Multiclassed spell slots and ritual spells.

[PeterM]

Okay, I know that by multiclassing two spellcasting classes you can end up with spell slots of a higher level than you can know, because that's based on each class's individual level. I understand that you can only use those slots to cast more powerful version of lower level spells. I think the rules could be more clear for at least some classes, but they make sense and I'm not arguing them.

What about ritual spells, though? If I have a Wizard/Something Else character who has access to spell slots of a level higher than he can prepare and cast, can I copy wizard ritual spells up to that higher level to my spell book and cast them as rituals? Ritual Casting says "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." Which is good, because I couldn't prepare it if I wanted to.

But can I copy it into my spellbook? The rules for copying a spell into your spellbook say "you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots." It doesn't say you have to be able to cast spells of that spell slot's level. And Ritual Casting is not mentioned in the multiclassing rules, unless of course I missed it.

The bit on Ritual Casting in the Magic chapter says you need to have the Ritual Casting feature, check, then says "The caster must also have the spell prepared or on his or her list of spells known, unless the character's ritual feature specifies otherwise, as the wizard's does."

I think that covers all the rules on ritual casting. Did I miss anything?

On the one hand, this could be something that should be assumed to be treated like other spells of a level higher than you can normally cast, and they just missed it. On the other hand, it seems to me they went out of their way to make ritual casting even more powerful and versatile for wizards than for other classes, so why not? What say you?

[calebrus]

You can only you add a spell to your spellbook if you can cast the spell. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/)
So as a multiclass wizard, your rituals will be capped by your wizard level, just like your prepared spells are.
The one and only way that a wizard's ritual casting is any different from any other ritual caster is that the wizard doesn't need to actually HAVE the spell prepared. He still needs to be ABLE to prepare it in order to cast it as a ritual.

After all, if you're casting a ritual, you are 100% casting that spell. You're just doing if without spending a slot. If you can't cast the spell normally, then you also can't cast the spell as a ritual, because the only two differences between ritual casting and regular casting are (1) whether or not a slot gets used for it, and (2) the time it takes to cast it.

[PeterM]

Curses, foiled again! Everything you say makes sense, of course, but am I correct in thinking it required clarification from outside the book to be positive?

Looks like it's the Ritual Caster feat, then, though it might not be worth it. Have to look at it.

[calebrus]

Curses, foiled again! Everything you say makes sense, of course, but am I correct in thinking it required clarification from outside the book to be positive?

Not really.
It takes some jumping around and reading different parts about spellboooks (in a sidebar), and learning spells, and in the multiclass section, and what not.... you have to jump through some hoops if you want it clear cut.... but it is indeed clear cut after jumping through said hoops.

Just remember, 5e was designed and written with a TON less legalese than 3e/4e was. It was designed and written for DMs to make rulings as they see fit. When you try to game the system like you could in 3e/4e, you run into problems.
Don't try to read the book like a lawyer. Read it in the way that makes the most sense.
Just because a spell is written down doesn't mean that every wizard understands how to cast it. If he did, he'd be able to cast it the regular way. If he can't prepare it, then it's too complicated and he can't cast it, whether it's written down or not.

And remember, multiclassing is an optional rule in 5e. Thus, the classes and their descriptions (for spellcasting, rituals, etc) were written with single classed characters in mind, because multiclassing might not even exist at the table.
Once multiclassing becomes available, and you do it, you ignore the spellcasting descriptions in the class write-ups and follow what it says in the multiclassing rules. And in those rules, you consider yourself single classed for all purposes except the actual slots that you have. A wizard5/cleric2 can do everything that a wizard 5 can do, and everything that a cleric 2 can do.... and after every single thing has been determined using those parameters, then, and only then do you consider what extra slots he may or may not have. And those extra slots can only be used to power up lower level spells. They essentially do not even exist, except for that one, singular purpose.

[Chronos]

The rules don't actually say that. Your spells known are determined on a class-by-class basis, but spells in a spellbook aren't spells known, so they just go by the limit of the overall slots you have. Crawford in that tweet was answering the question of whether you could cast those spells (you can't, because you can't prepare them), not the other question about whether you can put them in your book.

[calebrus]

The rules don't actually say that.

Crawford in that tweet was answering the question of whether you could cast those spells

We've already gone over this, many times in fact.
And yes, he did also answer whether or not you could cast them, but that wasn't all he was answering.
The questions asked were, in order: Can I copy them into my book, and can I cast them?
The answers given were, in order: No, and No.
That's why he used the word "and". It ties both answers to both questions.
Context.

As for what the book says (PHB page 164):
"If you have more than one spellcasting class, this [Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots per Spell Level] table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells that you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower level spells."

"You can use those slots, but ONLY to cast your lower level spells." Only. As in, you can use them for no other purpose. That includes determining what spells can go into your spellbook.
With the exception of powering up lower level spells, those slots do not exist as far as your character is concerned.

[Chronos]

OK, and what rule did Crawford say prevents it?

[calebrus]

I just quoted the rule that prevents it.
Do you think Jeremy Crawford, of all friggin people, needs to cite his rules for you? If so, you need a reality check.

[Xetheral]

If you can never add spells of a high level than you can cast to your spellbook, then why is there the restriction in "Preparing and Casting Spells" that says: "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."?

It could easily be a redundant requirement--5e is written ambiguously enough that some redundancy is to be expected. But if you want to give effect to this restriction, then one must be able to have spells in one's spellbook for which one doesn't have slots.

Either interpretation appears to me to be equally valid under the rules.

[calebrus]

If you can never add spells of a high level than you can cast to your spellbook, then why is there the restriction in "Preparing and Casting Spells" that says: "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."?

That restriction exists because the class descriptions are written with single classed characters in mind, so it's telling you that you need to be able to cast it in order to add it to your book.
As soon as you get slots from a different source, you use the multiclass rules, wherein it specifically tells you that you can only (and that's the key word, only) use those slots to cast your lower level spells. You also no longer use the preparing rules listed in your class description. The multiclass rules tell you that you prepare as a single classed character. So the entire description in your class entry gets edited to account ONLY for the slots you gained as that particular class.
The multiclass rules give you one single thing that you can use those extra slots for.
Cast your lower level spells.
Not copy spells into your spellbook.
Not cast rituals.
Not make scroll casting easier.
One thing. Casting your lower level spells.
For all other purposes, those slots effectively do not exist.

If you read the sidebar on spellbooks, and follow along with the process of how to actually copy a spell to your book, you must first practice the spell and completely understand it *before* you add it to your book. That means by the time you add it to your book, you can cast it.
It uses the specific phrase "master it," and once you have mastered it you can add it to your book.
If you do not have the capability to cast it, then you cannot possibly master it, and therefore cannot add it to your book, as the mastery must happen prior to the copying.

So once again:
A caster needs to know the spell and have that spell prepared in order to cast that spell as a ritual. Because what is he doing as a ritual? He's casting the spell. If he can't cast the spell, then he can't cast the spell, ritual or otherwise.
Wizards get a pass on actually having the spell prepared, but they must still be able to cast the spell in order to cast the spell as a ritual. If he can't cast it, then he can't add it to his spellbook. If it's not in his spellbook, then he can't cast it as a ritual.
(Remember what I said about having to jump through some hoops to make it clear cut? The multiclass rules and the sidebar on spellbooks are those hoops. Having to jump through those hoops makes it more confusing to find, but no less clear once you find it.)
So if a wizard can't cast the spell normally, then he can't cast it as a ritual either, because it isn't in his book.

[Xetheral]

That restriction exists because the class descriptions are written with single classed characters in mind, so it's telling you that you need to be able to cast it in order to add it to your book.

It's just as redundant for single-class characters. The sidebar on page 114 says: "when you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is a level for which you have spell slots...." Under Preparing and Casting Spells on the same page, it says: "You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook.... The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

The requirement that you can only add spells to your spellbook if you have slots of that level renders superfluous the requirement that you can only prepare spells from your spellbook if you have slots of that level.



As soon as you get slots from a different source, you use the multiclass rules, wherein it specifically tells you that you can only (and that's the key word, only) use those slots to cast your lower level spells. You also no longer use the preparing rules listed in your class description. The multiclass rules tell you that you prepare as a single classed character. So the entire description in your class entry gets edited to account ONLY for the slots you gained as that particular class.
The multiclass rules give you one single thing that you can use those extra slots for.
Cast your lower level spells.
Not copy spells into your spellbook.
Not cast rituals.
Not make scroll casting easier.
One thing. Casting your lower level spells.
For all other purposes, those slots effectively do not exist.

That's a perfectly valid interpretation. It's also valid, however, to note that "only" on page 164 modifies "use", and the latter term could plausibly mean either:

use the spell slots, meaning cast a spell using those slots, or
use the spell slots, meaning use them for any purpose whatsoever, including meeting prerequisites

The context, to me, makes both readings equally plausible. The first reading, however, means that the multiclass spellcasting rules say nothing about scribing spells into spellbooks--the part about learning and preparing spells as a single-class character doesn't on it's face apply to adding spells to a spellbook. (Although there is a decent argument to be made that adding a spell to a spellbook should qualify as "learning" it.)


If you read the sidebar on spellbooks, and follow along with the process of how to actually copy a spell to your book, you must first practice the spell and completely understand it *before* you add it to your book. That means by the time you add it to your book, you can cast it.
It uses the specific phrase "master it," and once you have mastered it you can add it to your book.
If you do not have the capability to cast it, then you cannot possibly master it, and therefore cannot add it to your book, as the mastery must happen prior to the copying.

A sound argument. But in context it's just as valid to read "master" as a reference to the previous paragraph's description of what's involved in copying a spell, rather than as a separate requirement added on top of that paragraph.


So once again:
A caster needs to know the spell and have that spell prepared in order to cast that spell as a ritual. Because what is he doing as a ritual? He's casting the spell. If he can't cast the spell, then he can't cast the spell, ritual or otherwise.
Wizards get a pass on actually having the spell prepared, but they must still be able to cast the spell in order to cast the spell as a ritual. If he can't cast it, then he can't add it to his spellbook. If it's not in his spellbook, then he can't cast it as a ritual.

(Remember what I said about having to jump through some hoops to make it clear cut? The multiclass rules and the sidebar on spellbooks are those hoops. Having to jump through those hoops makes it more confusing to find, but no less clear once you find it.)
So if a wizard can't cast the spell normally, then he can't cast it as a ritual either, because it isn't in his book.

I think your interpretation of the rules is the superior one, and it's the one I use at my table. However, I still disagree with your assertion that it is clear cut. After jumping through the hoops you describe, to me there are still two valid readings of the rules.

The downside of trying to stick more to natural language is that language is inherently ambiguous, and so it's to be expected that there will be more ambiguous rules in this edition. The multiclass spellcasting rules in particular suffer from the problem of being particularly convoluted, so it comes as no surprise to me that a small subset of the possible cases (wizards casting ritual spells) has ambiguous interpretations.

[calebrus]

A sound argument. But in context it's just as valid to read "master" as a reference to the previous paragraph's description of what's involved in copying a spell, rather than as a separate requirement added on top of that paragraph.
Not at all. Read it again.

"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 it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, this process takes 2 hours and 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 spell."

So first you need to experiment with the spell, reproduce the basic spell (that's called casting it in its basic form), practice it (again, casting it), and master it (one more time, casting it, but now doing so masterfully).
Then and only then (practice, then transcribe; once you have spent time and money) can you copy it into your spellbook.
In order to meet the requirements set out under the Spellbook sidebar, it is EXCEEDINGLY clear that you have to be able to cast the spell prior to copying it into your spellbook. You simply cannot follow the steps listed if you cannot cast the spell.

[Xetheral]

Not at all. Read it again.

"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 it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, this process takes 2 hours and 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 spell."

So first you need to experiment with the spell, reproduce the basic spell (that's called casting it in its basic form), practice it (again, casting it), and master it (one more time, casting it, but now doing so masterfully).
Then and only then (practice, then transcribe; once you have spent time and money) can you copy it into your spellbook.
In order to meet the requirements set out under the Spellbook sidebar, it is EXCEEDINGLY clear that you have to be able to cast the spell prior to copying it into your spellbook. You simply cannot follow the steps listed if you cannot cast the spell.

I didn't miss any of that... it's why I think your argument is sound. I simply don't think it's the only valid interpretation, even if I think it's the superior one.

[calebrus]

Well, it's a moot point. Whether or not you see that as a possible interpretation is irrelevant, as Crawford has weighed in on the matter against said interpretation.

[Chronos]

Quoth calebrus:

In order to meet the requirements set out under the Spellbook sidebar, it is EXCEEDINGLY clear that you have to be able to cast the spell prior to copying it into your spellbook. You simply cannot follow the steps listed if you cannot cast the spell.
Under that interpretation, no wizard can ever cast any spell, because you can't cast any spell prior to preparing it, and you can't prepare it until it's in your spellbook.

[coredump]

Under that interpretation, no wizard can ever cast any spell, because you can't cast any spell prior to preparing it, and you can't prepare it until it's in your spellbook.

If it is of a low enough level, you are *able* to cast it. Thus you may copy it to your spell book.
Once you have copied to your spellbook, you can prepare the spell, then you *can* cast it.


Yes folks, the PHB has plenty of places that if you squint real hard, can purposely try.... it is possible to interpret the rules in multiple ways. That does not mean that is what the rules say, that is just what you can twist them into kinda sorta meaning....
If you have to tip-toe and dance around the rules, and the twist and turn around JCs tweets.... you are not following the rules, you are following what you wish they said.

Congrats..... chances are no one will be able to 'prove' you are wrong (especially when if you are willing to completely blow off the designers statements).... but that doesn't mean what you are saying is at all valid.

[Xetheral]

Yes folks, the PHB has plenty of places that if you squint real hard, can purposely try.... it is possible to interpret the rules in multiple ways. That does not mean that is what the rules say, that is just what you can twist them into kinda sorta meaning....
If you have to tip-toe and dance around the rules, and the twist and turn around JCs tweets.... you are not following the rules, you are following what you wish they said.

Congrats..... chances are no one will be able to 'prove' you are wrong (especially when if you are willing to completely blow off the designers statements).... but that doesn't mean what you are saying is at all valid.

The sheer number of threads on this forum where reasonable posters disagree about how to interpret the rules (with both sides frequently considering their interpretation "obvious") is enough evidence to convince me that real ambiguities exist in the rules.

[calebrus]

The sheer number of threads on this forum where reasonable posters disagree about how to interpret the rules (with both sides frequently considering their interpretation "obvious") is enough evidence to convince me that real ambiguities exist in the rules.

I fully agree that ambiguities appear in the rules. I do not agree that this is one of them.
You have to hop around a bit, and connect the dots between different parts, but it's clear as far as I'm concerned.
Not only is it clear after hopping and connection, but the intent is 100% absolutely, perfectly, crystal clear, which means anyone that reads it differently is trying to game the system to do something that they know good and well is not intended or allowed.

[Xetheral]

which means anyone that reads it differently is trying to game the system to do something that they know good and well is not intended or allowed.

As we know from this discussion, I read it differently than you do. And yet, I'm not in any way trying to game the system.

[calebrus]

Just because some people misread something, whether intentionally or not, doesn't mean that it is ambiguous.
That simply means it is being misread (sometimes intentionally).
So like I said, I fully agree that ambiguities appear in the rules. I do not agree that this is one of them.

[Xetheral]

Just because some people misread something, whether intentionally or not, doesn't mean that it is ambiguous.

I tend to be of the philosophy that if someone else reads a rule differently than I do, that means that rule is at the very least confusing. If, after discussion and mutual understanding, we still disagree, then it's ambiguous.

If two reasonable people disagree on an interpretation, I see no way to conclusively determine which one is "misreading" the rules.

[calebrus]

I tend to be of the philosophy that if someone else reads a rule differently than I do, that means that rule is at the very least confusing. If, after discussion and mutual understanding, we still disagree, then it's ambiguous.

If two reasonable people disagree on an interpretation, I see no way to conclusively determine which one is "misreading" the rules.

There are a handful of people here that continually read the rules in a manner which was quite obviously not intended in order to arrive at the personal interpretation that suits them. I don't consider that reasonable.
If it happens once in a while, sure, I'll consider it ambiguous. If it happens practically every single time, no, I consider them misreading it to suit their purposes, just like they always do.
The person I was discussing it with is the latter, not the former.

[coredump]

Some people approach the rulebook like a lawyer trying to save a client from death row. "If I can possibly combine these 5 different elements with various interpretations... maybe I can get it to mean something different"

Yep, you 'can' do that.... doesn't mean its ambiguous.


And yes, there are ambiguous rules (some on purpose)... but that's not the issue.

[Chronos]

But unless you combine five different elements of the rules and force different meanings on things, then we're left with the very simple conclusion that there's nothing stopping a multiclassed wizard from casting high-level rituals. Letting wizards cast high-level rituals is the simple, straightforward conclusion.

[calebrus]

But unless you combine five different elements of the rules and force different meanings on things, then we're left with the very simple conclusion that there's nothing stopping a multiclassed wizard from casting high-level rituals. Letting wizards cast high-level rituals is the simple, straightforward conclusion.

You don't have to combine anything more than you normally do for a single classed Wizard.
It's more difficult to find, because the parts are separated due to your multiclass, but there is no extra combining needed.
A single classed Wizard follows the rules under the Wizard spellcasting description for spell slots, and follows the rules under the Spellbook sidebar for copying spells.
A multiclass Wizard follows the rules under the Multiclass description for spell slots, and follows the rules under the Spellbook sidebar for copying spells.

Just because you want to ignore the fact that the optional multiclass rules change the default Wizard rules doesn't make it ambiguous.... nor does it make it unclear.... nor does it make it open to interpretation.... nor does it make Crawford's direct commentary on the issue any less valid.
It just means you're ignoring parts of the rules to get the result you desire.

"If you have more than one spellcasting class, this [Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots per Spell Level] table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells that you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower level spells."

Only. Only to cast your lower level spells.
Only, as in, for no other purpose. None whatsoever. That is the only thing you can use those slots for. Not one thing more.
You are using those slots to determine what spells can be added to your spellbook.
There is one singular thing that you can use those slots for, and adding spells to your spellbook is not that one thing.

There is zero ambiguity. You're just ignoring rules that you don't like.

[Chronos]

Who said anything about using those slots? You don't need to use those slots to be able to cast high-level rituals; you just need to have them.

[calebrus]

Who said anything about using those slots? You don't need to use those slots to be able to cast high-level rituals; you just need to have them.

That's where you're wrong, and that's probably why you don't understand.
How do you cast a ritual? You have to have the spell in your spellbook.
How do you copy the spell into your spellbook? You need to have a slot of that level. So you are using those slots to determine which spells can be added to your spellbook.
You are using those slots for a purpose other than the one, singular purpose that it tells you that you can use them for.
You can't do that. Those slots can only be used to cast you lower level spells. Those slots can not be used to determine which spells can be added to your spellbook.

They may as well not exist, except for the purposes of casting your lower levels spells.
"If you have more than one spellcasting class, this [Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots per Spell Level] table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells that you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower level spells."
That is the ONLY thing you can use them for. For all intents and purposes, they don't even exist, except for that one, singular purpose.
You are trying to use them for a different purpose, and you can not do that. You're breaking the rules and claiming it's RAW.

You're using those slots to determine which spells can be copied to your spellbook, when it specifically tells you that you can not use those slots in that way.

[calebrus]

Let me put this another way for you.
You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower level spells.
Only. For no other purpose.

As a Wizard 4 / Cleric 4, you find a scroll of phantom steed.
That's a 3rd level Wizard spell.
As a Wizard, you have 2nd level slots.
How are you adding that spell to your spellbook?

You'll say "because I have 4th level slots!"
But you don't. Not for these purposes. For these purposes, you have 2nd level slots. Because the one and only thing that those higher level slots can be used for does not apply here, so they don't exist as far as this exercise is concerned.

You can't add phantom steed to your spellbook, because you don't have the slots. You can ONLY use those slots to cast your lower level spells. And as you can't add it to your spellbook, that means you can't cast it as a ritual.
It really is that simple.

[Chronos]

So when you determine what spells you can cast, do you suddenly have one less slot available? Or do you also houserule that you can use a slot and still have it?

[calebrus]

That question doesn't even make sense. What are you talking about?

[Chronos]

When you use a slot, it's gone until you take a long rest. That's what spell slots are for.

[calebrus]

No, that's what happens when you use a slot to cast a spell.
There are other ways to use a slot besides casting a spell.

(1) Like, for example, determining if you can learn a new spell. You need to have a slot of that level, so you are using the existence of that slot for a purpose other than casting a spell.
(2) Like, for example, determining if you can prepare spell. You need to have a slot of that level, so you are using the existence of that slot for a purpose other than casting a spell.
(3) Like, for example, determining if you can copy a spell into your spellbook. You need to have a slot of that level, so you are using the existence of that slot for a purpose other than casting a spell. And this example, by the way, is just another way to phrase number (1) above. They are the exact same thing. Adding a spell to his spellbook is the way that Wizards learn their spells.

The multiclass rules say that you learn and prepare spells as if you were single classed, so the answer to numbers (1) and (2) is, No, you can't use those higher level slots as a basis to learn or prepare spells.
The multiclass rules tell you exactly what you can use those higher level slots for, and that is to cast your lower level spells. Those rules state that this is the only thing you can use those slots for, which rules out number (3) was well. But this is altogether redundant, because this was ruled out by number (1) above previously.

[Malifice]

I seriously cant believe people are still making these ridiculous RAW arguments in a game that has been intentionally written in plain english non technical talk wher ever possible, and is expressly designed to empower DM's with 'rulings not rules'. And thats notwithstanding the intent of the rules for MC spellcasters is about as crystal clear as one can get.

[PeterM]

No, that's what happens when you use a slot to cast a spell.
There are other ways to use a slot besides casting a spell.

But if you agree with his statement that, "When you use a slot, it's gone until you take a long rest," once you cast your last slot of a given spell level you can no longer use that slot to allow you to copy a spell of that level into your book.

"To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell's level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest."

If you're expending the slots and later regaining them, that means you no longer have those slots after casting. They're gone until you rest.

As for copying a spell into your book, "... you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots..."

Honestly, I think the most obvious reading is that if you expend all your slots you can't copy any spells into your book until you regain slots of the appropriate level. If you really want to be a jerk, you could say that a wizard who expended all his first level slots but still has plenty of higher level slots can't copy first level spells until he regains his first level slots.

I wouldn't rule that way, myself, but I don't think that interpretation is misreading the rules.

[Chronos]

Quoth Malifice:

I seriously cant believe people are still making these ridiculous RAW arguments in a game that has been intentionally written in plain english non technical talk wher ever possible...
You misunderstand. The game was not written in plain English. Plain English is technical talk, or legalese, or whatever you want to call it. The whole purpose of those forms of writing is to make meanings more apparent. The game is written in familiar English, which is the exact opposite of plain English. Arguments about the rules are exactly what you would expect from that.

[Grek]

It seems unambiguous to me, but in the opposite way calebrus seems to be reading it.

The "Copying a Spell into the Book" sidebar says you can copy a spell into your spellbook if you have spell slots of the appropriate level. And you do have spell slots of the appropriate level. "Spells Known and Prepared" under the multiclassing section says to determine what spells you know and can prepare as if you were a single-classed character. A wizard 2/cleric 2 can't prepare a 2nd level spell, because neither a 2nd level wizard nor a 2nd level cleric can do that. But ritual spells don't need to be prepared. That's the whole point of ritual spells. Contradiction check says that "Can I copy this spell into my spellbook?" and "Can I prepare this spell?" are two different questions: they're allowed to have different answers without that being a contradiction. Sanity check also says that a 4th level character casting a 2nd level ritual spell as a ritual is not inappropriate for their level. Designer commentary is compatible with this interpretation - Crawford says you can't prepare 2nd level spells (I agree) and remains silent on the ritual spell question. (EDIT: this is not actually true; I was mistaken)

What's the problem here?

[calebrus]

Designer commentary is compatible with this interpretation - Crawford says you can't prepare 2nd level spells (I agree) and remains silent on the ritual spell question.

That's not what he says, and what he said isn't compatible with that interpretation.
Read it again.
The question of whether he could prepare it was never asked.
The questions asked were (1) can I copy it into my book, and (2) can I cast (presumably as a ritual, since that very sentence specifies that he knows he can't cast 2nd level wizard spells).
The answers were (1) No, and (2) No.

The second question was irrelevant, because the first question answered both of them.
He cannot copy it into his book, so he obviously cannot cast it (in any form at all).

[Grek]

I stand corrected. RAW says "Yes, that is allowed."; Balance says "Sure, why not?" and Jeremy Crawford's twitter says "No, you can't."

I'm going to go with what the book says, not what the designers say on twitter.

[calebrus]

Correction.
RAW says, No you can't. Balance says, Absolutely-friggin-not. Crawford says, Nope Nope Nope. And the extremely clear RAI simply laughs at you.

[Talderas]

Correction.
RAW says, No you can't. Balance says, Absolutely-friggin-not. Crawford says, Nope Nope Nope. And the extremely clear RAI simply laughs at you.

The rules are very clear that you can only cast spells of a level which you normally can, so no ritual casting of higher level spells. At what point is it unbalanced to transcribe spells into your spell book that you cannot cast?

[Xetheral]

The rules are very clear that you can only cast spells of a level which you normally can, so no ritual casting of higher level spells. At what point is it unbalanced to transcribe spells into your spell book that you cannot cast?

The limitation on multiclass spellcasting prevents you from preparing or learning spells at a level higher than you could prepare single-classed, but doesn't outright restrict the level of spells that you can cast using your multiclass slots (see edit). Normally, this is irrelevant, since you can't cast a spell you haven't prepared (or learned). Wizards, however, can cast Ritual spells from their spellbook without preparation, so it becomes quite important to know if they can scribe spells into their spellbook of a level higher than they would be unable to prepare.

Edit: Although the multiclass spell slot rules do stop you from casting spells higher than you can prepare using those slots. The debate is over whether "using" those slots refers only to casting from them, or whether it also means "using" them to meet scribing prerequisites.

[Talderas]

Edit: Although the multiclass spell slot rules do stop you from casting spells higher than you can prepare using those slots. The debate is over whether "using" those slots refers only to casting from them, or whether it also means "using" them to meet scribing prerequisites.

Correct. The rules prevent you from casting the higher level spells as rituals regardless of if you can transcribe higher than normal spells to your spellbook. Whether or not you "use" the spell slots when transcribing is a meaningless distinction. You either do and you can't transcribe spells you can't cast in any way shape or form or you do not "use" the spell slots and you can transcribe spells that you can't cast in any way shape or form.

Personally, you have to get into a some nuance level wording of "use" to determine things. You very obviously are not casting the spells you are transcribing because you are not required to expend spell slots and the cost of transcribing does not match the costs of the expensive material components.

Edit: As to the use bit, it's a question about whether the multiclass rules are being interpreted with "use" as an active or passive element. For transcribing they simply serve as a prerequisite but aren't actively used. We do have examples of spell slots being used in ways other than casting spells, converting spell slots to sorcery points for instance.

[Xetheral]

Correct. The rules prevent you from casting the higher level spells as rituals regardless of if you can transcribe higher than normal spells to your spellbook. Whether or not you "use" the spell slots when transcribing is a meaningless distinction. You either do and you can't transcribe spells you can't cast in any way shape or form or you do not "use" the spell slots and you can transcribe spells that you can't cast in any way shape or form.

Personally, you have to get into a some nuance level wording of "use" to determine things. You very obviously are not casting the spells you are transcribing because you are not required to expend spell slots and the cost of transcribing does not match the costs of the expensive material components.

So wait, are you advocating the position that a multiclass wizard is allowed add spells up to his multiclass slot maximum to his spellbook, but still can't cast them even if they have the ritual tag? I think that's a new combination.

So, under that interpretation, a Wizard 3/Sorcerer 2 could copy a level 3 ritual spell into his spellbook, but still can't cast it? What are you basing that on?

[Talderas]

So wait, are you advocating the position that a multiclass wizard is allowed add spells up to his multiclass slot maximum to his spellbook, but still can't cast them even if they have the ritual tag? I think that's a new combination.

So, under that interpretation, a Wizard 3/Sorcerer 2 could copy a level 3 ritual spell into his spellbook, but still can't cast it? What are you basing that on?

Exactly correct.

I'm basing it on the assumption that you're aren't using spell slots since they aren't expend. Simply having something, which is the prerequisite for transcribing, is not enough to suggest that you are using it. There are plenty examples of using spell slots which are not spell casting. Sorcery points and smites are the first two that come to mind.

[Xetheral]

Exactly correct.

I'm basing it on the assumption that you're aren't using spell slots since they aren't expend. Simply having something, which is the prerequisite for transcribing, is not enough to suggest that you are using it. There are plenty examples of using spell slots which are not spell casting. Sorcery points and smites are the first two that come to mind.

So, since the Wizard doesn't need to prepare a ritual spell in order to cast it, once that third level ritual is in his book what stops him from casting it as a ritual?

[calebrus]

You very obviously are not casting the spells you are transcribing

You very obviously ARE casting the spells you are transcribing. You cast it to such a point that the text calls it mastery of the spell, and that mastery has to happen before it can be transcribed.
Read the sidebar on Spellbooks and follow along.

Copied from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/editpost.php?p=19134284&do=editpost) earlier post, which was copied form the Sepplbook sidebar:

"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 it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, this process takes 2 hours and 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 spell."

So first you need to experiment with the spell, reproduce the basic spell (that's called casting it in its basic form), practice it (again, casting it), and master it (one more time, casting it, but now doing so masterfully).
Then and only then (practice, then transcribe; once you have spent time and money) can you copy it into your spellbook.
In order to meet the requirements set out under the Spellbook sidebar, it is EXCEEDINGLY clear that you have to be able to cast the spell prior to copying it into your spellbook. You simply cannot follow the steps listed if you cannot cast the spell.

So yes, you absolutely need to be able to cast the spell, BEFORE you copy it to your book.
And if you can't cast it, then how are you doing the things needed to copy it into your book?
You can't. Simple.
You need to have a slot of that level, and you need to have the ability to cast the spell. Then, and only then, can you copy a spell into your book.

[Talderas]

So, since the Wizard doesn't need to prepare a ritual spell in order to cast it, once that third level ritual is in his book what stops him from casting it as a ritual?

Ritual spellcasting is an option that can be elected while casting the spell in which it doesn't expend the spell slot in exchange for a longer casting time. The spell slot must have been able to be expended in order to have the option of the ritual casting. Since the slot is not available to cast spells of its level it is not available to have potentially be used for ritual casting and therefore you cannot cast a ritual spell of a level higher than you would otherwise be able. The fact that you don't need to prepare ritual spells as a wizard, thus bypassing the limitation on preparing spells, does not otherwise evade the other aspects and rules of multiclass spellcasting.

--


You very obviously ARE casting the spells you are transcribing. You cast it to such a point that the text calls it mastery of the spell, and that mastery has to happen before it can be transcribed.
Read the sidebar on Spellbooks and follow along.

Copied from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/editpost.php?p=19134284&do=editpost) earlier post, which was copied form the Sepplbook sidebar:


So yes, you absolutely need to be able to cast the spell, BEFORE you copy it to your book.
And if you can't cast it, then how are you doing the things needed to copy it into your book?
You can't. Simple.
You need to have a slot of that level, and you need to have the ability to cast the spell. Then, and only then, can you copy a spell into your book.

You very obviously are NOT casting spells when transcribing. Transcribing is not ritual casting and you do not expend any spell slots once you have finished transcribing the spell therefore you are not casting the spell. The costs of transcribing, despite covering the costs of material components for the spells in question, does not even come close to matching the true material component cost of various spells. For example, Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion has a 15gp material component cost. Those components are not expended when casting the spell but if you already had the material components before transcribing you would still need to pay the 50gp cost. Meanwhile, Teleportation Circle has a 50gp material cost that is consumed with the casting yet you only have to pay 50gp to transcribe it. What you quoted, and what you're using to defend your point, is your own interpretation of what some fluff means.

[Broken Twin]

Um... regardless of whether or not it's RAW... what's the problem with letting a wizard transcribe a spell into their book that they're not able to cast yet? It's literally doing nothing other than being a goal to reach for, since they can't do anything with it until they're high enough level to cast the spell. In regards to multiclassing, that's the highest level spell you can cast, not the highest level spell slot you have available.

The idea that you need to be able to innately understand something to copy it from one sheet of paper to another seems ridiculous to me anyway. I can copy German from one sheet to another without understanding it. Math theorems, too. I understand the intention of making it that way, but it just seems silly.

[Grek]

Because a wizard's Ritual Casting only requires that you have the spell in your spellbook. There's no need to prepare it or to have an appropriate spell slot available, you just literally need it written down somewhere. As for what the problem is with letting a wizard 3/cleric 3 ritual cast a 3rd level spell... I got no idea why people think that is going to be the end of the world.

[Talderas]

Because a wizard's Ritual Casting only requires that you have the spell in your spellbook. There's no need to prepare it or to have an appropriate spell slot available, you just literally need it written down somewhere. As for what the problem is with letting a wizard 3/cleric 3 ritual cast a 3rd level spell... I got no idea why people think that is going to be the end of the world.

Expending a spell slot does not occur until after a spell finishes casting, see the rules for spells with a casting time longer than one action where you do not expend the spell slot if interrupted in the middle of casting. Ritual casting is a modification option you may select when casting a spell that adds ten minutes to the cast time but causes you to not expend the spell slot once the spell finishes casting. You still need to have the spell slot available to cast the ritual spell which it is not by the multiclass spellcasting rules.

[Xetheral]

The spell slot must have been able to be expended in order to have the option of the ritual casting.

I can't find a rule that supports this claim.

Additionally, your interpretation would mean that once a wizard has expended his daily allotment of spell slots, he can't cast rituals. This does not appear to be RAW or RAI.

[Talderas]

I can't find a rule that supports this claim.

Additionally, your interpretation would mean that once a wizard has expended his daily allotment of spell slots, he can't cast rituals. This does not appear to be RAW or RAI.

It would appear that way only if you glossed over the statement. I said the slot must be able to be expended in order to cast the ritual spell, not that you have to have a spell slot to expend. In other words, can the spell slots be used to cast a spell, if so then you can cast rituals for that slot level. The multiclass rules clearly state that these higher level slots can only be used for casting lower level spells. Since those slots are never available to cast a spell of their level you never have the opportunity to cast a ritual of that level.

Spellcasting is broken into two stages, which is casting and cast. Casting is the time from when you start to cast the spell and when it actually completes. The spell is cast once it is completed. The spell slot is only expended once you cast the spell and not when you start casting it. A spell with a casting time longer than one action can be interrupted without the caster expending a spell slot. Ritual casting is a modifier to casting time that alters the cost you pay when the spell is cast from 1 to 0 spell slots.

This also means that if I have no 5th level spell slots, I could start casting Planar Binding repeatedly but it will never successfully cast since I lack the spell slot to cast it.

[Xetheral]

I said the slot must be able to be expended in order to cast the ritual spell, not that you have to have a spell slot to expend.

How can a slot "be able to be expended" if you don't "have a spell slot to expend"?

Also, do you have a page reference for your interpretation of how spellcasting works? I've not seen it interpreted that way before.

[Talderas]

How can a slot "be able to be expended" if you don't "have a spell slot to expend"?

Also, do you have a page reference for your interpretation of how spellcasting works? I've not seen it interpreted that way before.

How can a slot be able to expended without having a spell slot to expend? That is a null vs zero comparison which is to say Null /= Zero. According to the multiclass rules for a Wizard 3, Cleric 2 has 3rd level spell slots but has null 3rd level spell slots for casting 3rd level spells. If he's used all his 2nd level slots then he has zero spell slots for casting 2nd level spells.

Pg201, Spell Slots
"When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell's level or higher"

Pg202, Longer Casting Times
"When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot."

Casting is the process during which you are taking the actions to cast the spell. You have cast the spell once the casting process is complete.

[calebrus]

You very obviously are NOT casting spells when transcribing. Transcribing is not ritual casting and you do not expend any spell slots once you have finished transcribing the spell therefore you are not casting the spell.

You obviously need to be able to cast it before transcribing, so your theorized reading doesn't make any sense.

And using your reasoning here, casting a ritual is not casting a spell, because you aren't using a slot. But it is casting a spell, and it's doing so specifically without using a slot, so how do you reconcile that?

[Talderas]

You obviously need to be able to cast it before transcribing, so your theorized reading doesn't make any sense.

My reading makes sense, I pay 2 hours of time per level of the spell and 50gp of costs and I transcribe the spell into the spell book as long as I have spell slots of the level of the spell. It only doesn't make sense to you because you're operating with additional assumptions based on your interpretation of fluff beyond the hard facts of the ability.


And using your reasoning here, casting a ritual is not casting a spell, because you aren't using a slot. But it is casting a spell, and it's doing so specifically without using a slot, so how do you reconcile that?

Trivially. You pay a cost of increasing the casting time by ten minutes and you reduce your spell slot cost from one to zero.

[calebrus]

My reading makes sense, I pay 2 hours of time per level of the spell and 50gp of costs and I transcribe the spell into the spell book as long as I have spell slots of the level of the spell. It only doesn't make sense to you because you're operating with additional assumptions based on your interpretation of fluff beyond the hard facts of the ability.

Trivially. You pay a cost of increasing the casting time by ten minutes and you reduce your spell slot cost from one to zero.

So you consider those words fluff and I do not. Fair enough. Except Crawford doesn't consider them fluff either apparently, so that's something to consider.
And you're actually going to take the standpoint that casting a ritual is not casting a spell, just because it takes longer and doesn't use a slot?
Good luck with that.

[Talderas]

So you consider those words fluff and I do not. Fair enough. Except Crawford doesn't consider them fluff either apparently, so that's something to consider.
And you're actually going to take the standpoint that casting a ritual is not casting a spell, just because it takes longer and doesn't use a slot?
Good luck with that.

I don't give one damn about what Crawford may or may not say in a tweet or blog or whatever. If it's not in the book and it's not in published errata I won't consider it anything more than a suggested house rule. I do consider casting a ritual to be casting a spell and since you are casting a spell you fall across the multiclass rules for spellcasting which only allow you to cast spells of lower levels using higher level slots.

Under my interpretation a wizard can transcribe those higher level spells, because he has spell slots, but it doesn't do him any good since the multiclass rules prevent him from casting those rituals.

I also interpret Slow as to increasing the casting time of spells from 1 action to 2 actions when you roll a 11 or higher on a d20 and thus cause the spell to become subject to the longer casting times rules, which means that if someone is holding concentration on a Hold Person and slow kicks in to delay his Fireball, he either has to give up casting the Fireball or drop concentration on Hold Person.

[calebrus]

OK, so you're saying: "I play tons and tons of house rules, and that's why I'm interpreting things the way that I am, because that way makes sense when considered with all of my house rules.
Got it.

[Talderas]

OK, so you're saying: "I play tons and tons of house rules, and that's why I'm interpreting things the way that I am, because that way makes sense when considered with all of my house rules.
Got it.

The interpretation is fully consistent with the published rules which decidedly makes it not a house rule, even if it's awkward. Fluff is not crunch, which is the major hang up that you're getting worked up about. On top of which you're fallaciously arguing from authority using Crawford as your point of basis. As I said, I don't give one damn about what Crawford may or may not say because it's not published in the book and its not published in errata. It may be what he wanted or what it should have been but it isn't what it is. That's the published rules and published errata. I get that you may disagree with the accepted standards of publishing but that's your prerogative.

That interpretation of slow is not a house rule. The rules on casting times clearly states that when a spell takes more than one action to cast it follows the rules for long casting times which includes requiring concentration. The text of slow requires more than one action to cast a spell, if you roll 11+ on a d20. That means it follows the aforementioned rules regarding casting times.

[calebrus]

There are rules in that sidebar, which make that sidebar decidedly not fluff.
Unless you're going to argue that sidebars are always fluff, in which case I'll point you to the Variant Human. It is only ever mentioned in a sidebar, so if it's just fluff, then they aren't an option, because there are no rules on them.
So you have to concede that some of the sidebars contain crunch. The Spellbook sidebar happens to be one of them.... because it contains rules.

I'm not basing my interpretation on Crawford's tweet. I'm basing my interpretation on the rules, as written in that sidebar, and showing the tweet as evidence that this was the correct way to read it.
But you can ignore some of the rules at your table in order to more suitably fit your game. That's your prerogative.

[Talderas]

There are rules in that sidebar, which make that sidebar decidedly not fluff.
Unless you're going to argue that sidebars are always fluff, in which case I'll point you to the Variant Human. It is only ever mentioned in a sidebar, so if it's just fluff, then they aren't an option, because there are no rules on them.
So you have to concede that some of the sidebars contain crunch. The Spellbook sidebar happens to be one of them.... because it contains rules.

I'm not basing my interpretation on Crawford's tweet. I'm basing my interpretation on the rules, as written in that sidebar, and showing the tweet as evidence that this was the correct way to read it.
But you can ignore some of the rules at your table in order to more suitably fit your game. That's your prerogative.

Sidebars are not fluff but descriptions are fluff and not rules, especially when said descriptions do not provide a consistent outcome, which the descriptions for transcribing do not as evidenced by the disconnect provided by material component costs and the failure to expend spell slots while transcribing. What I have noted in this thread is that you are basing a number of your defenses and counters to other interpretations solely on the descriptive fluff contained in the sidebar while simultaneously disregarding the inconsistency that is created by the fluff. If you are casting a spell when transcribing then you must meet all the rules for casting a spell, which includes expending spell slots and material components with a cost above and beyond the 50gp cost of transcribing.

[calebrus]

What part of this are you having a hard time understanding?
You are not casting a spell *when* you are transcribing it, but you need to be *able* to cast it to meet the criteria for copying it into your spellbook.
You need to experiment, practice, understand, and master it, and all of that happens prior to the copying. So you need to be able to cast it before you can copy it.
There is no disconnect. You apparently just don't understand the methods required to copy a spell into your book.

Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher.
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two new spells to your spellbook. "

Wizards *learn* their spells by adding them to their spellbook.
But the multiclass rules state that you learn your spells as if you were single classed, which means adding a spell to your spellbook follows the *EXACT* same restrictions that preparing spells does.
Because it follows the same restrictions, you can't copy a spell to your spellbook unless you can prepare that spell, and you can't prepare that spell unless a single classed wizard of your level could have cast it.

[calebrus]

Here.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?411241-Wizards-and-Rituals