Wizards and Rituals.

[calebrus]

I'm really tired of people claiming that wizards can copy any spell they like into their spellbook, thereby allowing them to cast any wizard ritual they want to, regardless of their actual number of wizard levels, as long as they have copied it into their spellbook. So I have decided to compile the relevant rules all in one place, and show you why you cannot copy those spells into your book to begin with.
So first, let's start by showing all of the relevant rules. I will embolden and color those rules in green, with a notational number in (dark red), with an explanation following, wherein I will reference the numbers given as notation.
So then, the rules:

The following comes from the sidebar on page 114 of the PHB.

The spells that you add to your spellbook as you gain levels reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs you have had about the nature of the multiverse. You might find other spells during your adventures. You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard's chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library.

Copying a Spell into the Book.
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.
Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell (1), 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. (2)
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 (3), as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money (4), you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.

The following comes from the multiclass rules on page 164 of the PHB.


Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes. Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. (5) If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.

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. (6) If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three w izard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.
Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.

Spell Slots.
You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and w izard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells. (7) If a lower level spell that you cast, like burning hands, has an enhanced effect when cast using a higher-level slot, you can use the enhanced effect, even though you don’t have any spells of that higher level.
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 2n d-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 o f those levels to cast the spells you do know—and potentially enhance their effects.

The following comes from the wizard class description on page 114 of the PHB.

{We're noting the title of the section as number (8)}

Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. (9) 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).

OK, so now onto the explanation.

First of all, the Spellbook sidebar contains the rules for copying a spell into your spellbook.
These rules state that you must reproduce the basic form of the spell (1). That's called casting the spell. The the rules state that you must practice the spell until you understand it (2). That's called learning the spell. Then it states that after experimenting with and mastering the spell (3) (that's called knowing it very well) you can then, (after spending the time and money to master it (4) and after you have practiced it enough to understand it (2) ) you may copy it into your spellbook.
Only after you have done all of these things, which includes mastering the spell, can you copy it into your spellbook.
So you clearly need to be *able* to cast the spell in order to copy it into your spellbook.

But some people feel that this sidebar, which contains specific rules and prices and time frames, is nothing more than fluff text.
OK. It's not fluff text, as it clearly contains rules, but for the sake of argument, let's play along for a moment and say that it is.
It's not, but we're going to go along with it, just for the sake of argument.
So let's ignore that entire sidebar for a moment.

Moving on.

We all know that the multiclass spellcaster rules supercede those of the normal class descriptions (5), so I'm not going to go over the spellcasting rules of the wizard specifically.
The multiclass rules state that the multiclass spells per level table might give you spells of a level that are higher than those that you are able to cast. It says that you can use those slots, but only to power up your lower level spells (7). The key word here is only. Only. As in, for no other purpose. As in, you cannot use those slots to determine which spells you can learn. As in, you cannot use those slots to determine which spells you can add to your spellbook.

Now some people claim that wizards do not learn spells, because they are not spontaneous casters like Sorcerers and Bards, and do not have an allotment of spells known.
So let's look at this next, shall we?

The multiclass rules state that the spells you know and can prepare are determined as if you were a single classed member of that class (6). This means that a wizard 1 / cleric 6 may have 4th level spell slots, but he can only prepare 1st level wizard spells. There is no disagreement about that fact.
That covers spells prepared. But what about spells known?
Once again, some people claim that wizards don't have spells known, and that they don't learn spells, because they instead add spells to their spellbook.
That is certainly one interpretation. But it's the wrong interpretation. It's not ambiguous. It's just wrong.
Read the portion coming from the wizard's description again for me. I'll repeat it here for you so you don't have to scroll back up.


{We're noting the title of the section as number (8)}

Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. (9) 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).

So clearly the wizard's version of *learning* a spell is copying that spell into their spellbook.
After all, it clearly states that each time you gain a level you can add two spells into your spellbook (9). And that sentence is the first sentence under the heading Learning Spells.... (8)
So wizards do indeed learn spells. And those learned spells are the ones that they *know*, because after you learn something, you know that thing. That's what learning is. So the word *learned* and the word *known* are interchangeable.
And as to the people claiming that the sidebar is fluff?
If that were the case, then why does the rules text reference that sidebar? Probably because that sidebar is not fluff, and is indeed rules text.

So we can clearly see that wizards do indeed learn and know spells, and this process happens by virtue of the wizard adding the spell to their spellbook.
So what does this mean?
It means that the portion in the multiclass rules regarding which spells a multiclass caster can know and prepare applies to wizards exactly he same as it applies to any other caster.
This means that the same restrictions which apply to preparing spells (*and remember, there isn't any argument AT ALL about which spells a wizard can prepare*) are exactly the same restrictions that apply to which spells a wizard can learn. And the spells that a wizard learns are the spells that get added to their spellbook.
So the same restrictions that apply to which spells a wizard can prepare also apply to which spells a wizard can copy to his spellbook, because copying a spell into his spellbook is the way that a wizard compiles his list of spells known.

So, to summarize, a wizard cannot, under any circumstances, add a spell to his spellbook unless he has the ability to cast that spell.
And if he cannot add that spell to his spellbook, that means he cannot cast that spell as a ritual.
So a wizard cannot cast a ritual unless he has the ability to cast that spell with his slots.

So the rules are 100% crystal clear, with zero room for interpretation. You cannot add a spell to your spellbook unless you can cast the spell with a slot.
Not only are the rules 100% clear, but Crawford himself verified it (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/), so please stop saying that by RAW you can, because by RAW you absolutely, certainly, 100% can NOT.
If you want to house rule that wizards can add any spell they find to their spellbooks, feel free to do so. But do not argue that the RAW allows it, because the RAW does not allow it in any way, shape, or form.

[Totema]

IMO, the whole idea of the wizard's spellbook is yet another artifact that really only hung on for the sake of tradition. If they really wanted to simplify it, I'd have no problem if they threw away all mechanical purposes behind the spellbook and simply have a pool of spells known from which they can prepare. But then there's be no "oh no my spellbook was stolen" shinanegans, so there'd be some antics lost as well. :smalltongue:

[Giant2005]

First of all, the Spellbook sidebar contains the rules for copying a spell into your spellbook.
These rules state that you must reproduce the basic form of the spell (1). That's called casting the spell. The the rules state that you must practice the spell until you understand it (2). That's called learning the spell. Then it states that after experimenting with and mastering the spell (3) (that's called knowing it very well) you can then, (after spending the time and money to master it (4) and after you have practiced it enough to understand it (2) ) you may copy it into your spellbook.
Only after you have done all of these things, which includes mastering the spell, can you copy it into your spellbook.
So you clearly need to be *able* to cast the spell in order to copy it into your spellbook.

But some people feel that this sidebar, which contains specific rules and prices and time frames, is nothing more than fluff text.
OK. It's not fluff text, as it clearly contains rules, but for the sake of argument, let's play along for a moment and say that it is.
It's not, but we're going to go along with it, just for the sake of argument.
So let's ignore that entire sidebar for a moment.
That most certainly is fluff text. If it wasn't it may as well not exist at all as it would be completely unusuable due to the actual, non-fluff rules: "You prepare the list o f wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so. choose a number o f wizard spells from your spellbook".
You need to have a spell prepared to cats it. You need to have a spell in your book to prepare it. That entire regime you presented is impossible because the spell cannot be cast in any way, shape, or form prior to it being copied into your spellbook.



The multiclass rules state that the multiclass spells per level table might give you spells of a level that are higher than those that you are able to cast. It says that you can use those slots, but only to power up your lower level spells (7). The key word here is only. Only. As in, for no other purpose. As in, you cannot use those slots to determine which spells you can learn. As in, you cannot use those slots to determine which spells you can add to your spellbook.

That is irrelevant when considering Rituals that don't use spell slots at all.

As for everything else... You are absolutely correct and those rulings of yours a fair and accurate but I don't believe they are RAI.
Under those rulings, a Barbarian with the Ritual Caster feat is a better Ritual Caster than the Wizard which I don't think could ever be the intention - it is fairly obvious that feats that emulate classes are intended to be less diverse and weaker than the abilities of the class it is emulating (As per Martial Adept or Magic Initiate for instance).
I think the writers were trying to state the obvious regarding the "spells known and prepared" section of the multiclassing rules. The obvious as in, spell progression doesn't keep progressing in a class if you have abandoned it to progress in another class but by stating the obvious in such a way without considering the ramifications, they screwed over the Wizard who's ritual casting ability wasn't supposed to be inferior to the feat that imitates it and would otherwise be able to continue casting higher level ritual spells that don't require being prepared or using spell slots.

[calebrus]

That most certainly is fluff text.
Do I need to repeat myself?
OK, fine.
If that were the case, then why does the rules text reference that sidebar? Probably because that sidebar is not fluff, and is indeed rules text.

Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher
"Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. (9) 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)."

The rules for learning spells are telling you:
If you want to know the rules for what happens when you find spells while adventuring, see that sidebar, because that sidebar contains those rules.
How does that make the sidebar fluff text?


That is irrelevant when considering Rituals that don't use spell slots at all.
It doesn't matter if rituals use spell slots or not. That is completely irrelevant.
What is relevant is that you cannot even copy that spell to your spellbook in the first place, which means you can't cast that spell as a ritual. Whether or not rituals use slots has no bearing on any part of this discussion.


Under those rulings, a Barbarian with the Ritual Caster feat is a better Ritual Caster than the Wizard which I don't think could ever be the intention
Firstly, those are not rulings. Those are the rules.
Secondly, that is absolutely the intention.
If you are multiclass, and you want to be a fully competent ritual caster, then you need the Ritual Caster feat, because multiclassing reduces your class' ritual casting ability the same as it does your spellcasting ability.
Just like it does with Cleric, or Druid, or Ranger, or any other ritual caster.
Wizards are no exception.

[Giant2005]

Do I need to repeat myself?
OK, fine.
If that were the case, then why does the rules text reference that sidebar? Probably because that sidebar is not fluff, and is indeed rules text.

Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher
"Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. (9) 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)."

The rules for learning spells are telling you:
If you want to know the rules for what happens when you find spells while adventuring, see that sidebar, because that sidebar contains those rules.
How does that make the sidebar fluff text?
It is either fluff or completely non-functional.
Let's look at it your way and assume it isn't fluff but instead defined the literal mechanics or the spellbook.
With that assumption in mind, Wizards need to be capable of casting a spell before they can write it in their spellbook while also being unable to cast a spell unless it is already in their spellbook. If that text isn't fluff, then Wizards are unable to cast spells, they are simply Fighters with crappy HD and limited to a single attack.
Obviously, it is fluff - I'm pretty sure the designers intended Wizards to be able to cast spells.



That is absolutely the intention.
If you are multiclass, and you want to be a fully competent ritual caster, then you need the Ritual Caster feat, because multiclassing reduces your class' ritual casting ability the same as it does your spellcasting ability.
Just like it does with Cleric, or Druid, or Ranger, or any other ritual caster.
Wizards are no exception.
You can choose to believe that and I respect your stance, however we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe the writers intended to make a feat that was superior to the Wizard's defining feature while simultaneously designing a feat that is less than 1/4 as good as the Battlemaster's defining feature. That is a level of imbalance that imo they would never intentionally cause.

[calebrus]

So you think that anyone with a single level of Wizard should be just as good of a ritual caster as someone who forfeits an ASI and spends a Feat, and you think that this is balanced and that this is what was intended?
One single level of wizard granting 1+Int spells prepared, plus advancing spell slots, plus granting the benefits of a Feat.
One single level does that.
It costs four levels to actually get that Feat by normal means, and that Feat doesn't come with the rest of the benefits that the single level of wizard provides.
But you think that is fair and balanced?

That is quite obviously not what was intended. Nor is it the way that it works, as I have shown.
But like I said, feel free to house rule it any way that you want to. And that's what it will be, because the RAW is crystal clear on this one.

You can disagree with me about the intention. I don't really care. You agreed that the rules disallow copying the spell into your book, and that's all I'm going for here.

[Giant2005]

So you think that anyone with a single level of Wizard should be just as good of a ritual caster as someone who forfeits an ASI and spends a Feat, and you think that this is balanced and that this is what was intended?
I know from the way you phrased the question, this isn't the expected answer... But yes, I do.
Giving up/delaying a level in your primary class is a far greater cost than a single ASI or Feat and it should offer rewards that are at least in line (But should be superior to) with what you could gain from taking a feat.

[calebrus]

The fact that you honestly believe that the *optional* multiclass rules intend that *one* *single* *level* of wizard (*and only wizard, mind you, because no other class would work this way by your rules) is actually supposed to be more powerful than taking four additional levels in your primary class and sacrificing an ASI....
{scrubbed}

[Giant2005]

{scrubbed}

[calebrus]

You can never simply compare anything to a Feat, ever, because Feats come at a cost of character levels.
If you want to compare something to a Feat, then you need to account for the fact that *getting* that Feat costs you four levels and the sacrifice of an ASI.
The Feat comes at a cost, so you need to consider that cost in the comparison, or the comparison isn't a fair one.

[Giant2005]

You can never simply compare anything to a Feat, ever, because Feats come at a cost of character levels.
If you want to compare something to a Feat, then you need to account for the fact that *getting* that Feat costs you four levels and the sacrifice of an ASI.
The Feat comes at a cost, so you need to consider that cost in the comparison, or the comparison isn't a fair one.

The Feat would only cost you 4 character levels if those character levels offered you literally nothing other than a feat. Until a class is released that fits those parameters, that line of thought is invalid.

[calebrus]

Even if that were true, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, what makes you think that the *intention* was that a one level wizard dip be far and away, head and shoulders, above and beyond, significantly better than any other single dip in the entire game? Why would you possibly think that was the intention?

{scrubbed}

[Giant2005]

Even if that were true, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, what makes you think that the *intention* was that a one level wizard dip be far and away, head and shoulders, above and beyond, significantly better than any other single dip in the entire game? Why would you possibly think that was the intention?

{this scrubbed, too}

It isn't even close to being the best level dip in the game. The Cleric takes that prize.
It offers the equivalent to 4 feats: Lightly Armored, Moderately Armored, Heavily Armored and spellcasting superior to that offered by Magic Initiate. It also offers Domain options which are superior to feats such as the Tempest Domain which lets you cast one of the Warlock's best spells up to 5x as often as a level 1 Warlock can and without even touching your spell slots.
That level of Cleric is obviously far superior to a feat and there is no reason why a level of Wizard shouldn't be too. All level dips should offer more than that of a single feat as that is how the game was balanced - giving up level progression is more of a cost than giving up a single ASI.
And all of the above isn't even including the accurate but farcical argument that the weapon proficiencies alone are worth multiple feats (Thanks to the stupid Weapon Master feat).

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

[Giant2005]

{scrub the original, scrub the quote}

Yes, all of those feats plus 5x the casting power of a Warlock is better than the Ritual Caster feat.


EDIT: Worth mentioning is the fact that all of the rital casters have a discalimer in their Ritual Casting ability that states the spell must be prepared in order to be cast as a Ritual. The Wizard is the sole exception and he has a discalimer stating the opposite - his disclaimer stats that he does not have to have the spell prepared to cast it as a ritual. That is just further evidence that the intention was for the Wizard to be able to cast ritual spells above his level - they specifically edited his ability to cater for the fact that multiclassed spellcasters prepare spells as if they were single-classed; without realizing they had prohibited the possibility elsewhere by the common sense "Spells known" clause. It seems they hindered their intentions by having to spell out the obvious for the lowest common denominator.


EDIT 2: Now that you have inspired me into looking at this issue further, I am going to have to retract one of my previous statements, most notably the following: "As for everything else... You are absolutely correct and those rulings of yours a fair and accurate". I also said that I didn't believe those rulings were RAI but now I have come to learn that they aren't RAW either.
There are 3 things that prevent multiclassed casters from casting higher level spells if they have spell slots that go beyond that class's level:
1. They can't use spell slots beyond that of what is available to a single classed caster.
2. They can't prepare spells beyond that of what is available to a single classed caster.
3. They can't know spells beyond that of what is available to a single classed caster.

The first point is irrelevant considering ritual spells do not use spell slots.
Points 2 and 3 look like different points but they aren't. They are witten in the same section to include the two variations of casters.
Casters are divided into two groups, those that "know" spells and those that "prepare" spells.
The casters that "know" spells all have an ability under their respective spellcasting headings called "Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher" and as "known" casters, they are subject to condition 3 above. The spellcasters that have that trait are: Bard, Eldritch Knight, Ranger, Arcane Trickster, Sorcerer, and Warlock.
The casters that "prepare" spells all have an ability under their respective spellcasting headings called "Preparing and Casting Spells" and as "prepared" casters, they are subject to condition 2 above. The spellcasters that have that trait are: Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Wizard.


As you can see, the Wizard is of the "prepared" variety of casters but ordinarily that wouldn't matter as per clause 2 above would prevent casting rituals of a higher level than than you can prepare. The difference between the Wizard and the other ritual casters however, is that they specifically do not have to prepare ritual spells in order to cast them. Hence a multiclassed Wizard meets all of the conditions intended for them to be able to cast ritual spells beyond what a single-classed Wizard of their wizarding level could accomplish.

[calebrus]

You still don't get it, do you?
The wizard's exception doesn't exist because they intended wizards to be able to cast spells above their level, as you claim to be the reason.
The wizard's exception exists solely to make them the specialty ritual casters, not to allow them more power, but to allow them more versatility. For every spell level they have access to, they have their prepared spells, plus the rituals of those levels.

Plus the rituals of those levels; not: plus the rituals of every level.

[Giant2005]

You still don't get it, do you?
The wizard's exception doesn't exist because they intended wizards to be able to cast spells above their level, as you claim to be the reason.
The wizard's exception exists solely to make them the specialty ritual casters, not to allow them more power, but to allow them more versatility. For every spell level they have access to, they have their prepared spells, plus the rituals of those levels.

Plus the rituals of those levels; not: plus the rituals of every level.

But under your interpretation they aren't specialty ritual casters, as they are quite clearly inferior to any random with the Ritual Caster feat.

The only thing in the rules that ever stopped a multiclassed Wizard from being able to cast ritual spells beyond their Wizard level was the "Spells known" clause but they aren't even "known" casters. they are "prepared" casters. Nothing stops them from learning and casting ritual spells higher than their Wizard level.

[calebrus]

but they aren't even "known" casters. they are "prepared" casters.

So here you claim that they don't *know* spells, when your first post agreed that adding a spell to your spellbook was *learning a spell* and that learning a spell was the same as *knowing* a spell.
And yes, you did agree to that, via:

As for everything else... You are absolutely correct

I'm repeating myself yet again for your benefit here.
Adding a spell to his spellbook is the wizard's version of learning a spell. Learning a spell is the same thing as knowing a spell.
Wizards know spells just like every other caster, even other prepared casters. You cannot cast a spell without knowing it.
Wizards know the spells that are in their spellbook, which is exactly why the multiclass rules about spells known and prepared apply to wizards just like they apply to everyone else.
You have already agreed to this, and yet now you're arguing against it.
Make up your mind.

[Giant2005]

Adding a spell to his spellbook is the wizard's version of learning a spell. Learning a spell is the same thing as knowing a spell.
Wizards know spells just like every other caster, even other prepared casters. You cannot cast a spell without knowing it.
Wizards know the spells that are in their spellbook, which is exactly why the multiclass rules about spells known and prepared apply to wizards just like they apply to everyone else.
You have already agreed to this, and yet now you're arguing against it.
Make up your mind.

You can use any form of fluff as you like but when dealing with the rules, the rules should take precedence. I have already shown (in a post or two above this) that Wizards are on the "prepared" caster list rather than the "Known" caster list. That is an undeniable truth and rather than being powered by fluff, it is based solidly in the mechanics; mechanics which were used by the designers to differentiate their classes and define the multiclassing rules.
Yes, at a glance I initially thought you were right however you inspired me to look deeper and learn that you and I were both were wrong. Thank you for compelling me to look past my own bias and predisposition and find the actual truth of the matter. I would rather learn than argue and you helped me learn. Whether or not you agree with the truth that you inspired me to learn is irrelevant - you should be proud that you managed to convince someone on the internet to change their perspective, as that is usually an impossible task.

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

[Giant2005]

{scrubbed}

No, it is a sign that someone is not so ingrained in their own beliefs that they become immune to reason. You act like it was a bad thing that after seeing the evidence I was able to change my position but really, that is a trait that is far too lacking on the internet. Being unable to alter one's perspective regardless of the evidence is the real crime.

[Theodoxus]

Just jumping in here to say 'meh.'

Rituals are great plot devices, and that's about it. Either you get the benefit of the spell because the DM's ok with giving it's effect to you for free (no slot expenditure) or it's disrupted because a 10 minute casting time is forever in combat parlance, and something attacks the party in the middle of casting it.

If I had to make a ruling, I'd probably go with a compromise position and allow Wizards to essentially get the Ritual Caster feat for free - they can learn any Wizard ritual equal to half their character level (rounded up), regardless of what spell slots they have available. Thus a 3rd level Wizard can learn 2nd level rituals (shock!) and a Wizard 1/Fighter 2 can also learn 2nd level rituals (compromise!).

Yes, it's a house rule.

Yes, I'm not a fan of rituals. Though more because spells that should be rituals aren't. (yes, I can house rule that too.)

[Chronos]

And now we're back to the argument that wizards know all of the spells in their spellbook, which, if true, would be far more brokenly overpowered than just letting them use their class features, as it would mean that they're not limited to what they can prepare. The rules are clear on this: Wizards do not know all of the spells in their book, and they can cast high-level rituals even if multiclassed.

And why was this thread necessary, anyway? You're already active in another thread on exactly this same topic. Do you expect that if you start enough threads, eventually you'll get one where people agree with you?

[Giant2005]

And now we're back to the argument that wizards know all of the spells in their spellbook, which, if true, would be far more brokenly overpowered than just letting them use their class features, as it would mean that they're not limited to what they can prepare.
I don't think anyone has been arguing that.

[Talderas]

The following comes from the sidebar on page 114 of the PHB.

As I pointed out in another thread. Most of what you're bolding in green is fluff descriptions and your own interpretations of what those statements may mean. The only parts in the sidebar which are rules is the time and material (gp) cost of transcribing, the prerequisite for transcribing (spell slots), and the conditions under which the spell has been added (having paid the time and gp cost). Everything else is fluff and your personal interpretation. You've argued that the gp cost is reflective of the material cost of casting the spell (it also includes the cost of ink) since you insist that you are practicing the spell by casting it and it is quite trivial to show that cost to not be reflective of material costs of a spell or even providing a consistent cost for ink when transcribing. The material cost of teleportation circle, for instance, is a 50gp consumable while the material cost for Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion is a non-consumable 15gp but you still have to purchase the material component cost for mansion separately from transcribing. You have never once addressed this inconsistency when defending your position of fluff as rules nor have you ever addressed the fact that transcribing does not require you to expend spell slots as is normal when you use them.


The following comes from the wizard class description on page 114 of the PHB.

This line is utterly irrelevant unless your suggesting that a wizard pays 50gp and 2hrs per level for each spell he gains by virtue of class levels. The wizard had two mechanics under which spells are added to his spellbook. One, which is superceded by the multiclass rules is the spells gained per level. The other is the transcribing sidebar which is not.



But some people feel that this sidebar, which contains specific rules and prices and time frames, is nothing more than fluff text.
OK. It's not fluff text, as it clearly contains rules, but for the sake of argument, let's play along for a moment and say that it is.
It's not, but we're going to go along with it, just for the sake of argument.
So let's ignore that entire sidebar for a moment.

This is what is called a strawman argument. Since I am one of the people that you have suggested this of I will clarify yet again since you still get it wrong. Point 1, 2, and 4 that you have bolded are fluff. They contain no rules and are only descriptive. They also provide a significant foundation for your argument. Point 3 is a rule and the 2hrs/level and 50gp aspects of the sidebar are also rules. The part about it requiring that you have spell slots is also a rule. Every single one of those aspects are concrete points which can be addressed. The remaining points that you highlight are fluff because of the points I've addressed about further up in this post. You do not expend spell slots when transcribing and the material cost of transcribing is thoroughly inconsistent to have you casting the spell at all. Nothing in that sidebar requires you to expend spell slots so you are not using spell slots.


We all know that the multiclass spellcaster rules supercede those of the normal class descriptions (5), so I'm not going to go over the spellcasting rules of the wizard specifically.
The multiclass rules state that the multiclass spells per level table might give you spells of a level that are higher than those that you are able to cast. It says that you can use those slots, but only to power up your lower level spells (7). The key word here is only. Only. As in, for no other purpose. As in, you cannot use those slots to determine which spells you can learn. As in, you cannot use those slots to determine which spells you can add to your spellbook.

Under spell slots the keyword is "use". When you use a spell slot you expend it. You do no use spell slots when transcribing. You use spell slots when you cast a spell or charge an ability such as smite, flexible casting, or primeval awareness. The ruling on slots states that you may only use them for casting lower level spells so no additional smite damage, no additional sorcery points, and your crappy primeval awareness isn't going to last for one more crappy minute.


Now some people claim that wizards do not learn spells, because they are not spontaneous casters like Sorcerers and Bards, and do not have an allotment of spells known.
So let's look at this next, shall we?

The multiclass rules state that the spells you know and can prepare are determined as if you were a single classed member of that class (6). This means that a wizard 1 / cleric 6 may have 4th level spell slots, but he can only prepare 1st level wizard spells. There is no disagreement about that fact.
That covers spells prepared. But what about spells known?
Once again, some people claim that wizards don't have spells known, and that they don't learn spells, because they instead add spells to their spellbook.
That is certainly one interpretation. But it's the wrong interpretation. It's not ambiguous. It's just wrong.
Read the portion coming from the wizard's description again for me. I'll repeat it here for you so you don't have to scroll back up.

Spells known is a key phrase within the rules text and one that shows up among "spontaneous casters". Can you show evidence that the phrase is overloaded and has multiple definitions or are you just applying your own personal definitions to reach the conclusion you're searching for because all I'm seeing you doing is attempting to equate the concept of learning to the key phrase "spells known" by providing your own definitions.

[Grek]

You left out a bunch of really, really important parts. Here's the actual relevant passages:



The spells that you add to your spellbook as you gain levels reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs you have had about the nature of the multiverse. You might find other spells during your adventures. You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard's chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library.

Copying a Spell into the Book.
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[1] and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
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, 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.


The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher.[2] You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.

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 equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.[3] For example, if you're a 3rd-level wizard, you have four 1st-level and two 2nd-level spell slots. With an Intelligence of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination, chosen from your spellbook. If you prepare the 1st-level spell magic missile, you can cast it using a 1st-level or a 2nd-level slot. Casting the spell doesn’t remove it from your list of prepared spells.

You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.


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.[4]


Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes. Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.

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.[5] If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.

Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.

Spell Slots.
You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.[6]
If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells.[7] If a lower level spell that you cast, like burning hands, has an enhanced effect when cast using a higher-level slot, you can use the enhanced effect, even though you don’t have any spells of that higher level.
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 2n d-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.

Rituals
Certain spells have a special tag: ritual. Such a spell can be cast following the normal rules for spellcasting, or the spell can be cast as a ritual. The ritual version of a spell takes 10 minutes longer to cast than normal. It also doesn’t expend a spell slot, which means the ritual version of a spell can’t be cast at a higher level. To cast a spell as a ritual, a spellcaster must have a feature that grants the ability to do so.[8] The cleric and the druid, for example, have such a feature. 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.[9]

A: From 6 & 7: You determine the number of spell slots you have based on the Multiclass Spellcaster Table, as described under Spell Slots in the Multiclass rules. This explicitly can give you spell slots of levels higher than you are allowed to know or prepare spells for.

B: From A & 1: The requirement to add a spell to your spellbook is having the correct spell slots. No reference is made to needing to know the spell or needing to prepare the spell, just having the correct spell slots.

C: From B, 4 & 9: If a spell with the ritual tag is in your spellbook, you can cast it as a ritual spell. Wizards explicitly do not need to have the spell prepared or on their list of spells known in order to cast a spell as a ritual.

D: From 5 & 3: A wizard may only prepare spells based on their single classed wizard levels. If a wizard does not have a spell prepared, they may not cast that spell using spell slots. They may only cast such spells using a ritual.

So what does it all mean? Simple: By RAW, if a multiclass wizard gets spell slots from being a multiclass spellcaster that are of higher level than the spell slots he gets from just being a wizard, that multiclass wizard qualifies to copy, but not prepare, spells from those spell levels. If the wizard copies a ritual spell this way, he may cast that ritual spell by performing the ritual but not by using his spell slots. That's not to say that a wizard can copy whatever spells they like to use as rituals - the wizard has to have enough multiclass levels in spellcasting classes to have a spell slot from that level first. In short, A multiclass wizard never learns any ritual before a single class wizard could learn it.

[DanyBallon]

And now we're back to the argument that wizards know all of the spells in their spellbook, which, if true, would be far more brokenly overpowered than just letting them use their class features, as it would mean that they're not limited to what they can prepare. The rules are clear on this: Wizards do not know all of the spells in their book, and they can cast high-level rituals even if multiclassed.

And why was this thread necessary, anyway? You're already active in another thread on exactly this same topic. Do you expect that if you start enough threads, eventually you'll get one where people agree with you?

Actually, wizards, do know all the spells in their spellbook. But they get to add only two (2) spells each time they get a new level, and these spell must be from level they can cast (so multiclass wizards only learn spell they would be able to cast if single class i.e. Wizard 4/Cleric 5 that turn W5/C5 now get to learn two new spell as if he was a single class wizard turning level 5, so any combination of two spells of level 1,2 and 3).

Wizards also have the ability to copy spells from other spellbooks and from scrolls to their own spellbook (this action is also learning spell). But in order to do this, the spell you want to copy must be of a level you can cast (i.e. our 5th level wizards find a spellbook with 3rd and 4th level spells, since he can only cast spells of 1st, 2nd and 3rd level, he can only copy the 3rd level spell in his spellbook. When he'll be able to cast 4th level spells, he'll be allowed to add the other spells in his spellbook.)

Wizards ritual casting let you cast any ritual spell you have in your spellbook without using a spell slot. Our W5/C5 can only have up to 3rd wizard spell in his spellbook, so he won't be able to cast spell from higher level as ritual.

The ritual caster feat let you do the same as a wizards by scribing ritual spells from a class you chooses in a ritual book, with the limitation that you can't add spell which are more than half your level, being from the spell list of the class you chooses and have the ritual tag. The feat is to allow principally non caster access to some limited ritual casting or allow spellcasting class to get ritual casting of an other class. Unfortunately, the way the feat is written, it would allow a multiclass Wiz5/C5 to select wizards as his ritual class and then write ritual spells from 5th level and below (W5+C5=10 --> 10/2=5) which would be better than what he can do as a wizard. But as a DM I would rule out that you can't take ritual casting feat in a class you already have. As the flavor was to allow you to get access to spells that you wouldn't have normally, and not trying to abuse the system.

P.S. to all who discard fluff; fluff is useful to determine how the rules are intended. In this case, it's pretty clear that you can't write down spell from higher level that you would be able as a member of a single class, even if multiclassing gives you spell slots of higher level. Those spell slots are only useful to power up spells that have the ability to do so i.e. Magic Missle. If it weren't for those spells, multiclass rules would have been "you have spell slots corresponding to you caster level for each spellcasting class you have. "

[Person_Man]

The way I DM it, Wizards can cast any spell in their spell book as a Ritual. You can't add a spell to your spellbook unless you're capable of casting it. And as DM, I don't even give players access to spellbooks with spells they're incapable of casting, because that would be cruel, and would engender acrimonious arguments like this one.

So I'm not even sure how the alternative scenario would come up. Do some DMs give their multi-class Wizards access to spells they can't cast as treasure? Does MagicSpellAmazon.com exist in your game world? And if so, it seems like you as DM can pretty easily decide whether or not giving the player higher level Rituals would makes sense or not given the overall balance of the party. DM's aren't robot rules lawyers, after all.

[Theodoxus]

Grek, that's all well and good, except for this one tiny little problem:

1) 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.
2) You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.

Since you can only incorporate spells for the class levels you actually have, you can't add a spell to your spellbook higher than your single-class spell slot determination would allow.

Now, if you're saying a 1st level character, with 1 level in Wizard can, if they found a 5th level Wizard scroll, add that to their spellbook by spending 10 hours and 500 gold... I'd love to see that interpretation in the rules.

@Person_Man +1, excellent point about DMs

[Giant2005]

Here's another relevant question... Do Multiclass Wizards/other spellcasters even exist?
I can't think of a reason why a Wizard would want to multiclass with another spellcaster - their primary casting stat doesn't have any synergy with any other classes and more than likely, the level 1 spells they would gain from dipping elsewhere would be inferior to the higher leveled spells they'd lose by ditching a Wizard level. The only reason I can think of for them to even do it at all would be to take a level of Cleric for the armor proficiencies but even that seems sub-optimal considering they would probably have been better off starting as a Fighter for those same proficiencies, con save proficiency and an extra +1 to AC from a Fighting Style (And second Wind... but who cares about Second Wind).

The only time this would really come up is if another spellcaster took the time to dip into Wizard purely for the Ritual Casting ability and considering that caster would have been better off simply taking the feat to get that ability, I am kind to believe that that option is pretty much non-existent too. The only reason for it to happen would be if some ritual-obsessed caster took the Ritual Caster feat for another class's spell list as well as dipped into Wizard for their ability... But even that seems kind of stupid considering the Wizard's list contains pretty much all of the relevant rituals anyway.

TLDR: This entire argument seems pointless as hell.

[DanyBallon]

Here's another relevant question... Do Multiclass Wizards/other spellcasters even exist?
I can't think of a reason why a Wizard would want to multiclass with another spellcaster - their primary casting stat doesn't have any synergy with any other classes and more than likely, the level 1 spells they would gain from dipping elsewhere would be inferior to the higher leveled spells they'd lose by ditching a Wizard level. The only reason I can think of for them to even do it at all would be to take a level of Cleric for the armor proficiencies but even that seems sub-optimal considering they would probably have been better off starting as a Fighter for those same proficiencies, con save proficiency and an extra +1 to AC from a Fighting Style (And second Wind... but who cares about Second Wind).

The only time this would really come up is if another spellcaster took the time to dip into Wizard purely for the Ritual Casting ability and considering that caster would have been better off simply taking the feat to get that ability, I am kind to believe that that option is pretty much non-existent too. The only reason for it to happen would be if some ritual-obsessed caster took the Ritual Caster feat for another class's spell list as well as dipped into Wizard for their ability... But even that seems kind of stupid considering the Wizard's list contains pretty much all of the relevant rituals anyway.

TLDR: This entire argument seems pointless as hell.

The best reason I see for a wizard multiclassing in a other spellcasting class is that it fits his character concepts. Not every character are built to be purely effective in all situation. Even I'd say that most are built so you have fun representing the concept you had in mind

[Giant2005]

The best reason I see for a wizard multiclassing in a other spellcasting class is that it fits his character concepts. Not every character are built to be purely effective in all situation. Even I'd say that most are built so you have fun representing the concept you had in mind

And that sounds pretty reasonable. I just can't understand why anyone would want to nerf someone that is already running a sub-optimal character.

[Grek]

Since you can only incorporate spells for the class levels you actually have, you can't add a spell to your spellbook higher than your single-class spell slot determination would allow.
A wizard doesn't need to prepare a spell to add it to their spellbook. I mean, obviously: if they did have to prepare it before they could add it to their spellbook, and they had to have it in their spellbook before they could prepare it, wizards couldn't ever learn any spells. A wizard needs to have a spell slot of the proper level, and to spend the time and money needed to copy the spell. No preparation needed. I know it sounds weird, but it explicitly works like that according to two different places in the rules.

Now, if you're saying a 1st level character, with 1 level in Wizard can, if they found a 5th level Wizard scroll, add that to their spellbook by spending 10 hours and 500 gold... I'd love to see that interpretation in the rules.
In order copy a 5th level spell, a character has to have a 5th level spell slot. And there's no way to get a 5th level spell slot without being at least a 9th level character. But if a Wizard 5/Cleric 4 were to find the same scroll, then they could add it to their spellbook and cast it as a ritual and only as a ritual.

E: +1 to Person as well. If the DM doesn't want your multiclass wizard/cleric to be casting high level wizard rituals, your DM is just going to not give you spellbooks containing those rituals. In any game where it's likely to come up, your DM is going to say yes.

[Theodoxus]

A mechanically viable MC would be a Wizard/Warlock Abjurer build, using Mage Armor to fuel Arcane Ward. (However, that doesn't offer slot progression, so a moot example.)

I suppose a lore minded player might likewise dip Knowledge cleric, to grab expertise in Arcane and History (or religion...) without losing spell slot progression, like dipping rogue would (plus land them some armor profs).

True Mystic Theurge builds would see value in taking both wizard and cleric; and would probably push pretty hard for the advanced ritual casting some think is allowable.

The only other one I can think of, is a EK/Wiz MC - either to grab more slots for the EK to use, or to provide more martial prowess to the wizard. I guess AT/Wiz would be similar - and either would significantly undermine slot progression; this specific case, I would definitely be in favor of the 'ritual caster free feat' I proposed above.

[Theodoxus]

A wizard doesn't need to prepare a spell to add it to their spellbook. I mean, obviously: if they did have to prepare it before they could add it to their spellbook, and they had to have it in their spellbook before they could prepare it, wizards couldn't ever learn any spells. A wizard needs to have a spell slot of the proper level, and to spend the time and money needed to copy the spell. No preparation needed. I know it sounds weird, but it explicitly works like that according to two different places in the rules.

I didn't say prepare, I said incorporate. And I agree, having to prepare a spell to add it, and you can't prepare it until it is added, is a paradox. In fact, the sidebar proposes just such a paradox. So I agree, that particular piece of information is fluff - and particularly bad fluff at that.

[MarkTriumphant]

Under those rulings, a Barbarian with the Ritual Caster feat is a better Ritual Caster than the Wizard which I don't think could ever be the intention

This is the only thing in this argument that has made me think that those opposing calebrus may be right. However, I think that the feat is probably too strong.


Firstly, those are not rulings. Those are the rules.
Secondly, that is absolutely the intention.
If you are multiclass, and you want to be a fully competent ritual caster, then you need the Ritual Caster feat, because multiclassing reduces your class' ritual casting ability the same as it does your spellcasting ability.
Just like it does with Cleric, or Druid, or Ranger, or any other ritual caster.
Wizards are no exception.

The problem with that argument is that the feat turns a non-spell user into a better ritual caster than any multi-classed magic user, which does seem counter-intuitive.

I don't have an answer, as during this discussion I have almost always thought that calebrus is correct, but the existence of the feat, and how powerful it is does give pause for thought.


If you want to compare something to a Feat, then you need to account for the fact that *getting* that Feat costs you four levels and the sacrifice of an ASI.
The Feat comes at a cost, so you need to consider that cost in the comparison, or the comparison isn't a fair one.

And this is just codswallop - the cost of a feat is one ASI. No more, and no less.

[DanyBallon]

A wizard doesn't need to prepare a spell to add it to their spellbook. I mean, obviously: if they did have to prepare it before they could add it to their spellbook, and they had to have it in their spellbook before they could prepare it, wizards couldn't ever learn any spells. A wizard needs to have a spell slot of the proper level, and to spend the time and money needed to copy the spell. No preparation needed. I know it sounds weird, but it explicitly works like that according to two different places in the rules.

In order copy a 5th level spell, a character has to have a 5th level spell slot. And there's no way to get a 5th level spell slot without being at least a 9th level character. But if a Wizard 5/Cleric 4 were to find the same scroll, then they could add it to their spellbook and cast it as a ritual and only as a ritual.

In order to learn a spell and write it in its spell book, a wizards must practice the spell, either by practicing it from a scroll or an other spellbook until he master it enough to scribe it in his own way in his spellbook. When you get two new spell each level, they assumed you get access to such resources and practiced during your rests and downtime days. That's why the fluff is really important.
And as how do you learn spell from a new spell level? I'd say that you have to practice harder for these spell until your good enough (you now have a spell slot high enough in the single class) to learn it. Higher slots from multiclassing only represent that your combine magical talent help you out to empower the spells you already knows, and is not enough to let you learn higher level spells.



And that sounds pretty reasonable. I just can't understand why anyone would want to nerf someone that is already running a sub-optimal character.
Because not all game need optimal characters to have fun. Being optimal or not is subjective. For someone being optimal is standing his own in combat, for others it's having a character that is fun to play.

[Grek]

Incorporate isn't a word used by the rules. Things you can do with a spell include: Copy, Prepare, Cast, Cast as a Ritual, Know.

Know is a sorcerer thing. Wizards Prepare spells, they don't Know spells.
Copy requires that you have an appropriate spell slot.
Prepare requires that you have enough class levels.
Cast requires that you have an appropriate spell slot and the spell Prepared.
Cast as a Ritual requires you have 10 minutes and the spell Copied.

Note that Prepare and Copy have different requirements. One requires wizard levels, one requires total spellcaster levels. That's the distinction people are missing.

[DanyBallon]

The problem with that argument is that the feat turns a non-spell user into a better ritual caster than any multi-classed magic user, which does seem counter-intuitive.

It's true that the feat turn any non-spellcaster in a better ritual user than any multiclass spellcaster, but ritual are mostly utility spell and not game breaking, and there's none above 6th level. A pure mystic theurge (Wiz10/C10) will be short from 1 ritual spell for each class (btw, except for Wizards and Cleric, no other classes get 6th level ritual spells)

[calebrus]

Incorporate isn't a word used by the rules. Things you can do with a spell include: Copy, Prepare, Cast, Cast as a Ritual, Know.

You forgot Learn.
Which wizards do by adding spells to their spellbook.
And as we all know, learn means to gain or acquire knowledge, which means.... drumroll please.... know.
Learn means know. The two words are interchangeable.
Yes, they really are.
Which means adding a spell to your spellbook follows the exact same restrictions that preparing spells does.

{scrubbed}

[Grek]

Your "Learn" is the same thing as Copy, except... not using the actual word used in the actual book. And replacing it with a different word with different connotations so you can make a connotative argument contrary to what the rules actually say. Seriously, the rules say "Copying a Spell" instead of "Learning a Spell" for a reason. If you copy a spell into your spellbook, then lose your spellbook, you can't prepare the spell based on the fact that you "learned" it when you first copied it down. You still need the physical copy.

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

[SharkForce]

wizard with cleric levels is probably not all that uncommon. bless is a really good candidate for your concentration slot any time you don't want to use an offensive concentration spell, having access to healing spells is almost always a good idea, you can use the cleric cantrips for stuff like light or mending or especially guidance (if nobody else has it already), and shield of faith + medium (or heavy) armour + shield + shield spell makes you very resistant to AC-based attacks.

then combine with some of the channel divinity and domain options...

for example:

knowledge domain gives you command (meh, no good unless you have high wisdom) and identify (don't have to blow one of your 2 free spells on it), two bonus languages, two bonus int-based skills, and expertise in those two int-based skills. level 2 gives you a 1/short rest proficiency in any skill or tool for 10 minutes... amazing synergy with fabricate, and the kind of thing that can almost always find a use. and fluffwise, fits very well with wizard.

not all domains are equally good (especially the second level), but it is worth considering.

then we consider the 3 sorcerer splash on a wizard. i'd say it's too high of a cost to pay for metamagic most of the time... but i could totally see someone deciding it was worthwhile. if it was only 1-2 levels, i'd totally consider it worthwhile.

i also don't see a problem with the ritual caster feat being better than multiclassing a caster class. the feat represents your commitment to ritual casting. multiclassing represents your split commitment between being two or more classes. a wizard who is fully focused on being a wizard is just as good at ritual casting as a person who is fully focused on ritual casting like a wizard. a wizard who decides that maybe they should learn a bit about weapons and armour instead of studying their rituals and spells is not as good at ritual casting, which is as it should be. they decided to split their focus, and every other ability they had in that spellcasting class stopped progressing for that level. why wouldn't ritual casting also stop, particularly when it stops for every single other spellcasting class in the game?

in any event, i actually side with calebrus on this one. to copy the spell, you must have a slot of that level. a multiclass wizard has a slot only for the purpose of casting their lower level spells in higher slots. it is completely ridiculous to state that they intended for wizards, and only wizards, to have this special exception, especially in light of the fact that the lead rules developer specifically said it is not intended (seriously, it's one thing to argue what the rules say and ignore what the devs say unless they publish errata, but it is completely irrational to ignore what the devs have said about their intent when you're discussing their intent. that's just silly).

[Giant2005]

You forgot Learn.
Which wizards do by adding spells to their spellbook.
And as we all know, learn means to gain or acquire knowledge, which means.... drumroll please.... know.
Learn means know. The two words are interchangeable.
Yes, they really are.
Which means adding a spell to your spellbook follows the exact same restrictions that preparing spells does.

{scrubbed}

None of this is even relevant.
No matter what wordplay you use, you don't get to define the game term "know" only the game can dot hat and it does so quite well within the Bard, Eldritch Knight, Ranger, Arcane Trickster, Sorcerer, and Warlock descriptions. The Wizard is absent from that list and unaffected by the corresponding rule.

[Grek]

Calebrus: Alright, agreed. "Learn" is also a thing you can also do with spells. It refers to gaining them for free when you level up. But that's clearly not the same thing as adding them to your spellbook using magical writings. Both add to your spellbook, but you go about them in totally different ways. And its DEFINITELY not the same thing as what a sorcerer does when he "knows" a spell. And I was talking about adding spells to your spellbook, as per the "Your Spellbook" sidebar that gives all the details on how to copy spells.

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

[Naanomi]

Other wizard MC options:
-necromancer with warlock/sorcerer levels to maximize animate dead castings
-wizard dips sorcerer to do something with metamagic
-wizard dips cleric at 1 for heavy armor
-grappler chooses wizard multiclass to get enlarge
-various wizard dips for potent
-bard/cleric/rogue dips on wizard to max knowledge skills

[Talderas]

{scrubbed}

There are two ways to add spells to your spellbook. You aren't required to pay 250gp or spend 10 hours adding a 5th level spell to your spell book when you gain it from leveling up. You are required to pay 250gp and spend 10 hours to add a 5th level spell if you find it as treasure.

The book already defines spells known and spells prepared. Spells known and spells prepared are the same thing but one term or the other is used for each class. If the class prepares then it does not know spells. If the class knows spells it does not prepare. The wizard prepares spells so he does not know spells which means that every spell in his spellbook which is not prepared is not a spell known and is not a spell prepared.

[calebrus]

LOL, there are not two ways to add spells to your spellbook. There is one way, and each level you get to do it twice for free. It's not a different way of doing it.

And Learned = Known.

{scrubbed}

[DanyBallon]

There are two ways to add spells to your spellbook. You aren't required to pay 250gp or spend 10 hours adding a 5th level spell to your spell book when you gain it from leveling up. You are required to pay 250gp and spend 10 hours to add a 5th level spell if you find it as treasure.

The book already defines spells known and spells prepared. Spells known and spells prepared are the same thing but one term or the other is used for each class. If the class prepares then it does not know spells. If the class knows spells it does not prepare. The wizard prepares spells so he does not know spells which means that every spell in his spellbook which is not prepared is not a spell known and is not a spell prepared.

So your telling me, that my wizards who learned Alarm and copied Sleep, both are written in his spell book, don't know these spells if didn't prepare them? That's completely absurd. Once learned a spell is known. When not prepared, the spell is still known, only not memorized to be used that day. Sometimes I feel that people are trying to bend reality in order to justify OP build, or to find a reason to say X is broken.

[Grek]

There's a difference between "known" in the sense of you know what the spell is/have seen it before/have a copy written down in your spell book and "known" in the sense that you can cast it without preparing it first like a sorcerer who has that spell as one of his spells known.

Arguing that the first and the second are the same rules-wise leads to really weird interpretations, so you shouldn't do that.

[DanyBallon]

There's a difference between "known" in the sense of you know what the spell is/have seen it before/have a copy written down in your spell book and "known" in the sense that you can cast it without preparing it first like a sorcerer who has that spell as one of his spells known.

Arguing that the first and the second are the same rules-wise leads to really weird interpretations, so you shouldn't do that.

Known is known. Spontaneous spell caster can cast any spell they know, wizards can cast any spell the know (that are in its spellbook) and that they prepared that day. And on the contrary, it's trying to say that it's different that create that weird situation where multiclass wizards get to cast ritual spell above their level.

[Theodoxus]

There's a difference between "known" in the sense of you know what the spell is/have seen it before/have a copy written down in your spell book and "known" in the sense that you can cast it without preparing it first like a sorcerer who has that spell as one of his spells known.

Arguing that the first and the second are the same rules-wise leads to really weird interpretations, so you shouldn't do that.

You know what's a really weird interpretation? Thinking that a MC Wizard gets to use his highest level slots, that he can't use for casting spells of that level, to transcribe and cast rituals from.

By this reasoning, it's not unreasonable for this scenario:

Level 3 Cleric/Level 2 Wizard (3rd level spell slots) gains a level and chooses Wizard. As one of his two spells learned, he can choose to get a 3rd level ritual? No? if not, why not? It's the same (sans time and money) process as copying a spell.

[Talderas]

So your telling me, that my wizards who learned Alarm and copied Sleep, both are written in his spell book, don't know these spells if didn't prepare them? That's completely absurd. Once learned a spell is known. When not prepared, the spell is still known, only not memorized to be used that day. Sometimes I feel that people are trying to bend reality in order to justify OP build, or to find a reason to say X is broken.

The only spells wizards know are their cantrips as indicated by the "Cantrips Known" column in the class level chart. Spells known and spells prepared are concepts defined on pg201 of the PHB under the section titled "Spells Known and Spells Prepared". Spells known and spells prepared are identical concepts for different styles of spellcasters but in either case they reference the spells you are able to cast. If you want to insist that spells in a wizard's spellbook are spells known then you must accept that the wizard is able to cast any of those spells at any time since spells known are spells that are available to be cast.

That said, we can talk that you know the spells in your spellbook in the sense that you are aware of the existence and know what they do but that is not the mantle under which the phrase "spells known" is utilized within the rules. As far as the phrase "spells known" goes, it is only applicable to wizards for the purpose of cantrips.

--


You know what's a really weird interpretation? Thinking that a MC Wizard gets to use his highest level slots, that he can't use for casting spells of that level, to transcribe and cast rituals from.

You don't expend spell slots when transcribing spells so you aren't using spell slots. As to casting a ritual, I'm not sure if ritual casting means you are using no spell slots to cast the spell or you are using zero spell slots to cast the spell although I lean closer to suggesting that you use no spell slots to cast rituals but I cannot find any corroborating evidence within the rules to make me believe one or the other is correct.

If you use no spell slots to cast rituals then yes, you can cast those high level rituals as the slots are not used. If you use zero spell slots to cast the ritual then you cannot cast the higher level rituals because you're using zero rather than one spell slot.

[Grek]

Level 3 Cleric/Level 2 Wizard (3rd level spell slots) gains a level and chooses Wizard. As one of his two spells learned, he can choose to get a 3rd level ritual? No? if not, why not? It's the same (sans time and money) process as copying a spell.

Sure. But he can't prepare it, given that the mutliclass rules forbid him from doing so.

[DanyBallon]

The only spells wizards know are their cantrips as indicated by the "Cantrips Known" column in the class level chart. Spells known and spells prepared are concepts defined on pg201 of the PHB under the section titled "Spells Known and Spells Prepared". Spells known and spells prepared are identical concepts for different styles of spellcasters but in either case they reference the spells you are able to cast. If you want to insist that spells in a wizard's spellbook are spells known then you must accept that the wizard is able to cast any of those spells at any time since spells known are spells that are available to be cast.

That said, we can talk that you know the spells in your spellbook in the sense that you are aware of the existence and know what they do but that is not the mantle under which the phrase "spells known" is utilized within the rules. As far as the phrase "spells known" goes, it is only applicable to wizards for the purpose of cantrips.


What PHB p.201 says, is that "Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item. Members of a few classes, including Bards and Sorcerers, have a limited list of spells they know that are always fixed in mind. The same thing is true of many magic-using monsters. Other spellcasters, such as Clerics and Wizards, undergo a process of preparing spells."

In no way they make distinction between known and prepared spells like you believe. What its says is that spontaneous casters spell list is always fixed in mind, where as wizards and clerics need to prepare the spells to fixed them in mind. Only spells fixed in mind can be used. Wizards ritual casting (and the ritual caster feat) is an exception as you only need to have the spell written in your spellbook (know the spell) in order to cast it this way.

[DanyBallon]

Sure. But he can't prepare it, given that the mutliclass rules forbid him from doing so.

This doesn't make any sense. Multiclass says that you determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single class member of that class. This mean you need to revert back to the spellcasting class to see how you learn and prepare spells. Wizards tells you that you learn and can prepare spells that you have spell slots as shown on the wizard's table. That table says that a 3rd level wizards can only learn and prepare up to 2nd level spells.

[Grek]

That's a question of semantics. If you prefer the nomenclature where a 1st level Sorcerer has 2 spells "always fixed in his mind" to and a wizard prepares spells "fix them in his mind" to the "known" vs. "prepared" nomenclature, then the argument goes:

Because copying spells into a spellbook is based on your available spell slots rather than the ability to fix spells into your mind, a Wizard 2/Cleric 2 can add a 3rd level spell to his spellbook. However, this Wizard 2/Cleric 2 cannot fix the 3rd level spell into his mind, as it is too high level for him to prepare. He can only cast it as a ritual, as wizards don't need to have a spell fixed in their mind in order to cast it as a ritual.

Redefining the word "known" just makes things less clear. It doesn't change the meat of the argument.

[DanyBallon]

If you want to read it this way, good for you, but the intent is to copy spells that you have spell slots (on the wizard's table as multiclassing is an option and the classes are not worded to represent all options). So if you a third level wizard or a Wiz3/C3, when you refer to the wizards table you only have access to 2nd level spell slots.

[SharkForce]

That's a question of semantics. If you prefer the nomenclature where a 1st level Sorcerer has 2 spells "always fixed in his mind" to and a wizard prepares spells "fix them in his mind" to the "known" vs. "prepared" nomenclature, then the argument goes:

Because copying spells into a spellbook is based on your available spell slots rather than the ability to fix spells into your mind, a Wizard 2/Cleric 2 can add a 3rd level spell to his spellbook. However, this Wizard 2/Cleric 2 cannot fix the 3rd level spell into his mind, as it is too high level for him to prepare. He can only cast it as a ritual, as wizards don't need to have a spell fixed in their mind in order to cast it as a ritual.

Redefining the word "known" just makes things less clear. It doesn't change the meat of the argument.

except that the only thing you can use those spell slots for is to cast your lower level spells. not for learning spells. not for preparing spells. not for knowing spells. not for deciding what spells you can copy in your spellbook.

you can use them for casting lower level spells, and that is all.

[Chronos]

Quoth Theodoxus:

A mechanically viable MC would be a Wizard/Warlock Abjurer build, using Mage Armor to fuel Arcane Ward. (However, that doesn't offer slot progression, so a moot example.)
Whoa, are you telepathic? I was just about to start a thread about that exact combination. I hadn't realized that it was a known trick.

[Talderas]

except that the only thing you can use those spell slots for is to cast your lower level spells. not for learning spells. not for preparing spells. not for knowing spells. not for deciding what spells you can copy in your spellbook.

you can use them for casting lower level spells, and that is all.

Transcribing a spell into a spellbook requires that you have spell slots of its level. Have is a term of possession. The multiclass rules prevent you from using the spell slot for anything other than elevating the level of a spell your casting. Use is a term of action. Generally speaking, anything that has the term "expend a spell slot" that isn't a lower level spell cannot use that spell slot.

[SharkForce]

except that using it to qualify for something is (as should have been no surprise to anyone but apparently is) using it. just like showing a piece of ID to act as a means of identification is a *use* of that ID.

one of the functions of spell slots is to qualify you for ritual spellcasting. as a multiclass spellcaster, you only count as a single-classed spellcaster for that purpose. you cannot use your higher level spell slots for the purpose of qualifying for ritual casting any more than you can use them for learning new spells.

[Theodoxus]

You don't expend spell slots when transcribing spells so you aren't using spell slots. As to casting a ritual, I'm not sure if ritual casting means you are using no spell slots to cast the spell or you are using zero spell slots to cast the spell although I lean closer to suggesting that you use no spell slots to cast rituals but I cannot find any corroborating evidence within the rules to make me believe one or the other is correct.

If you use no spell slots to cast rituals then yes, you can cast those high level rituals as the slots are not used. If you use zero spell slots to cast the ritual then you cannot cast the higher level rituals because you're using zero rather than one spell slot.

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day, but here we are, arguing the semantics of what Use means.

Let me try again...


You know what's a really weird interpretation? Thinking that while a MC Wizard has access to his highest level slots, which he can't use for casting spells of that level; he can transcribe and cast rituals from them.

I'm going to harken back to my old standby. Run your game the way you want it, I'll run mine the way I want to - we'll never play together, so it's all right in the end. Anyone coming here to find a definitive answer 1) is a fool, we're not Devs and 2) will find compelling arguments to run their game the way they want to. Win/win all around.

[calebrus]

Anyone coming here to find a definitive answer 1) is a fool, we're not Devs

Points to the OP, wherein Crawford's response has been linked.
Hey, look, a Dev, with a definitive answer!

[Grek]

Wizard 2/Paladin 2: According to the multiclass rules, this character has a 2nd level spell slot. Can this slot be used for Divine Smite? Why or why not?

[hawklost]

Wizard 2/Paladin 2: According to the multiclass rules, this character has a 2nd level spell slot. Can this slot be used for Divine Smite? Why or why not?

1) Not really the same topic as this thread.

2) They could, because Smite is effectively a '1st level unique spell' (my calling it) so it can be used for slots higher than 1 up to 5 just like a 1st level spell can be enhanced by a 2nd level slot.

[SharkForce]

Wizard 2/Paladin 2: According to the multiclass rules, this character has a 2nd level spell slot. Can this slot be used for Divine Smite? Why or why not?


technically, no. it is a fairly common thing to allow, but the multiclass rules say you can only use your spell slots for casting lower level spells in a higher slot.

[Theodoxus]

You could cast one of the smite spells with it though.

[Theodoxus]

Points to the OP, wherein Crawford's response has been linked.
Hey, look, a Dev, with a definitive answer!

Yeah, but I know you know what I meant - MM and JC don't slum @ GITP doling out answers to universal questions.

[Xetheral]

technically, no. it is a fairly common thing to allow, but the multiclass rules say you can only use your spell slots for casting lower level spells in a higher slot.

That only applies to the Spellcasting class feature. Divine Smite doesn't have an entry in the multiclass section.

[Theodoxus]

That's because Divine Smite isn't a spell. So, it follows the same as everything else in the multiclass section that isn't a spell.

[SharkForce]

it doesn't need to have a separate entry. you can only use your spell slots for one purpose, specifically, casting your lower level spells in a higher level slot.

it doesn't matter what the other purpose is. for all purposes other than that one singular purpose, those spell slots may as well not exist.

now, it's a common house rule to allow it anyways, and i don't see any particular balance issues with doing so. but your spellcasting slot progression strictly speaking only stacks for that one singular purpose of casting your lower level spells in a higher level slot.

[Shining Wrath]

Not RAW, but an interesting possible homebrew: you can try a ritual you can't learn, but there's a chance of failure. The bigger the difference the greater the chance of failure.

This allows for the iconic case of cultists who attempt to summon a fiend and wind up scattered body parts littering their temple, or the Lovecraftian wizard who dabbles in matters too deep for his comprehension and winds up gibbering in the asylum.

[DanyBallon]

Not RAW, but an interesting possible homebrew: you can try a ritual you can't learn, but there's a chance of failure. The bigger the difference the greater the chance of failure.

This allows for the iconic case of cultists who attempt to summon a fiend and wind up scattered body parts littering their temple, or the Lovecraftian wizard who dabbles in matters too deep for his comprehension and winds up gibbering in the asylum.

This is an interesting idea! I might steal it for my home game :smallsmile:

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

[Theodoxus]

a) I agree with you regarding your original statement that MC wizards can't cast rituals (or even transcribe them) if they're higher than the level allowed by their single-class wizard level.
b) JC didn't come to GITP to post on your thread. You went to Sage Advice and looked it up, posting a link; that's not a reply from a Dev, that's a outside source supporting your supposition.
c) No one comes to GITP forums expecting Mike Mearls or Jeremy Crawford to log into their GITP account (if they even have them) and posit official clarifications.

You can dance around it, I guess, but the fact remains, no Dev came here and said anything. Linking an outside source is not the same.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread closed for review.

EDIT: Re-opened upon review.