it would be ripe for abuse if ruled that way, so I personally wouldn't.

That's just the way that we've always played it, so maybe it was a houserule?
But then again, we don't have a bunch of munchkins at our table who would abuse it, so it's never been an issue. Reading a scroll removes the spell form the page. So to do it, it basically means you are literally out of options and need it bad enough that you're removing a spell from your spellbook.
Last resort type stuff.
Or a "found" spellbook that you haven't or can't copy, or whatever.
But no one at our table would make a second spellbook just for this purpose, because that would be abuse, and we don't play that game.

[Tenmujiin]

That's just the way that we've always played it, so maybe it was a houserule?
But then again, we don't have a bunch of munchkins at our table who would abuse it, so it's never been an issue. Reading a scroll removes the spell form the page. So to do it, it basically means you are literally out of options and need it bad enough that you're removing a spell from your spellbook.
Last resort type stuff.
Or a "found" spellbook that you haven't or can't copy, or whatever.
But no one at our table would make a second spellbook just for this purpose, because that would be abuse, and we don't play that game.

That actually sounds like a neat rule (assuming you group won't abuse it). I may use that with my group although I'll need to add something like: "When a spell is coppied from a spellbook the ability to be cast as a scroll is transfered to the new book unless the normal cost for scribing a scroll is payed." My group isn't nearly as trustworthy as yours :smallfrown:

[Theodoxus]

It's a carry over from previous editions (that whole, 'if it isn't specifically allowed, it doesn't exist' unstated rule that people habitually forget.)

I like Tenmujiin's compromise... the only hindrance I see is that a spellbook can hold a lot more spells than a scroll - it makes a more convenient scroll case...

To circumvent that, I'd rule that using a scrollbook is a two round action, unless the spell/scroll was premarked (and only 1 spell could be premarked (just to head off the 'I mark three spells, I can totally remember where three are... well, 4, four's easy to remember, right?' slippery slope) to reduce scrollbook casting to the regular casting time for the spell.)

[Dalebert]

A spell can be cast straight from a spellbook by a wizard... IF it's a ritual spell and a wizard or ritual caster spends 10 extra minutes casting it. Other than that, there's no reason whatsoever to assume it can be done for any other type of spell.

I think people are carrying over rules from previous editions when spellbooks were different, rules that no longer apply. In particular, they were a LOT more expensive than 5e books and more difficult to make and scrolls were a LOT less expensive and easier to make than 5e scrolls.

A scroll has special magics in it that allow someone to cast the spell directly from it without having it prepared or spending a slot and without the normally required material components. It's a magic item. A spellbook is essentially a fancy instruction manual.

[SharkForce]

i don't know of any edition of D&D where you could use your spellbook as a scroll. seems to be a fairly common houserule, but i don't think i've ever seen it even listed as an optional rule in any D&D game i know of. that said, i don't much about anything before 2nd AD&D.

[Daremonai]

Thanks to all for clarifying that - I had legitimately missed the example despite reading through the whole multiclass section.

Never heard about casting directly from a spellbook before though (with the exception of the 5e's rituals)

[Chronos]

A Wizard 1/Cleric 9 has wizard spells known as if he were a wizard 1, which is to say that he knows zero spells, because wizards don't know any spells, no matter what their level. Being restricted on what level of spells you can know doesn't matter, because they don't have spells known. Having a spell in your book is not the same thing as knowing it, and is under no such restriction.

Ordinarily, it wouldn't much matter if you had a high-level spell in your book or not, because you wouldn't be able to prepare it anyway. But a wizard doesn't need to prepare a ritual spell in order to cast it.

[pwykersotz]

A Wizard 1/Cleric 9 has wizard spells known as if he were a wizard 1, which is to say that he knows zero spells, because wizards don't know any spells, no matter what their level. Being restricted on what level of spells you can know doesn't matter, because they don't have spells known. Having a spell in your book is not the same thing as knowing it, and is under no such restriction.

Ordinarily, it wouldn't much matter if you had a high-level spell in your book or not, because you wouldn't be able to prepare it anyway. But a wizard doesn't need to prepare a ritual spell in order to cast it.

Unfortunately, that way lies madness and contradiction. If you interpret it that way, many more issues arise. One such issue is a contradiction with explicit allowances such as "Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells." from the same sidebar. Does this overrule the multiclassing rule, or get suppressed by it? On what do you base the decision? If a GM is willing, navigating the rules mess that comes from interpreting this might be fun, but it's pretty clearly not the way it's supposed to work.

Besides, then if you have a world with things like Wizard colleges, every first level Wizard could be walking around with high level rituals. That sounds pretty poor for class balance.

[calebrus]

But a wizard doesn't need to prepare a ritual spell in order to cast it.

But he still needs to be able to cast the spell normally in order to be able to cast it as a ritual.
A ritual is no different from any other spell, except that it allows you to spend an extra ten minutes cating it in exchange for not using a spell slot.
That's it. That's the difference. That's the only difference.

The only exception to the normal spellcasting requirements in the entire game in regards to rituals comes from the warlock's Book of Ancient Secrets invocation, and that only hs an exception because Pact Magic works differently than normal spellcasting. That invocation allows rituals of [half your warlock level, rounded up] which is exactly the same progression that every other full spellcaster has.
1st@1, 2nd@3, 3rd@5, 4th@7, etc.

With that one exception, if you can't cast the spell normally, you can't cast it as a ritual either.
Spontaneous casters need to know the spell. Prepared casters need to have the spell prepared. Wizards get a pass on actually having the spell prepared, but they still need to be *able* to prepare it.

The class descriptions were written with single classed characters in mind, because multiclassing is an optional rule.
"You must have the spell in your spellbook" and "you must have spell slots of that level" assumes single classed.
Copying spells into your spellbook is the wizard's version of "learning" the spell. As a multiclassed caster, learning spells, preparing spells, and casting rituals all follow the same guidelines and restrictions. If you could do it as a single classed character of that level, then you can do it. If you couldn't, then you can't.

If you have one wizard level, then 2nd level spells are too complex for you. You don't understand them. That's why you can't cast them. That doesn't suddenly change if you find a ritual spell. Until you have sufficient knowledge/experience (ie: levels) you don't understand it and you can't cast it, ritual or otherwise.

Anyone with a single level of wizard cannot simply cast a 6th level wizard ritual just because he found a spellbook with that ritual in it.

[Tenmujiin]

It's a carry over from previous editions (that whole, 'if it isn't specifically allowed, it doesn't exist' unstated rule that people habitually forget.)

I like Tenmujiin's compromise... the only hindrance I see is that a spellbook can hold a lot more spells than a scroll - it makes a more convenient scroll case...

To circumvent that, I'd rule that using a scrollbook is a two round action, unless the spell/scroll was premarked (and only 1 spell could be premarked (just to head off the 'I mark three spells, I can totally remember where three are... well, 4, four's easy to remember, right?' slippery slope) to reduce scrollbook casting to the regular casting time for the spell.)

Remember that with this house rule the spells are actually removed from your spellbook, permanently weakening your character. Essentially it just allows your spellbook to work as a really convenient scroll case (at the cost of 10g per spell) but I feel it also opens up some nice roleplaying opportunities.

[Chronos]

Quoth pwykersotz:

Unfortunately, that way lies madness and contradiction. If you interpret it that way, many more issues arise. One such issue is a contradiction with explicit allowances such as "Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells." from the same sidebar. Does this overrule the multiclassing rule, or get suppressed by it?
You can prepare it "just like your other spells". Your other spells can be prepared if you have enough wizard levels to give you a slot of the appropriate level, so that also applies to new spells you've scribed in your book. There's no can of worms here.


Quoth calebrus:

But he still needs to be able to cast the spell normally in order to be able to cast it as a ritual.
Where is this rule? The only rule I see is that you need to have spell slots of that level.

[Dalebert]

Remember that with this house rule the spells are actually removed from your spellbook, permanently weakening your character.

But it doesn't because it's trivial to make backup copies of your spellbook in this edition also, which is exactly why you shouldn't use this house rule. Spellbooks just are not the expensive magic items they were in previous editions.

I don't recall exactly which edition allowed you to cast from a spellbook as a scroll but I think it was 2nd edition. There was a section in the rules somewhere that specifically addressed this desperate situation.

Frankly, I'm very glad they did away with this silliness. It's like they were acknolwedging that wizards were overpowered and assigning them this huge expensive crutch that all their power was tied to. Quite silly considering clerics were even worse tier 1s in some ways by knowing all the spells automatically and never being able to lose any and they apparently felt no need to give them a huge crutch.

[calebrus]

Unfortunately, that way lies madness and contradiction. If you interpret it that way, many more issues arise. One such issue is a contradiction with explicit allowances such as "Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells." from the same sidebar. Does this overrule the multiclassing rule, or get suppressed by it?
You can prepare it "just like your other spells". Your other spells can be prepared if you have enough wizard levels to give you a slot of the appropriate level, so that also applies to new spells you've scribed in your book. There's no can of worms here.

But he still needs to be able to cast the spell normally in order to be able to cast it as a ritual.
Where is this rule? The only rule I see is that you need to have spell slots of that level.

I didn't bother quoting the rules because pwyk already did in the post prior, which you conveniently quoted in this very post.
Once you add a spell to your spellbook, you can prepare the spell.
That means that adding a spell to your spellbook is the wizard's version of "learning" the spell.
That means that you can only add a spell to your spellbook if you have enough WIZARD levels to cast the spell.
That means that you cannot add rituals to your spellbook unless you could cast the spell normally.

Does this really need to be spelled out for you more?

[Dalebert]

Does this really need to be spelled out for you more?

I think it's obvious this was the intention but it really is written in such a way as to be a playground for rules lawyers.

[calebrus]

I think it's obvious this was the intention but it really is written in such a way as to be a playground for rules lawyers.

Only for the the type of player that ignores the obvious intention, which is basically the equivalent of deliberately reading it wrong to attain a certain interpretation. And as far as I'm concerned, that exploitation is tantamount to cheating.

[Chronos]

Is the intention really so obvious? Maybe they actually wrote what they meant to write.

Quoth calebrus:

Once you add a spell to your spellbook, you can prepare the spell.
That means that adding a spell to your spellbook is the wizard's version of "learning" the spell.
That means that you can only add a spell to your spellbook if you have enough WIZARD levels to cast the spell.
That means that you cannot add rituals to your spellbook unless you could cast the spell normally.
None of these statements follows from the rules.

[calebrus]

Is the intention really so obvious? Maybe they actually wrote what they meant to write.

None of these statements follows from the rules.

Yes, it is obvious. And yes, those statements follow the rules.

PHB, page 114, Your Spellbook > Copying a Spell into the Book:
Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.

PHB, page 164, Multiclassing > Class Features > Spellcasting > Spells Known and Prepared:
You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.

If you copy it into your spellbook, you are "learning" the spell, and can prepare it. But you can't prepare it, because you don't have enough wizard levels to do so according to the multiclass rules.
Ipso facto, if you cannot cast it, you cannot copy it to your spellbook.

This is the same "Can my Wizard1/Cleric 19 prepare Wish?" argument.
The class descriptions assume single class, and were written as such. For all other situations regarding multiclass characters, you IGNORE the "spell slot of that level" wording in the class descriptions and only look at it as if you were single-classed, exactly like it tells you to under the multiclassing rules.
Lawyers attempting to read it otherwise should be disbarred.

[Xetheral]

Lawyers attempting to read it otherwise should be disbarred.

I can't imagine a difference of interpretation ever rising to the level of an ethical violation.

The interaction of the multiclass rules and the various spellcasting-related class features is complicated enough that I'd argue there is room for rational disagreement. Even if you believe that those who disagree with you are irrational, that still doesn't mean they are in any way acting unethically.

[Kane0]

Siding with Calebrus, though probably not to the same degree.

When you multiclass you are essentially treated as singleclassed in regards to access to spells you can cast, and use a joint table for spell slots. Since rituals are spells you use the same guidelines when determining which ones you can use (excluding scrolls and the like).

[calebrus]

Let's take a step back here, shall we?


A Wizard 1/Cleric 9 has wizard spells known as if he were a wizard 1, which is to say that he knows zero spells, because wizards don't know any spells, no matter what their level. Being restricted on what level of spells you can know doesn't matter, because they don't have spells known. Having a spell in your book is not the same thing as knowing it, and is under no such restriction.

Ordinarily, it wouldn't much matter if you had a high-level spell in your book or not, because you wouldn't be able to prepare it anyway. But a wizard doesn't need to prepare a ritual spell in order to cast it.

PHB, Page 114 (again)
Your Spellbook:
Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe the spell into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells."

reproducing
deciphering
practice
understand
experiment with the spell to master it
.... then.... transcribe the spell into your spellbook


You need to do all of those things before you can copy the spell into your spellbook.
"Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells."

You "learn" the spell completely, even going so far as the text to specifically call it mastery, BEFORE you can add the spell to your spellbook.

A wizard adding a spell to his spellbook means that the wizard "knows" the spell.
But the multiclass rules stipulate which spells he can learn and prepare.
If he can't prepare it, then he can't learn it.
If he can't learn it, then he can't add it to his spellbook.
If he can't add it to his spellbook, then he can't cast it as a ritual.
So.... if he can't prepare it, then he can't cast it as a ritual.

So once again, if you cannot cast the spell normally, you cannot add it to your spellbook.
If he can't cast it, then he can't cast it (ritual or otherwise).
It really is that simple.

[Dalebert]

Don't stress it, Calebrus. If he decides to press it and his DM decides to humor him, that's his DM's problem.

[calebrus]

Don't stress it, Calebrus. If he decides to press it and his DM decides to humor him, that's his DMs problem.

It irritates me to no end when the rules lawyers claim "the rules don't state that" when the rules do indeed state it, and they are just ignoring specific parts of the rules so that their self-serving interpretation makes sense.

[Chronos]

Reproducing, deciphering, practicing, understanding, and transcribing are none of them synonyms for "knowing". Wizards do not know spells (well, other than cantrips, which aren't what's being discussed here). Arguing that wizards can't put high-level spells in their book because they're limited in what they can know is like arguing that sorcerers can't cast their spells using high-level slots because they're limited in what they can prepare.

[pwykersotz]

Reproducing, deciphering, practicing, understanding, and transcribing are none of them synonyms for "knowing". Wizards do not know spells (well, other than cantrips, which aren't what's being discussed here). Arguing that wizards can't put high-level spells in their book because they're limited in what they can know is like arguing that sorcerers can't cast their spells using high-level slots because they're limited in what they can prepare.

Small quibble, you may view it as the same, but in fact one of these things leads to a low level caster being able to use high level spells without the slots earned/available, while the other is scaling to reach the power you've actually acquired. I see how you relate them, but the application differs. Possibly casting a 5th level ritual at level 1 is not good design.

[Sindeloke]

Small quibble, you may view it as the same, but in fact one of these things leads to a low level caster being able to use high level spells without the slots earned/available, while the other is scaling to reach the power you've actually acquired. I see how you relate them, but the application differs. Possibly casting a 5th level ritual at level 1 is not good design.

I agree it's probably not intended and, in general, is poor design (not that the game is totally free of that either way), but I can also see where it could still lead to cool results. The wizard has to find the new spell to scribe it, after all, so as a DM it gives you the option to drop a new spell the party's going to need in their laps and watch them pull it out in a clinch moment, giving an aura of "desperate heroes performing far above their expected abilities" cinematic fun.

Also since I can't imagine why in Yeenoghu's name you'd mutliclass wizard with anything else caster-y unless you were an EK or AT doing a dip to pick up better spell slot progression, it could also be a good way for the DM to pass plot-important spells or tweak the balance of a party with no other arcane caster.

[SharkForce]

you can't think of *any* reasons to multiclass wizard with another caster?

- abjurers sometimes like to splash 2+ warlock levels for at-will mage armour
- a 1+ cleric splash gives medium or even heavy armour + shield proficiency, access to some useful spells (guidance and bless, cures, extra cantrips to spend on stuff like light so you can spend your wizard cantrips on damage, etc) (i've been tempted to try a 2-level splash in knowledge cleric so i could grant myself proficiency in a tool and then fabricate stuff as needed)
- a 3+ sorcerer splash gives you access to metamagic, which is basically 90% of what the sorcerer has going for it
- a 2-3 level fighter (eldritch knight) splash gives medium (or heavy) armour + shield proficiency, martial weapons, second wind, action surge, possibly extra cantrips at the cost of 2 levels of spell progression
- the same in rogue gives light armour, expertise, and some extra skills plus possibly cantrips

now, all of these splashes have a cost... but there are still reasons to consider them. and that's just off the top of my head.

that's just off the top of my head. certainly, not every wizard will splash. many or even most probably won't. but it's not completely crazy.

plus, you have to think about it in the opposite direction. if a level 10 sorcerer can splash a single wizard level and suddenly have access to all wizard rituals from levels 1-6, that's a bit screwy, no?

not to mention the argument is that D&D 5e was deliberately written in such a manner that wizards are supposed to be able to slip by a restriction on knowing spells based purely on a technicality without any explicity mention of such a thing, when 5e was pretty much a reaction to the past 2 (2 and 2 half?) editions of D&D being too rules-lawyery.

you wanna houserule it? sure, go nuts. it's your game. but don't delude yourself into thinking that the rules were written for rules lawyers when one of the goals of the edition is to be exactly the opposite of that.

[Sindeloke]

you can't think of *any* reasons to multiclass wizard with another caster?

- abjurers sometimes like to splash 2+ warlock levels for at-will mage armour
- a 1+ cleric splash gives medium or even heavy armour + shield proficiency, access to some useful spells (guidance and bless, cures, extra cantrips to spend on stuff like light so you can spend your wizard cantrips on damage, etc) (i've been tempted to try a 2-level splash in knowledge cleric so i could grant myself proficiency in a tool and then fabricate stuff as needed)
- a 3+ sorcerer splash gives you access to metamagic, which is basically 90% of what the sorcerer has going for it
- a 2-3 level fighter (eldritch knight) splash gives medium (or heavy) armour + shield proficiency, martial weapons, second wind, action surge, possibly extra cantrips at the cost of 2 levels of spell progression
- the same in rogue gives light armour, expertise, and some extra skills plus possibly cantrips

Eh? None of those are wizard dips. Those are all wizards with other classes dipped. The only one of them that would affect this discussion at all is the sorc splash, which would still only let out theoretical wizard cast a ritual one level higher than he "earned" with his wizard levels, so to speak. What people are concerned about here is a Wiz1/Cleric9 casting 5th level wizard rituals. I'm just saying no one is ever going to play that character, or in fact a Wiz1/X of any kind where X is a half-caster or better.


plus, you have to think about if a level 10 sorcerer can splash a single wizard level and suddenly have access to all wizard rituals from levels 1-6, that's a bit screwy, no?

No. I mean a level 11 sorcerer could have the Ritual Caster feat, and 1 extra sorcery point and a 6th level sorc spell slot to go with his wizard rituals instead. I'd rather have that than a handful of useless cantrips keyed off my lowest stat.


not to mention the argument is that D&D 5e was deliberately written in such a manner that wizards are supposed to be able to slip by a restriction on knowing spells based purely on a technicality

No one is making that argument. One poster seems to be suggesting that it was straightforward intent (as in, "wizards get the Ritual Caster fear as a class feature the way some fighters get Martial Adept,") which is hardly a technicality. Several others are saying that it probably wasn't intended but it's there anyway and it's not a big deal. (Commune with nature isn't exactly a game breaker at any level, frankly.)


but don't delude yourself into thinking that the rules were written for rules lawyers

Man, what's with all the hostility, guys? It's just a game. No one is even trying to tell you how to play it. People trying to figure out how the rules work and what they allow are not some universally malevolent pool of sharks with lasers on their heads, jockeying for every last overpowered inch in order to "beat" the game somehow. They're just players. Having a temperament that makes them happier when they know what's going on, what they can do, and what to expect without having to guess what's going on in any given DM's head does not make them your enemy.

Besides, this edition is explicitly designed such that the rules as written are ultimately irrelevant compared to the DM's ruling, so even if the rules do say something imbalanced, why on earth would it matter? You can just say "ok but at my table it's going to work like this" and that's fine.

[Chronos]

OK, put it this way: If a wizard knows all of the spells in his book, then you're letting him cast all of them, ritual or otherwise, regardless of whether he's prepared them. That, to me, sounds a lot more abusive than letting a multiclass wizard cast high-level rituals.

[calebrus]

OK, put it this way: If a wizard knows all of the spells in his book, then you're letting him cast all of them, ritual or otherwise, regardless of whether he's prepared them. That, to me, sounds a lot more abusive than letting a multiclass wizard cast high-level rituals.

Maybe I'm dumb, but what you just said makes absolutely zero sense to me.
Mind explaining it a bit?

edit:
To clarify:
How does him knowing the spells mean that he's suddenly casting them without preparation?
Clerics "know" every spell that they have enough levels to cast, but they still need to prepare the spells in order to cast them, ritual or otherwise.
This is no different, except the wizard can cast it as a ritual (if he could cast it normally, and it's in his spellbook), whether it's prepared or not.
Wizard and Cleric rituals work exactly the same way. They both need to know the spell, and they both need to be able to prepare the spell. The only difference is that a Cleric actually needs to have it prepared to cast as a ritual, while a wizard does not.

If you cast a ritual, you are casting that spell.
You are just doing so in a different manner, which takes ten minutes longer instead of using a slot.
That's it.
That's the only singular difference.
You still need to be *able* to cast that spell under normal circumstances.
Because you are casting the spell when you cast it as a ritual.
If you can't cast that spell, then you can't cast that ritual, because casting a ritual IS casting that spell (it's just trading ten extra minutes in exchange for not using a slot).

[SharkForce]

Eh? None of those are wizard dips. Those are all wizards with other classes dipped. The only one of them that would affect this discussion at all is the sorc splash, which would still only let out theoretical wizard cast a ritual one level higher than he "earned" with his wizard levels, so to speak. What people are concerned about here is a Wiz1/Cleric9 casting 5th level wizard rituals. I'm just saying no one is ever going to play that character, or in fact a Wiz1/X of any kind where X is a half-caster or better.



No. I mean a level 11 sorcerer could have the Ritual Caster feat, and 1 extra sorcery point and a 6th level sorc spell slot to go with his wizard rituals instead. I'd rather have that than a handful of useless cantrips keyed off my lowest stat.



No one is making that argument. One poster seems to be suggesting that it was straightforward intent (as in, "wizards get the Ritual Caster fear as a class feature the way some fighters get Martial Adept,") which is hardly a technicality. Several others are saying that it probably wasn't intended but it's there anyway and it's not a big deal. (Commune with nature isn't exactly a game breaker at any level, frankly.)



Man, what's with all the hostility, guys? It's just a game. No one is even trying to tell you how to play it. People trying to figure out how the rules work and what they allow are not some universally malevolent pool of sharks with lasers on their heads, jockeying for every last overpowered inch in order to "beat" the game somehow. They're just players. Having a temperament that makes them happier when they know what's going on, what they can do, and what to expect without having to guess what's going on in any given DM's head does not make them your enemy.

Besides, this edition is explicitly designed such that the rules as written are ultimately irrelevant compared to the DM's ruling, so even if the rules do say something imbalanced, why on earth would it matter? You can just say "ok but at my table it's going to work like this" and that's fine.

- why would anyone only be concerned about people with 1 or 2 wizard levels? what indication is there that such would be the only concern? casting spells 1-2 levels earlier than should be possible is certainly *less* problematic than casting 10 or 15 levels earlier than should be possible, but both are stronger than should be the case. the fact that one is less of a problem is no more relevant than suggesting that fighters should gain one extra attack at all levels because that would be less powerful than granting 3 extra attacks at all levels. it's true that it's less powerful, but not true that more attacks should be added for that reason.

- you don't choose attack cantrips. you choose light, prestidigitation, etc with the secondary class, and your main class is free to take attack cantrips which *are* keyed off of your primary stat. feat-wise, sorcerers are already pretty strapped for feats (you need 2 to get cha up to 20, and you'd like to spend as many of the rest as possible getting your con up to 20 as well, plus you probably want elemental adept and maybe warcaster). in contrast, the sorcerer capstone is barely even worth calling a loss, and while you lose out on actually higher level spells, at level 11 you were only getting a single level 6 spell anyways (and you still have the slot).

- the argument that is being made is that wizards don't "know" the spells they transcribe into their spellbook, they merely "understand", "decipher", and "practice" them. that doesn't sound even a tiny bit like a stretch, just because the authors didn't explicitly include the word "know" into that particular paragraph?

- it annoys me when people try to justify ridiculous rulings based on what the rules could be construed to say if you look at them really funny and go about proclaiming that to be the correct interpretation. if you wanna change the rules for your game, do it. i don't care what you do for your home games in the slightest, it's no skin off of my back. just don't go on the internet, particularly to a forum where people are going to try and find answers to questions about how the game works, and tell everyone that the rules allow something when they really don't. changing the rules for your own game i'm totally ok with. posting your houserules and saying "these are my houserules, here's my experience with them, what do you think?" i'm totally ok with. "these are the official rules because i came up with some absurd corner-case that was clearly never considered and the text was not written in legalese" i am going to have problems with, and react badly to.

- you're right, this is an edition that encourages everyone to make rulings. but you should be aware of when you're making rulings, and you should not be telling everyone else that your rulings are the official default rules for how the game works and that they're wrong for thinking otherwise. insisting that you have the right to decide how to play the game with your friends is rational and correct. insisting that the words you made up in your head to replace the words that are written in the book are actually the words written down in the book in the first is delusional and not correct. the former is good for creating a fun experience for you and your friends. the latter is good for creating confusion and frustration for those who are trying to understand what the book says.

[Chronos]

Quoth calebrus:

How does him knowing the spells mean that he's suddenly casting them without preparation?
Because that's what knowing spells actually means, in the rules. A sorcerer, for instance, can cast spells that he knows. So a multiclass sorcerer-wizard, who, by your interpretation, knows all of the spells in his book, can cast them all.

[calebrus]

Because that's what knowing spells actually means, in the rules. A sorcerer, for instance, can cast spells that he knows. So a multiclass sorcerer-wizard, who, by your interpretation, knows all of the spells in his book, can cast them all.

No. Knowing a spell means he knows how to cast that spell.
A wizard knows how to cast all the spells in his book. But he can't hold all of that information in his head at once, which is why he needs to choose which spells to prepare. Those are the spells that he can fit into his head that day.
He still knows his other spells, he just doesn't have them ready that day.

It's like carrying a toolbox with you. I know how to cut down a tree, even if I don't have an axe or a chainsaw with me to actually do it this morning.

[Chronos]

So, can sorcerers cast spells? They know spells, but you say that's not enough to be able to cast them.

[calebrus]

Did you just ask me if sorcerers could cast spells?
I'm done with this thread. The answer has been given and explained multiple times. If you want to twist the wording and try to use legalese (in a game specifically designed without all of that legalese) and intentionally misread it so that you can do things that you're not allowed to do, feel free to continue what is essentially cheating.
More power to you.

[Chronos]

Hey, I'm not the one who was just arguing that sorcerers can't cast spells. I'm arguing they can, because (unlike wizards), they know them. Saying that "transcribing" spells or whatever means "knowing" them is where the real rules-twisting is-- I'm just going by what the rules actually say.

And I know that the designers made a conscious decision to move away from clear language in this edition, but that was a horrible mistake, because it makes disputes about the rules inevitable. But there's still sometimes a clear meaning even without the legalese.

[kaoskonfety]

so the theoretical player gets all the 1st level wizard tricks and the ritual caster feat, so 2 feats and a bit cause this is Ritual caster (with no stat requirement) and Magic Adept and some class extras all in one?

That is a pretty sweet deal and I'd take it in a heartbeat.

Suddenly I need a compelling reason to not dip 1 wizard every time, I'm not saying I'd always do it - but I'd need quite a good reason not to.

This is the deepest reason I'd veto it at my table, regardless of all the other arguments and rule lawyering about what it 'technically says' in this farce we call a language. This is a stunningly good option adding alot of utility to any character. I also happen to agree with Calebrus that is is a player/DM arguing for MAX POWA and disregarding the multi-classing rules they don't want to see. The point that this interpretation does not line up with the remaining casters ritual casting options is just gravy atop the fine meal of "nope". I'd point at ritual caster and tell them to suck it up and blow a feat.

The other hand - I don't think this is not going to break open anyones game, really. Doubly so in a magic *thick* setting where studying magic is just a thing you DO as an educated person. The same trick exists under ritual caster - only now I've only got to spend 1 feat on my druid x, wizard 1 to get all the cleric rituals with any prepared druid and all the wizard rituals too.... now that's some good eating. Just don't *
expect it to fly outside your home table.

[xyianth]

... only now I've only got to spend 1 feat on my druid x, wizard 1 to get all the cleric rituals with any prepared druid and all the wizard rituals too.... now that's some good eating. Just don't *
expect it to fly outside your home table.

Just go play a tomelock if you are that ritual hungry. :smalltongue:

[kaoskonfety]

Just go play a tomelock if you are that ritual hungry. :smalltongue:

na, splashed bladelock, my weapon is unarmed strikes - MAGICAL BEAR MAULING!


edit... note - I don't think this is in any way a good idea... just a funny one.

[Occasional Sage]

Stepping back in the thread a bit:

In 1e, though I don't believe in 2e, magic-users could cast straight from their spellbook. There was a roll involved to determine whether the individual spell, or also adjacent spells, or the whole book, got erased through such a desperate act.

Everybody seems to have forgotten the roll.

[Sindeloke]

but you should be aware of when you're making rulings, and you should not be telling everyone else that your rulings are the official default rules for how the game works and that they're wrong for thinking otherwise. insisting that you have the right to decide how to play the game with your friends is rational and correct. insisting that the words you made up in your head to replace the words that are written in the book are actually the words written down in the book in the first is delusional and not correct. the former is good for creating a fun experience for you and your friends. the latter is good for creating confusion and frustration for those who are trying to understand what the book says.

You are presupposing that the way you read the rules is accurate and everyone who disagrees is wrong. That's fine, so is Chronos, but it's curious to me that you, who despise the "rules lawyering" inherent in closely examining a poorly-worded rule for its actual meaning, are the one vehemently insisting that your careful examination is the accurate one, to the point of calling disagreement a word as strong and hostile as "delusional." No one on the pro-ritual side has used any such language. You (and Calebrus) seem more attached to and invested in your rightness about the text than any of the so-called rules lawyers, when in fact you should be the one saying "it doesn't matter what it actually says, it matters what's intended and fair," which doesn't require any lawyer-y arguing about the text's actual literal meaning at all.

I'm also curious as to how you get to the point of "this meaning is so obvious you would have to have actual mental problems or genuinely fraudulent intent to think anything but what I say is right." I've seen the same sentiment in dozens of threads, any time anyone's interpretation of a rule like Crossbow Expert or simulacrum gives the player moderately more advantage than someone else's. Does not the fact that apparently reasonable people read it differently not suggest that the text isn't as clear and indisputable as you say? You don't see anyone trying to argue that you can get more than one bonus action in a round because "bonus" in English means "more than otherwise indicated," or anything silly like that. If these rules lawyers types were truly ignoring all reason in search of every technicality-driven advantage, you'd see it everywhere, rather than just in places like multiclassing and feats where the "optional rules" tag resulted in less design care by Wizards.

[Vogonjeltz]

I can't imagine a difference of interpretation ever rising to the level of an ethical violation.

Since we are rules lawyering and all, you should be aware that "engaging in fraud which impedes the administration of justice" qualifies. Therefore, knowingly misinterpreting (fraud) would constitute grounds for disbarment as a rules lawyer (tm). ;)

In any event, the multi-class rules take priority and they say to calculate spells known and prepared for each class individually as if you were a single-classed member of that class.

Therefore the Multi-classed Wizard 1/Cleric 9 knows and prepares Wizard spells as if they were a Wizard 1 and knows and prepares Cleric spells as if they were a Cleric 9.

It is only for spell slots that class levels are combined (depending on the values given on page 164).


The interaction of the multiclass rules and the various spellcasting-related class features is complicated enough that I'd argue there is room for rational disagreement. Even if you believe that those who disagree with you are irrational, that still doesn't mean they are in any way acting unethically.

I must rigorously disagree. The Multi-class rules are optional rules (PHB pg 163) that change the standard rules (page 164) and specifically replace the Spellcasting rules listed under each class (page 164 again). The rules have no internal disagreement in them on this topic.

[Daehron]

I'd be the first to admit that I'd love it if a 1 level dip as a wizard granted the bennies of the Ritual Caster -- Wizard feat (plus 1+Int bonus prepped wizard spells and a few cantrips).

But that reading is overly generous.

That said, we are talking about a grand total of 17 spells, eight of which are first level. All of which the character would have to gain access to via a scroll or captured spell book, not the easy-peasy 'two spells appear in your spell book when you level up' method.

As a DM, I'd make the level 1 spells reasonably easy to get. Their uncommon at best. The higher spells - well... that would be a wonderful story about how they found those spells.

I know some folks are dead set against allowing that particular ruling. With varied reasons. But a little context list of the Wizard Ritual spells:

Alarm 1
Comprehend Languages 1
Detect Magic 1
Find Familiar 1
Identify 1
Illusory Script 1
Tenser's Floating Disk 1
Unseen Servant 1
Gentle Repose 2
Magic Mouth 2
Feign Death 3
Leomund's Tiny Hut 3
Phantom Steed 3
Water Breathing 3
Contact Other Plane 5
Rary's Telepathic Bond 5
Drawmij's Instant Summons 6


I'd say that Rary's, Contact Other Plane and Drawmij's are the only spells that really have the possibility of being in some way "OP." But by the time your casting 5th level spells... there are so many other OP things going on in one round...

[Xetheral]

Even if you believe that those who disagree with you are irrational, that still doesn't mean they are in any way acting unethically.

I must rigorously disagree. The Multi-class rules are optional rules (PHB pg 163) that change the standard rules (page 164) and specifically replace the Spellcasting rules listed under each class (page 164 again). The rules have no internal disagreement in them on this topic.

So you disagree with my claim that the rules are ambiguous enough to create room for rational disagreement. That's fine. But that doesn't make those who disagree with your conclusions unethical. Even under your suggested definition of fraud, those who disagree with you would have to be *knowingly* misconstruing the rules, and there is no evidence of that.

(Note I don't actually disagree with your conclusions on which is a better interpretation. I simply think there is more ambiguity than you do.)

[Daremonai]

On a slightly different but related note, a strictly literal reading of the multiclass rules for spellcasting dictates that if you multiclass as a wizard, you lose any spells you may have scribed from scrolls, and presumably cannot scribe any afterwards (the example wizard/ranger specifically states that the wizard knows as many spells as he would have auto-learned through levelling, and does not allow for any scribed in the numbers given).

[pwykersotz]

On a slightly different but related note, a strictly literal reading of the multiclass rules for spellcasting dictates that if you multiclass as a wizard, you lose any spells you may have scribed from scrolls, and presumably cannot scribe any afterwards (the example wizard/ranger specifically states that the wizard knows as many spells as he would have auto-learned through levelling, and does not allow for any scribed in the numbers given).

Hahaha, wow. I'm honestly curious what kind of DM would enforce that. I can imagine an Order of the Stick style game 4th-walling mechanical penalties like that to hilarious effect.

[Chronos]

Note that dipping one level of wizard for the rituals, even given the rules as written, is still slightly inferior to the Ritual Caster feat: The feat lets you choose any one list (which might be relevant if there's already a wizard in the party), and it also continues to scale at the same rate no matter what you multiclass into. Getting ritual casting from the wizard class locks you into a single choice of class, and only scales at full rate as long as you're taking full-casting classes.

Now, as for the question of whether it's overpowered (which is a completely different question from whether it's allowed by the rules): Opinions differ on that, of course. I personally think it's not (well, no more overpowered than spellcasting in general, at least), but if your table disagrees, that's fine. In that case, the proper response, instead of poorly rules-lawyering the existing rules, is to just change them. Add a houserule that a wizard can only cast a ritual as a wizard if they would be able to cast the same spell as a non-ritual.

[Vogonjeltz]

So you disagree with my claim that the rules are ambiguous enough to create room for rational disagreement. That's fine. But that doesn't make those who disagree with your conclusions unethical. Even under your suggested definition of fraud, those who disagree with you would have to be *knowingly* misconstruing the rules, and there is no evidence of that.

(Note I don't actually disagree with your conclusions on which is a better interpretation. I simply think there is more ambiguity than you do.)

The alternative to deliberate misconduct would be gross negligence (repeating an honest, yet easily disproved, mistake with a reckless disregard for the truth.) According to a brief scan of google our hypothetical rules lawyers(tm) could be disbarred for gross negligence as well. This leaves a catch-22 situation:

Either fraudulent misrepresentation of said rules or gross negligence in their reference to said rules; both of which carry the same repercussions.

[ChubbyRain]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/

This should help, y'all have fun now.

[calebrus]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/

This should help, y'all have fun now.

Wait, so a multiclass wizard has to follow the multiclassed spellcaster rules, just like everyone else?
Huh.... who'd'a'thunk it?

[ChubbyRain]

Wait, so a multiclass wizard has to follow the multiclassed spellcaster rules, just like everyone else?
Huh.... who'd'a'thunk it?

Right? One would think that they get special treatment because this system looks so much like 3.5.

[Chronos]

OK, now we just have to figure out which of the two questions in the tweet Crawford was answering. Was he just saying no to the "and then cast", or to the "write into spellbook" as well?

[calebrus]

OK, now we just have to figure out which of the two questions in the tweet Crawford was answering. Was he just saying no to the "and then cast", or to the "write into spellbook" as well?

No, we don't. There's nothing to figure out.
Because, context.
He said "and" in there.
So he was answering both questions.
No, you cannot add it to your spellbook *and*, no, you can only use those slots for 1st level spells.

[Harkle]

I've looked at all the Wizard rituals, and none of them seem specifically over-powered.
As a DM I don't think I would have an issue with a Wizard 1 / Cleric 4 (giving you 2 level 3 spell Slots), putting Leomund's Tiny Hut in a ritual book and allowing them to cast it only as a ritual. Of course they cannot prepare it, it is too high level. They can only prepare level 1 wizard Spells and level 2 Cleric spells.

But casting as a ritual doesn't require preparing.

Heck a Human Fighter with 13 int could cast that at level 2 if they took the Ritual Casting Feat. (half level rounded up)

Obviously the Feat is more powerful than the Wizard Ritual casting ability, but limiting it to only spells that they could prepare if they wanted to seems a bit harsh.

[Trampaige]

Heck a Human Fighter with 13 int could cast that at level 2 if they took the Ritual Casting Feat. (half level rounded up)



Your math is really bad here.

lvl1 = .5, rounded to 1
lvl2 = 1
lvl3 = 1.5, rounded to 2
lvl4 = 2
lvl5 = 2.5, rounded to 3.

It follows the same convention as spell level access, where you get lvl3 spells as a lvl5 caster.