Can a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 cast 2nd level Paladin and/or Sorcerer spells?

[durrin]

To me there seems to be some ambiguity about this. Pg. 165 of the PHB shows the spell slots for multiclass characters. So a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 would be a 3rd level spellcaster and have four 1st level spell slots and two 2nd level spell slots. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
But the previous page gives a specific example of why a Ranger 4/Wizard 3 couldn't cast 3rd level Wizard Spells or even know 2nd level Ranger spells. I guess I just don't get why that is and I'll explain my position.
Let's say I'm a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 1 and I am just leveling up to Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2. I now have the above spell slots per multiclass table and when I look at the Sorcerer class section: Spells Known of 1st level and Higher;
You know two 1st-level spells of your choice from the
sorcerer spell list.
The Spells Known column of the Sorcerer table
shows when you learn more sorcerer spells of your
choice. Each of these spells must be of a level for which
you have spell slots. For instance, when you reach 3rd
level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st
or 2nd level.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class,
you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know
and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer
spell list, which also must be of a level for which you
have spell slots.

So my question is this. Is multiclass spellcasting taken into account and applicable to those statements? In other words, the Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 who just leveled up now has 2nd level spell slots so why can't his new Sorcerer spell (and the one he can exchange) be 2nd level spells? Why can't he now also cast Paladin 2nd level spells (as another aside, Paladin and Cleric don't seem to be clear on when exactly the spells are known, just when they can be prepared/ie same spell slot argument as above).
It seems to make sense to me that this should work, even given their specific example of how it does not work. The reason being is that Ranger 4/Wizard 3 didn't KNOW any spells of the appropriate level because he didn't learn any through his class feature (but I'd argue he could have in the same manner as I detail above).
Shouldn't a Paladin with levels in Sorcerer be a more potent caster than a straight Paladin of the same level? I think he should, and earlier access to certain level spells would be representative of that. Shouldn't a Sorcerer with levels in Paladin be a slightly less effective caster than a straight Sorcerer? Yes, and because of the multiclass spell slots he is. He has less castings because Paladin levels only count for half.
I don't see a problem with any of the above but I'm asking because in all my reading on the subject I've never seen this particular nuance discussed. Thanks for reading.

[Mr.Moron]

No. He cannot.

Further this interpretation is just plainly absurd at it's face. In a world where this interpretation worked it's clearly be optimal to always go Caster 15/EveryOtherCasterClass 1. As no matter how good your class features are they don't outweigh having full access to every spell list in the game as though you were maximum level in all of them.

There would be no reason to design a multiclass system like that and many reasons not to.

[GiantOctopodes]

Paladin / Sorcerer may be less effective due to lower level spell slots, but if you run with that interpretation, what about Sorcerer / Bard? Just as effective as a Sorcerer *and* Bard of the combined levels? Not even remotely balanced.

Now, by RAW you are correct, that is what it says. However, not even I could try to defend that one, because it's not what they intend. The best argument (and it's not a strong one) I've heard against that working is that, since multiclassing is optional, the description of how you pick spells assumes a character exclusively of that class, so where it says "of a level for which you have spell slots" it is referring to the single class chart for the class in question.

I know, that's not what it says. I know, the chart is not even used for the character in question once they go multiclass. However, I will refer you to the "for example" from the section in question, which directly applies to this:



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


Based on that example, how it *should* work is clear. They just wrote it incorrectly.

[ImSAMazing]

No. He cannot.

Further this interpretation is just plainly absurd at it's face. In a world where this interpretation worked it's clearly be optimal to always go Caster 15/EveryOtherCasterClass 1. As no matter how good your class features are they don't outweigh having full access to every spell list in the game as though you were maximum level in all of them.

There would be no reason to design a multiclass system like that and many reasons not to.

Moron, you are right!

[durrin]

I can accept that, I just need to know why. You haven't given me a reason I can snuggle up to, just that you don't like it.

Also, I'd point out that taking 1 level in every class wouldn't get you every spell list. Some classes don't get spellcasting until 2nd level. Also you would give up a lot of main class features and ability score increases to try to be level 1 in every class.

[Ninja_Prawn]

To me there seems to be some ambiguity about this. Pg. 165 of the PHB shows the spell slots for multiclass characters. So a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 would be a 3rd level spellcaster and have four 1st level spell slots and two 2nd level spell slots. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
But the previous page gives a specific example of why a Ranger 4/Wizard 3 couldn't cast 3rd level Wizard Spells or even know 2nd level Ranger spells. I guess I just don't get why that is and I'll explain my position.

This has been clarified so many times, I think all the usual suspects have got bored of repeating it.

Your spells known are always calculated as if you were single-classed. A paladin 2 can only ever know level 1 paladin spells, regardless of how many other slots they have from multiclassing.

To quote PHB 164:

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

There is no ambiguity there. It even explicitly says:

"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."

Which would be a waste of words if your reading was correct.

I believe there have been tweets and sage advice on it as well, confirming the position, but I don't know how to find those.

[Mr.Moron]

I can accept that, I just need to know why. You haven't given me a reason I can snuggle up to, just that you don't like it.


Well you've gotten what you're getting. I'm not your mom, I'm not going to spoon feed you this. Either use the search feature or convince your GM that you get the be a souped-up god caster at minimal opportunity cost.

[durrin]

Paladin / Sorcerer may be less effective due to lower level spell slots, but if you run with that interpretation, what about Sorcerer / Bard? Just as effective as a Sorcerer *and* Bard of the combined levels? Not even remotely balanced.

Now, by RAW you are correct, that is what it says. However, not even I could try to defend that one, because it's not what they intend. The best argument (and it's not a strong one) I've heard against that working is that, since multiclassing is optional, the description of how you pick spells assumes a character exclusively of that class, so where it says "of a level for which you have spell slots" it is referring to the single class chart for the class in question.

I know, that's not what it says. I know, the chart is not even used for the character in question once they go multiclass. However, I will refer you to the "for example" from the section in question, which directly applies to this:



Based on that example, how it *should* work is clear. They just wrote it incorrectly.

Thank you for your reply. As I noted in my OP, I don't see anything in RAW as to why the Ranger/Wizard couldn't choose to learn new spells from a level for which he has spell slots (I can see why he couldn't cast spells he doesn't know because he hasn't learned them based on how and when he gained certain multiclass levels). I totally see what you're saying and I can agree that is almost certainly the intent, but they need to go back and clarify about multiclass characters because I think there's an opening there for the argument I made when you get to learn new spells.

In actuality a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2, the way I envisioned it, could cast Find Steed, a 2nd level Paladin spell that a normal Paladin wouldn't get until level 5. Is that so outside the realm of reason that someone naturally better at magic (has levels in a pure spellcaster class) could cast a level 2 spell one level before a half caster could cast it but a level after a pure Sorcerer gained access to 2nd level spells? It hardly seems borken to me. Makes sense, actually.

[charlesk]

In actuality a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2, the way I envisioned it, could cast Find Steed, a 2nd level Paladin spell that a normal Paladin wouldn't get until level 5. Is that so outside the realm of reason that someone naturally better at magic (has levels in a pure spellcaster class) could cast a level 2 spell one level before a half caster could cast it but a level after a pure Sorcerer gained access to 2nd level spells? It hardly seems borken to me. Makes sense, actually.

Like most things, the brokenness only becomes apparent at higher levels. Your multiclass would be able to cast level 5 paladin spells at level 12 (Sorc 6 / Pal 6) while a real paladin gets them at level 17.

Should someone who takes Wizard 4 / Druid 4 / Cleric 4 / Bard 2 / Paladin 2 / Ranger 2 be able to cast every spell in the game?

Also, I would not argue that a Pal 2 / Sorc 2 is naturally better at sorcerer magic than a sorcerer 3.

[GiantOctopodes]

Thank you for your reply. As I noted in my OP, I don't see anything in RAW as to why the Ranger/Wizard couldn't choose to learn new spells from a level for which he has spell slots (I can see why he couldn't cast spells he doesn't know because he hasn't learned them based on how and when he gained certain multiclass levels). I totally see what you're saying and I can agree that is almost certainly the intent, but they need to go back and clarify about multiclass characters because I think there's an opening there for the argument I made when you get to learn new spells.

In actuality a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2, the way I envisioned it, could cast Find Steed, a 2nd level Paladin spell that a normal Paladin wouldn't get until level 5. Is that so outside the realm of reason that someone naturally better at magic (has levels in a pure spellcaster class) could cast a level 2 spell one level before a half caster could cast it but a level after a pure Sorcerer gained access to 2nd level spells? It hardly seems borken to me. Makes sense, actually.

Keep in mind that under such an interpretation a Wizard 1 / Caster X would have 100% of the spellcasting capabilities of a Wizard (X+1). Why not, should you run it that way, add one level of Wizard and gain access to every spell on the Wizard spell list in return?

Still seem not broken to you?

Edit:

This has been clarified so many times, I think all the usual suspects have got bored of repeating it.

Your spells known are always calculated as if you were single-classed. A paladin 2 can only ever know level 1 paladin spells, regardless of how many other slots they have from multiclassing.

To quote PHB 164:

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

There is no ambiguity there.


I will point out that "as if you were a single classed member of that class", when combined with the actual description of spellcasting based upon available slots, which is how it's described for single class members of that class, actually supports his interpretation. If how a single classed Sorcerer determines what level spells he can learn upon acquiring a new level is based on what slots he has, nothing in that class or the multiclass section describes why exactly he would not be able to learn spells of a level for which he has slots, using the only table that actually applies to his character, the multiclass caster spell slot table. I agree there's no ambiguity, but not in the way you're implying.



It even explicitly says:

"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."

Which would be a waste of words if your reading was correct.

I believe there have been tweets and sage advice on it as well, confirming the position, but I don't know how to find those.

Not at all. If you were a Ranger 5, then gained 10 Wizard levels, you would have 6th level slots, but would not have gained a Ranger level (and thus learned new Ranger spells) since your highest slots were 2nd level, so the table would be giving you slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. It would 100% apply, and would not be a waste of space at all.

I will point out again that I agree with you regarding the intent, and do not believe any DM will ever allow it to work as described by the OP in any campaign. Just saying that it's in my opinion incorrect to state or imply there is no rational basis for his viewpoint. It wouldn't come up all the time if how he describes it were not how the rules describe it. If it needs to be clarified over and over, perhaps the issue is the writing, not the people seeking clarification.

[durrin]

This has been clarified so many times, I think all the usual suspects have got bored of repeating it.

Your spells known are always calculated as if you were single-classed. A paladin 2 can only ever know level 1 paladin spells, regardless of how many other slots they have from multiclassing.

To quote PHB 164:

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

There is no ambiguity there. It even explicitly says:

"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."

Which would be a waste of words if your reading was correct.

I believe there have been tweets and sage advice on it as well, confirming the position, but I don't know how to find those.

I don't know how to find those either or I would. I read about 10 threads on Paladin multiclass and never saw this come up. I did see the same argument over using spell slots for smite come up a million times though.

I do believe there is ambiguity and it is because it's not clear how you come to KNOW Paladin and Cleric spells. Only once I'm of a level to cast them I then suddenly know them all? Like I level up and a bolt from heaven inspires me with a huge new spell list? Instagrok? You might know them or know OF them at level 1, or as you go. Who is to say? The DM maybe. But at issue really, for the Paladin, is when you can PREPARE them. Which I would refer you to the Paladin section and it is identical to the Sorcerer and every other spellcaster. It says you can prepare any spell you know for which you have spell slots. Once I have a 2nd level spell slot why can't I LEARN a second level spell when I get to learn one and PREPARE (if that is how I cast) a 2nd level spell I have learned or just innately know?
Nothing anyone has said here other than the reply about the INTENT (not RAW) can negate this. Short of a ruling by the DM or designers or something in another official book, I just don't know.
Also, this is my very first post, just started playing 5E and dang, I feel jumped on like I'm an idiot or a horrible twinkie for even considering this. Thanks guys.

[Shaofoo]

Well to consider your Paladin2 /Sorcerer2 is better at magic than a Paladin4 justification, A Paladin's power comes from his vow that he took and not from the study of magic or his own inner power, all magic isn't the same and isn't gained the same way.

Also the class descriptions only concern themselves from the class in question and no where else.

When some class says anything about the spell slots that you have it only counts the spell slots as if you were a level from that particular class and as said by the slots gained by the level. So a Sorc2/Pal2 will only consider Sorc2 when gaining Sorc stuff and Pal2 for gaining Paladin stuff and you reference Sorc2 and Pal2 respectively, the added slots are outside the class and do not factor into this.

[Mr.Moron]

I don't know how to find those either or I would. I read about 10 threads on Paladin multiclass and never saw this come up. I did see the same argument over using spell slots for smite come up a million times though.

I do believe there is ambiguity and it is because it's not clear how you come to KNOW Paladin and Cleric spells. Only once I'm of a level to cast them I then suddenly know them all? Like I level up and a bolt from heaven inspires me with a huge new spell list? Instagrok? You might know them or know OF them at level 1, or as you go. Who is to say? The DM maybe. But at issue really, for the Paladin, is when you can PREPARE them. Which I would refer you to the Paladin section and it is identical to the Sorcerer and every other spellcaster. It says you can prepare any spell you know for which you have spell slots. Once I have a 2nd level spell slot why can't I LEARN a second level spell when I get to learn one and PREPARE (if that is how I cast) a 2nd level spell I have learned or just innately know?
Nothing anyone has said here other than the reply about the INTENT (not RAW) can negate this. Short of a ruling by the DM or designers or something in another official book, I just don't know.
Also, this is my very first post, just started playing 5E and dang, I feel jumped on like I'm an idiot or a horrible twinkie for even considering this. Thanks guys.

If you don't want people to tell you're trying to twist the rules in an obviously degenerate way as means to build your character more powerfully than normal, then don't do that.

You don't get to go "Guys, by this reading of the law I can totally take stuff from anyone's house without asking so long as a use a pair of tongs" and also get to be offended when people tell you "That's stealing" or "You're a thief".

At the end of the day what the designers think or what the RAW is, what this forum thinks all doesn't matter. One and exactly one person's opinion here is relevant: Your GMs. If you want to get away with this try to smooth-talk this to them. Just don't expect a bunch of other people to give you evidence/ammunition for it.

[durrin]

Like most things, the brokenness only becomes apparent at higher levels. Your multiclass would be able to cast level 5 paladin spells at level 12 (Sorc 6 / Pal 6) while a real paladin gets them at level 17.

Should someone who takes Wizard 4 / Druid 4 / Cleric 4 / Bard 2 / Paladin 2 / Ranger 2 be able to cast every spell in the game?

Also, I would not argue that a Pal 2 / Sorc 2 is naturally better at sorcerer magic than a sorcerer 3.

I wouldn't argue he was better at Sorcerer magic than a Sorcerer 3. I'd argue he'd be equally good at magic (being a 3rd level caster). He'd be more diverse, being able to cast 2nd level Paladin and Sorcerer spells, but he'd have one less castings than a Sorcerer 3, know less spells and would be farther away from an ability increase than either pure class Paladin or Sorcerer would be. That's a trade off.

I do get what you're saying about the 4/4/4/2/2/2. What I'd say about that person is they're a helluva spellcaster, jack of all trades, master of none (except that they can cast any spell). They're 20th level. They're practically a god. If their DM lets them multiclass into every level why not? What DM would? My campaign will never make it to 20 most likely. We're playing the Starter Set. I just want to do two classes. Shrug.

[Steampunkette]

There is no ambiguity whatsoever.

You select your spells known/prepared based on the individual class and levels you have attained within that class "As if you were a single-classed member of that class"

It even breaks it down within the Ranger/Wizard example you bring up. Even though the character is by the rules a 5th level caster with a 3rd level slot they -cannot- take fireball or any other 3rd level spell. It gives a second half of the example explicitly stating that fact at the end of the "Spell Slots" heading on the same page.

There is no part of that which is questionable or ambiguous.

As for a "Reason": There are several upthread on why it would be broken or OP or whatever, but let me give you a second reason unrelated to those: Book-keeping would be a MASSIVE PAIN. The Spellbooks alone are mindbogglingly involved!

So, no. You cannot be a Wizard 1 Cleric 19 who casts 9th level Wizard spells. The book details that fact pretty clearly and you've got multiple reasons why. Including "Being a level 5 paladin doesn't make you awesome at casting Arcane Magic since you're a Divine Caster" and it's reverse.

[charlesk]

I wouldn't argue he was better at Sorcerer magic than a Sorcerer 3. I'd argue he'd be equally good at magic (being a 3rd level caster). He'd be more diverse, being able to cast 2nd level Paladin and Sorcerer spells, but he'd have one less castings than a Sorcerer 3, know less spells and would be farther away from an ability increase than either pure class Paladin or Sorcerer would be. That's a trade off.


The ASI issue goes away every 4 levels as normal. A Pal 4 / Sorc 4 gets the same ASIs as a pure class.

There's not a lot of tradeoff here. Most classes get the bulk of their best features by level 6. Your view would make it actually very suboptimal to not heavily multiclass.

In this interpretation, a Wizard 10 / Cleric 10 is far more powerful than either a Wizard 20 or Cleric 20. Even losing the high level class features.




I do get what you're saying about the 4/4/4/2/2/2. What I'd say about that person is they're a helluva spellcaster, jack of all trades, master of none (except that they can cast any spell).

Ah, but that's the whole point: their having access to a bunch of spells from different classes is the "jack of all trades" part. Not having access to any one class's spells above level 2 is the "master of none" part.

Your interpretation actually makes them "master of all".

[durrin]

{scrubbed}

[durrin]

The ASI issue goes away every 4 levels as normal. A Pal 4 / Sorc 4 gets the same ASIs as a pure class.

There's not a lot of tradeoff here. Most classes get the bulk of their best features by level 6. Your view would make it actually very suboptimal to not heavily multiclass.

In this interpretation, a Wizard 10 / Cleric 10 is far more powerful than either a Wizard 20 or Cleric 20. Even losing the high level class features.




Ah, but that's the whole point: their having access to a bunch of spells from different classes is the "jack of all trades" part. Not having access to any one class's spells above level 2 is the "master of none" part.

Your interpretation actually makes them "master of all".

Master of all magic. Sure. Not master of every class. Certainly not master of HP or class features or maximum ability score increases or feats. There's still a lot a lot a lot they'd give up.

[charlesk]

Well, you are of course entitled to your view and if you can convince your DM of it, you're golden. But you are not likely to get many people to agree with you here.

Let's take a simple real, concrete example: Wizard 19 / Cleric 1. You lose the wizard capstone, which is somewhat nice, but not a big deal. In return, you get access to ALL cleric spells, even level 9 ones, despite being really just a newbie cleric. You are now a wizard who can cast both Wish and True Resurrection and Mass Heal. You can wear medium armor. You get a domain ability. And you haven't even given up an ASI.

I can't think of any reason why I would ever play a Wizard 20 under your interpretation.

[Shaofoo]

Master of all magic. Sure. Not master of every class. Certainly not master of HP or class features or maximum ability score increases or feats. There's still a lot a lot a lot they'd give up.

Well more like master of being able to keep a lot of magic together, cause I don't think that magic gained from study, magic gained from your inner power, magic gained from a god, magic gained from balance and nature and magic gained from a vow could all be equivalent to one another. I mean that is why we have spell lists, otherwise why couldn't a Wizard learn Cleric spells if magic was all one and the same. Even Bards can only dip into the other spell lists some times, he can't learn every single spell out there.

It'd be like saying a guy with a bunch of BA's in the sciences has the same authority as someone with a Doctorates in Physics.

[durrin]

There is no ambiguity whatsoever.

You select your spells known/prepared based on the individual class and levels you have attained within that class "As if you were a single-classed member of that class"

It even breaks it down within the Ranger/Wizard example you bring up. Even though the character is by the rules a 5th level caster with a 3rd level slot they -cannot- take fireball or any other 3rd level spell. It gives a second half of the example explicitly stating that fact at the end of the "Spell Slots" heading on the same page.

There is no part of that which is questionable or ambiguous.

As for a "Reason": There are several upthread on why it would be broken or OP or whatever, but let me give you a second reason unrelated to those: Book-keeping would be a MASSIVE PAIN. The Spellbooks alone are mindbogglingly involved!

So, no. You cannot be a Wizard 1 Cleric 19 who casts 9th level Wizard spells. The book details that fact pretty clearly and you've got multiple reasons why. Including "Being a level 5 paladin doesn't make you awesome at casting Arcane Magic since you're a Divine Caster" and it's reverse.

Again I would say the problem with why that Ranger/Wizard can't cast those spells is because he doesn't KNOW them. Nothing I can find says that Ranger/Wizard, when he learns NEW spells (of a level for which he has spell slots), can't learn a spell of a level for which he has spell slots. You don't even look at the Paladin/Sorcerer spell slot table in their class EVER AGAIN once you multiclass. That has zero bearing on the discussion unless and until an official source clarifies the ambiguity (of which I'd argue there is currently none, despite how people might WANT or EXPECT things to work or how they USED to work). Like the second response about RAW and INTENT hit it on the head, imo. It needs to be officially clarified.

[burninatortrog]

Master of all magic. Sure. Not master of every class. Certainly not master of HP or class features or maximum ability score increases or feats. There's still a lot a lot a lot they'd give up.

You've mentioned that you just started playing 5E. Consider waiting until you have more experience before you make assessments like this one.


Nothing I can find says that Ranger/Wizard, when he learns NEW spells (of a level for which he has spell slots), can't learn a spell of a level for which he has spell slots.

You found the example that says that, right?


You don't even look at the Paladin/Sorcerer spell slot table in their class EVER AGAIN once you multiclass.

This is not true. Per the multiclassing rules, you determine what paladin spells you can prepare as if you were a single-classed paladin. Doing so involves checking the Paladin spell slots table. Same goes for sorcerer.

[Shaofoo]

Again I would say the problem with why that Ranger/Wizard can't cast those spells is because he doesn't KNOW them. Nothing I can find says that Ranger/Wizard, when he learns NEW spells (of a level for which he has spell slots), can't learn a spell of a level for which he has spell slots. You don't even look at the Paladin/Sorcerer spell slot table in their class EVER AGAIN once you multiclass. That has zero bearing on the discussion unless and until an official source clarifies the ambiguity (of which I'd argue there is currently none, despite how people might WANT or EXPECT things to work or how they USED to work). Like the second response about RAW and INTENT hit it on the head, imo. It needs to be officially clarified.

The problem is that you are referencing the multiclass tables when considering spells to learn when it is obvious that you should only look at the class section to see what spells you can learn.

If you are Pal2/Sorc2 and you gained a level in Sorc you then recalculate the class first as if you were a simple Sorc3, you never consider your Pal2 at all during the level up, it basically does not exist for the level up process. After you have done everything that your Sorc level up can do then you recalculate your spell slots and prof bonuses according to the multiclass rules.

And if you level up Pal to 3 then you act like if you are Pal3 and not Pal3/Sorc3.

[durrin]

Well, you are of course entitled to your view and if you can convince your DM of it, you're golden. But you are not likely to get many people to agree with you here.

Let's take a simple real, concrete example: Wizard 19 / Cleric 1. You lose the wizard capstone, which is somewhat nice, but not a big deal. In return, you get access to ALL cleric spells, even level 9 ones, despite being really just a newbie cleric. You are now a wizard who can cast both Wish and True Resurrection and Mass Heal. You can wear medium armor. You get a domain ability. And you haven't even given up an ASI.

I can't think of any reason why I would ever play a Wizard 20 under your interpretation.

Only reason would be because you wanted to be a Wizard 20 I suppose. I agree. I'm not saying this is how things SHOULD be. I'm just saying that as I read it, this is how things are or at least seem to me to be. As originally stated, I'm looking for how does this ACTUALLY work. I've gotten some great responses and good points. But ultimately nothing that definitely says you can't. Just that you shouldn't or it wasn't the intent or people don't like it or it would be broken. Those arguments have no bearing on things actually work. Again I'd say there needs to be an official clarification. I understand how plenty, maybe even most, disagree but I don't think they've actually read and fully considered my arguments or they'd recognize the point just as one of the original responders did.

[Shaofoo]

Only reason would be because you wanted to be a Wizard 20 I suppose. I agree. I'm not saying this is how things SHOULD be. I'm just saying that as I read it, this is how things are or at least seem to me to be. As originally stated, I'm looking for how does this ACTUALLY work. I've gotten some great responses and good points. But ultimately nothing that definitely says you can't. Just that you shouldn't or it wasn't the intent or people don't like it or it would be broken. Those arguments have no bearing on things actually work. Again I'd say there needs to be an official clarification. I understand how plenty, maybe even most, disagree but I don't think they've actually read and fully considered my arguments or they'd recognize the point just as one of the original responders did.

But there is an official clarification, there is even an example within the rules themselves as to how you are supposed to go about it. You are supposed to treat each class as its own and not mingled with other classes, your Sorc2/Pal2 is only as capable on the Sorc side as a Sorc2, your Pal2 never ever factors into what your Sorcerer self can do outside of being able to cast lower level spells at a higher level.

[durrin]

The problem is that you are referencing the multiclass tables when considering spells to learn when it is obvious that you should only look at the class section to see what spells you can learn.

If you are Pal2/Sorc2 and you gained a level in Sorc you then recalculate the class first as if you were a simple Sorc3, you never consider your Pal2 at all during the level up, it basically does not exist for the level up process. After you have done everything that your Sorc level up can do then you recalculate your spell slots and prof bonuses according to the multiclass rules.

And if you level up Pal to 3 then you act like if you are Pal3 and not Pal3/Sorc3.

But why is it obvious you should only look at the class section to see what spells you can learn? Yes you determine which spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. BUT, when I go to each class' section and look at what spells I KNOW or can PREPARE, they ALL list something to the effect of knowing and preparing spells for a level for which I have spell slots. I have spell slots of those levels. Therefore I learn or know or prepare spells accordingly. It seems that there should have been a caveat in each class section about spells known of 1st level or higher as it relates specifically to multiclass characters. Then there could be no confusion. All kinds of rules are repeated throughout the PHB. This would have been a good place to make this explicitly clear.

[burninatortrog]

Yes you determine which spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. BUT, when I go to each class' section and look at what spells I KNOW or can PREPARE, they ALL list something to the effect of knowing and preparing spells for a level for which I have spell slots. I have spell slots of those levels. Therefore I learn or know or prepare spells accordingly.

If you are a paladin 2 / sorcerer 2, you have 2nd-level spell slots. However, if you were a paladin 2 you wouldn't have 2nd-level slots. Since you determine which paladin spells you can prepare as if you were a 2nd-level paladin, and 2nd-level paladins can only prepare 1st-level spells, you can only prepare paladin spells of 1st level.

Here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/) is a Sage Advice post that's tangential to this topic.

[GiantOctopodes]

This is not true. Per the multiclassing rules, you determine what paladin spells you can prepare as if you were a single-classed paladin. Doing so involves checking the Paladin spell slots table. Same goes for sorcerer.

The actual Paladin rules on preparing spells: "You prepare the list of paladin spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list. When you do so, choose a number of paladin spells equal to your Charisma modifier + half your paladin level, rounded down (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

Makes no reference to the Paladin spell slots table. The same goes for sorcerer. In fact, the only way in which it refers to your Paladin level is in determining How Many spells you can prepare. The rest of it, saying "of a level for which you have spell slots" would seem to support his position. The rules you are referring to, checking the Paladin spell slots table, does not exist in the book. It *should*, it's meant to, but it doesn't.

Edit:

If you are a paladin 2 / sorcerer 2, you have 2nd-level spell slots. However, if you were a paladin 2 you wouldn't have 2nd-level slots. Since you determine which paladin spells you can prepare as if you were a 2nd-level paladin, and 2nd-level paladins can only prepare 1st-level spells, you can only prepare paladin spells of 1st level.

Here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/) is a Sage Advice post that's tangential to this topic.
If a 2nd level Paladin had 3rd level slots, per the rules on spellcasting for Paladins, he absolutely could prepare 3rd level spells. Sure 2nd level Paladins normally don't have such slots, but again, the rules you're referring to just don't exist.

To make it clear again, I agree with you about how it is intended to work, and that is, has been, and always will be how I run it in my games.

[Shaofoo]

But why is it obvious you should only look at the class section to see what spells you can learn? Yes you determine which spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. BUT, when I go to each class' section and look at what spells I KNOW or can PREPARE, they ALL list something to the effect of knowing and preparing spells for a level for which I have spell slots. I have spell slots of those levels. Therefore I learn or know or prepare spells accordingly. It seems that there should have been a caveat in each class section about spells known of 1st level or higher as it relates specifically to multiclass characters. Then there could be no confusion. All kinds of rules are repeated throughout the PHB. This would have been a good place to make this explicitly clear.

Yes the classes say what they say because they only care about their own class. In fact if you want to see the direct quote from the book.

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

You are multiclass therefore you follow the multiclass rules, simple as that. The classes need not concern themselves about multiclass characters when in the multiclass section it gives specific rules as to what happens when you multiclass in various spell casting class. I find it much more efficient to have the multiclass section explain what happens instead of repeating the same thing over every single spell casting capable class. Especially considering multiclassing is an optional rule so it would be odd for the classes to reference something that might not apply to it at all.

Your "confusion" stems from the fact that you are ignoring the multiclass rules, simple as that./

[burninatortrog]

The rules you are referring to, checking the Paladin spell slots table, does not exist in the book. It *should*, it's meant to, but it doesn't.


The rule I'm referring to is this one, from PHB 164:

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

A paladin 2 / sorcerer 2 determines which paladin spells they can prepare as if they were a single-classed 2nd-level paladin. A single-classed 2nd-level paladin uses the paladin spell slots table to determine how many spell slots they have, and in turn to determine which spells they can prepare.

Since a single-classed 2nd-level paladin has only 1st-level spell slots, they can only prepare 1st-level spells. This means that a multiclassed paladin 2 / sorcerer 2 can only prepare 1st-level paladin spells, not 2nd-level ones.


If a 2nd level Paladin had 3rd level slots, per the rules on spellcasting for Paladins, he absolutely could prepare 3rd level spells.
Yes, according to the rules this is true. However, according to the rules, this could never happen.

[durrin]

The actual Paladin rules on preparing spells: "You prepare the list of paladin spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list. When you do so, choose a number of paladin spells equal to your Charisma modifier + half your paladin level, rounded down (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

Makes no reference to the Paladin spell slots table. The same goes for sorcerer. In fact, the only way in which it refers to your Paladin level is in determining How Many spells you can prepare. The rest of it, saying "of a level for which you have spell slots" would seem to support his position. The rules you are referring to, checking the Paladin spell slots table, does not exist in the book. It *should*, it's meant to, but it doesn't.

Edit:

If a 2nd level Paladin had 3rd level slots, per the rules on spellcasting for Paladins, he absolutely could prepare 3rd level spells. Sure 2nd level Paladins normally don't have such slots, but again, the rules you're referring to just don't exist.

To make it clear again, I agree with you about how it is intended to work, and that is, has been, and always will be how I run it in my games.

I appreciate the nod. I agree this was not really the intent but have been arguing the effect. Any DM is well within his right to go, you know what, that's absurd. They tried to address it in the multiclass spellcasting section and they just didn't quite close the hole you're trying to wriggle through and I won't allow it. That was never my question. My question was, as it is written, doesn't it seem like this is possible? And I believe the answer is yes, regardless of implications. I'm glad someone agrees. More than one person actually. And the more people disagree about it, the more likely someone is to make an official ruling about it. Which is also welcome.

[GiantOctopodes]

The rule I'm referring to is this one, from PHB 164:

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

A paladin 2 / sorcerer 2 determines which paladin spells they can prepare as if they were a single-classed 2nd-level paladin. A single-classed 2nd-level paladin uses the paladin spell slots table to determine how many spell slots they have, and in turn to determine which spells they can prepare.

Since a single-classed 2nd-level paladin has only 1st-level spell slots, they can only prepare 1st-level spells. This means that a multiclassed paladin 2 / sorcerer 2 can only prepare 1st-level paladin spells, not 2nd-level ones.

I have not missed that sentence. Once again, the preparation of spells for a Paladin: "You prepare the list of paladin spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list. When you do so, choose a number of paladin spells equal to your Charisma modifier + half your paladin level, rounded down (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." So how does that sentence support your position? A single classed 2nd level paladin determines what spells he can prepare based upon what slots he has available. *If* he had 4th level spells, he could prepare them. Normally a 2nd level Paladin does not, but that's a different thing entirely. A multiclass caster uses the multiclass caster chart to determine what slots they have. Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about pretending you only have the slots of a single class, in fact it's quite specifically *not* that way. The rules make no reference to referencing the Paladin spell slot chart at all, except to say don't use that, use this, in reference to the multiclass caster spell slot chart. The chart for Paladin slots does not apply to your character, and the rules make it clear that it's not like you can only cast 2 1st level Paladin spells, you quite specifically have your full multiclass spell slot chart available for spellcasting with the class in question.

Still not disagreeing on how the game is ran. Just what the rules say.

Edit: My main point is that even if he's wrong on how the rules *work*, that does not mean at all that this kind of thing:


If you don't want people to tell you're trying to twist the rules in an obviously degenerate way as means to build your character more powerfully than normal, then don't do that.

You don't get to go "Guys, by this reading of the law I can totally take stuff from anyone's house without asking so long as a use a pair of tongs" and also get to be offended when people tell you "That's stealing" or "You're a thief".

At the end of the day what the designers think or what the RAW is, what this forum thinks all doesn't matter. One and exactly one person's opinion here is relevant: Your GMs. If you want to get away with this try to smooth-talk this to them. Just don't expect a bunch of other people to give you evidence/ammunition for it.

is even remotely justified. My hackles get raised when people get attacked for 'manipulative rules lawyering munchkinry', or in this case "trying to twist the rules in an obviously degenerate way" (emphasis mine) simply because their "intuitive" "plain english" reading of the rules, which is absolutely justified and supported by the rules text, does not match the intent or what has been clarified. I don't disagree on how it works. But the first time it was brought to my attention, I looked at what the person was saying, looked at what the rules said, and tried to understand where they were coming from, and found they had a valid point. I think that if you approach it with an open mind and try seeing it the way the OP saw it you would find the same thing. So rather than attacking the OP with a "no, you're wrong, how dare you try to pull this in your game" kind of attitude, I think it would be more helpful, more fair, and more impactful to explain that it's been clarified, point to the sage advice in question (that is what he was asking for, after all) and approach it from that angle. I know you are not the poster who put comments like that, but you actually went the rules text argument route, and I have nothing I can meaningfully say to posters like the above, as there is no actual content to respond to, just personal attacks. Sorry if I came across as very aggressive, as indicated I just don't believe the attacks on the OP are remotely justified, nor conducive to welcoming new members to the forum.

[CNagy]

The multiclass rules specifically state that you determine your spells known/prepared for each class as if you were a single-classed member of that class. To refer to your multiclass spell slots in order to determine your spells blatantly contradicts that.

This rule is as simple and straightforward as it can be without telling you specifically not to refer to your own character sheet (the only place where the extra slots exist before determining what spells you can learn/prepare) during the process.

[GiantOctopodes]

The multiclass rules specifically state that you determine your spells known/prepared for each class as if you were a single-classed member of that class. To refer to your multiclass spell slots in order to determine your spells blatantly contradicts that.

This rule is as simple and straightforward as it can be without telling you specifically not to refer to your own character sheet (the only place where the extra slots exist before determining what spells you can learn/prepare) during the process.

Emphasis mine. You get why that's an important distinction, right? And why that makes referring to your own spell slots *not*, in fact, a blatant contradiction?

[burninatortrog]

GiantOctopedes, I appreciate your cordial tone, so thanks for that. I also don't want to come off as a broken record. :)

I do feel that you're straw-manning me a little bit by focusing on the paladin's class description. I prefer to rest my case on the multiclassing rules. I'd claim that because the rules say:

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

They do NOT say:

"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class, with the exception that you still use the multiclass spell slots table and your multiclass levels to determine how many spell slots you have of each level."

My view is that the burden of proof is on you to cite a rule that says multiclass characters use their multiclass spell slots to determine what spells they know and/or prepare. ESPECIALLY considering the clarifying example in the next sentence:

"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."

[durrin]

I would also point out that a Cleric 19/Wizard 1, by using the rules as I am arguing, would still give up certain things. For example, he wouldn't know that many Wizard spells. Yes, he could cast any he knew, but how many spells is a Wizard 1 gonna know?
It would be much smarter to go Wizard 19/Cleric 1. Then you'd know the spells a Wizard 19 knew plus all the Cleric spells. But you'd have a Wizard's hit points.
Part of the problem with this and what I'm arguing is the magical POOF where you all of a sudden know a whole spell list because of the way divine casters work.
All the other classes have this built in control about learning spells that would limit a good bit of the craziness that would ensue with a multiclass character who took every class. That RangerWarlockSorcererWizardBard still has to learn the spells, individually for each class, as limited by that class, and that has nothing to do with multiclass. Also you're not going to have an 18-20 in every caster stat so your effectiveness (save DC's and extra damage based on caster stat) are going to be less than a pure caster.

[CNagy]

Emphasis mine. You get why that's an important distinction, right? And why that makes referring to your own spell slots *not*, in fact, a blatant contradiction?

No. Because the rules clearly state to determine your spells known as if you were a single-classed member of that class. So if you are a Paladin1/Sorcerer18 becoming a Paladin2/Sorcerer18, the second you look at your own spell slots, it should be abundantly clear that a single classed Paladin2 does not have these spell slots, thus you are doing something wrong. It remains a blatant contradiction to use your multiclass spell slots when it tells you to treat your character as a single-class character for precisely the area where your spell slots are important.

[Shaofoo]

I would also point out that a Cleric 19/Wizard 1, by using the rules as I am arguing, would still give up certain things. For example, he wouldn't know that many Wizard spells. Yes, he could cast any he knew, but how many spells is a Wizard 1 gonna know?
It would be much smarter to go Wizard 19/Cleric 1. Then you'd know the spells a Wizard 19 knew plus all the Cleric spells. But you'd have a Wizard's hit points.
Part of the problem with this and what I'm arguing is the magical POOF where you all of a sudden know a whole spell list because of the way divine casters work.
All the other classes have this built in control about learning spells that would limit a good bit of the craziness that would ensue with a multiclass character who took every class. That RangerWarlockSorcererWizardBard still has to learn the spells, individually for each class, as limited by that class, and that has nothing to do with multiclass. Also you're not going to have an 18-20 in every caster stat so your effectiveness (save DC's and extra damage based on caster stat) are going to be less than a pure caster.

You still only know spells as if you were a Cleric1 anyway. You may suddenly know up to 6 spells but they are still spells that only a level 1 Cleric will know and nothing else because when you gain your level in Cleric you don't consider your Wizard19 at all, it is if you were making a new Cleric character sans the Max HP, spell slots and proficiencies.

In fact in the Cleric part there is this example

For example, if you are a 3rd-level cleric, you have four
1st-level and two 2nd-level spell slots. With a Wisdom
of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells
of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination. If you prepare
the 1st-level spell cure wounds, you can cast it using
a 1st-level or 2nd-level slot. Casting the spell doesn’t
remove it from your list of prepared spells.

So since you are a 1st level Cleric you only have 2 1st level slots and can only prepare 1st level cleric spells. This is what they mean that each class is treated individually.

Also having a low spellcasting stat isn't much of a deterrent when you can choose one stat as your main stat and anything else you choose spells where it doesn't matter how low your spellcasting ability is, it still is the same.

[GiantOctopodes]

GiantOctopedes, I appreciate your cordial tone, so thanks for that. I also don't want to come off as a broken record. :)

I do feel that you're straw-manning me a little bit by focusing on the paladin's class description. I prefer to rest my case on the multiclassing rules. I'd claim that because the rules say:

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

They do NOT say:

"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class, with the exception that you still use the multiclass spell slots table and your multiclass levels to determine how many spell slots you have of each level."

My view is that the burden of proof is on you to cite a rule that says multiclass characters use their multiclass spell slots to determine what spells they know and/or prepare.

Absolutely fair! I will put forth two points here:
1) It also does not include "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single classed member of that class, as if you had spell slots equal to a character of your class level". So, they don't specify either way in that section.
2) In the only section detailing how spell slots *do* work for a multiclass character, it states "You determine ... Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."

So again, I'm not arguing that the rules specify you use the spell slots from the multiclass chart to determine spell preparation, but rather that the multiclass chart is the only one that you use and which applies to your character, and the rules fail to specify that you *don't* use that chart, which they should, for preparing spells. As a result, the natural progression of the way in which spellcasting works (how it works unless stated otherwise, which they fail to do) is that you would use the spell slots you have available to you to make that determination, which is why I've been hammering home the rules *they* refer to, the ones that apply to a single class character of the appropriate class. The missing sentence, the one which would remove all confusion, would be "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. Use the spellcasting chart for the class in question to determine what level spells you can learn and prepare." Absent that sentence, my argument is not that his stance is absolutely correct, but that it has merit. The rules do not conclusively state either way, and a "natural language" reading of the rules could lead someone to determine the spellcasting based upon the slots available to the character, which is how the rules for spell preparation are written and specify it to occur. This is ostensibly because multiclassing is optional, but if so, the specification that you prepare spells as a single class caster of that class should then include that distinction, otherwise there is no reason to assume that it occurs by default. After all, you're still using your Paladin level to determine the Number of spells you can cast, and using your available slots to determine the Level of spells you can cast, just as described.

Since this is a common concern, and has needed to be clarified over and over, I would love to see them errata this. I'm not saying it works in the way the OP described until such time as an errata occurred, either. Just that his reading is not illogical or contradictory to the rules.

[charlesk]

Part of the problem with this and what I'm arguing is the magical POOF where you all of a sudden know a whole spell list because of the way divine casters work.
All the other classes have this built in control about learning spells that would limit a good bit of the craziness that would ensue with a multiclass character who took every class.

But the "poof" is due to how you are changing one of the fundamental limiters in multiclassing. The system is balanced based on everything as a whole, not individual parts. When you change something so drastically, of course other parts will start to not make sense. If you use the multiclassing rules as intended (and as IMO clearly spelled out) then there is no "sudden knowing the whole spell list" at all.

[durrin]

You still only know spells as if you were a Cleric1 anyway. You may suddenly know up to 6 spells but they are still spells that only a level 1 Cleric will know and nothing else because when you gain your level in Cleric you don't consider your Wizard19 at all, it is if you were making a new Cleric character sans the Max HP, spell slots and proficiencies.

In fact in the Cleric part there is this example

For example, if you are a 3rd-level cleric, you have four
1st-level and two 2nd-level spell slots. With a Wisdom
of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells
of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination. If you prepare
the 1st-level spell cure wounds, you can cast it using
a 1st-level or 2nd-level slot. Casting the spell doesn’t
remove it from your list of prepared spells.

So since you are a 1st level Cleric you only have 2 1st level slots and can only prepare 1st level cleric spells. This is what they mean that each class is treated individually.

Also having a low spellcasting stat isn't much of a deterrent when you can choose one stat as your main stat and anything else you choose spells where it doesn't matter how low your spellcasting ability is, it still is the same.

I'd agree with the above totally on a single class character. But we're talking about multiclass and that's where there's ambiguity with the RAW (see entire thread up to now).
Sure, if it worked the way I'm saying, when you leveled up and learned new spells you could cherry pick spells from classes that learned limited numbers of spells that don't get bonuses to damage based on your ability modifier. But then you wouldn't know those spells that can do that. For example you could have a huge INT and WIS and then you decide to be a Warlock and go for Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast later. Well you're not likely to have an awesome INT, WIS and CHA score to add extra damage are you? Some of your spells which show up only on a certain classes' spell list are going to be neutered in DC and damage compared to what you could have had as a pure caster

You're not going to get extra attacks or extra uses of channel divinity. People seem to think this would lead to a 20th level character who had absolutely everything and that's just not the case. They would be a very versatile caster, however.

[CNagy]

It all comes back to this:

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

Where should I go to determine what a single-classed Paladin2 looks like? Not my character sheet, because I'm in the process of trying to level the character to Paladin2. Not the multiclass spell slot chart, because that has nothing to do with being a single-classed Paladin2. Maybe, just maybe, the only answer that actually exists without violating any words in the above directions is that I have to actually look at the Paladin class in this very same book, to see what a Paladin2 looks like. Oh hey, it has a list of the spell slots for a single-classed member of the Paladin class at level 2. Should I use this or should I go back to my sheet to look at my out-of-date multiclassed spell slots to decide what I can do? One option do not contradict anything the book has told me to do, the other option doesn't really keep with that whole single-classed member of the class stipulation but would make me a lot more powerful.

[durrin]

But the "poof" is due to how you are changing one of the fundamental limiters in multiclassing. The system is balanced based on everything as a whole, not individual parts. When you change something so drastically, of course other parts will start to not make sense. If you use the multiclassing rules as intended (and as IMO clearly spelled out) then there is no "sudden knowing the whole spell list" at all.

Well there's a "poof" whenever you level up a divine caster to a level where he has higher spell slots. Regardless of multiclass. For example, a Cleric 4 who levels up to Cleric 5 now POOF instantly learns the entire 3rd level Cleric spell list. Where did that come from? Did he get it when he leveled? Instagrok Divine Bolt of Understanding? When he rested? Was he learning them all along but couldn't cast them? Where does it say? There is precedent for a "poof." The question is how big a poof can there be and how does it apply to multiclass?

[GiantOctopodes]

I'd agree with the above totally on a single class character. But we're talking about multiclass and that's where there's ambiguity with the RAW (see entire thread up to now).
Sure, if it worked the way I'm saying, when you leveled up and learned new spells you could cherry pick spells from classes that learned limited numbers of spells that don't get bonuses to damage based on your ability modifier. But then you wouldn't know those spells that can do that. For example you could have a huge INT and WIS and then you decide to be a Warlock and go for Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast later. Well you're not likely to have an awesome INT, WIS and CHA score to add extra damage are you? Some of your spells which show up only on a certain classes' spell list are going to be neutered in DC and damage compared to what you could have had as a pure caster

You're not going to get extra attacks or extra uses of channel divinity. People seem to think this would lead to a 20th level character who had absolutely everything and that's just not the case. They would be a very versatile caster, however.

But they would get extra instances of Smite well above what a Paladin gets. And it's not like they're giving up a tremendous amount of class features, they still gain 20 levels of class features and it's arguable at best that the class features from higher levels are superior to the ones at lower level. For example, an Evoker Wizard 10 / Warlock 2 with Agonizing Blast is adding his Int *and* his Cha to the damage from each roll of Eldritch Blast, meaning he has potentially more at will damage than a Warlock of equivalent level, which is arguably the main benefit of that class. Note too that since the number of spells you prepare refers to your spellcasting modifier in spells known, a Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 / Paladin 2 / Whatever already has more spells they can *prepare* than normal since rather than just being class level + 1x ability mod, it's (total class level) + 3x ability mods. So no, you're not really giving much up.

[durrin]

It all comes back to this:

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

Where should I go to determine what a single-classed Paladin2 looks like? Not my character sheet, because I'm in the process of trying to level the character to Paladin2. Not the multiclass spell slot chart, because that has nothing to do with being a single-classed Paladin2. Maybe, just maybe, the only answer that actually exists without violating any words in the above directions is that I have to actually look at the Paladin class in this very same book, to see what a Paladin2 looks like. Oh hey, it has a list of the spell slots for a single-classed member of the Paladin class at level 2. Should I use this or should I go back to my sheet to look at my out-of-date multiclassed spell slots to decide what I can do? One option do not contradict anything the book has told me to do, the other option doesn't really keep with that whole single-classed member of the class stipulation but would make me a lot more powerful.

Except the parts about multiclass characters not using single class spell slot charts anymore and the section in each class' description about being able to learn or prepare spells of a level for which you have spell slots. Other than those things, yeah, you're right. Except those exist.

[Shaofoo]

I'd agree with the above totally on a single class character...

And this is how you should go about it, when you gain a level in a class you treat as if that character only has levels in that specific class, anything else is ignored. You should act as if it was a single classed character that reached such a level, afterwards you recalculate the spell slots and prof bonuses and the other class benefits.

That is how the rules say and that is how you should go, the class descriptions only care about that class at X level and so should you, don't try to add parts from any other classes or multiclass into that class, cause the rules say you can't.

[charlesk]

Well there's a "poof" whenever you level up a divine caster to a level where he has higher spell slots. Regardless of multiclass. For example, a Cleric 4 who levels up to Cleric 5 now POOF instantly learns the entire 3rd level Cleric spell list. Where did that come from? Did he get it when he leveled? Instagrok Divine Bolt of Understanding? When he rested? Was he learning them all along but couldn't cast them? Where does it say? There is precedent for a "poof." The question is how big a poof can there be and how does it apply to multiclass?

Clerics get their spells from their deities. When they reach a new level of class they gain access to a new level of spells. It has been this way for 40 years. It's just how the class works.

It's pretty simple and easy to rationalize: "you are now increased in power and have access to slightly higher levels of spell power in exchange". There is no similar simple rationalization for giving a level 1 cleric 9th level spells. This does not make sense: "you have just become an initiate in our religious order, so here's all the most powerful spells known to even level 20 clerics for you to use".

Honestly I am not sure why you are working so hard at this.. D&D isn't a computer game, the rules are a starting point and your DM can houserule anything he or she wants. You will never get support for what you want here because the rules clearly go against it and few people here would want to play with this sort of houserule in place.

[durrin]

But they would get extra instances of Smite well above what a Paladin gets. And it's not like they're giving up a tremendous amount of class features, they still gain 20 levels of class features and it's arguable at best that the class features from higher levels are superior to the ones at lower level. For example, an Evoker Wizard 10 / Warlock 2 with Agonizing Blast is adding his Int *and* his Cha to the damage from each roll of Eldritch Blast, meaning he has potentially more at will damage than a Warlock of equivalent level, which is arguably the main benefit of that class. Note too that since the number of spells you prepare refers to your spellcasting modifier in spells known, a Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 / Paladin 2 / Whatever already has more spells they can *prepare* than normal since rather than just being class level + 1x ability mod, it's (total class level) + 3x ability mods. So no, you're not really giving much up.

Extra instances of Smite is something that has already been settled in the Paladin/Warlock threads correct? Multiclass characters use any spell slots to smite and that's that. If you figure out a way within the rules to get more castings then you'll have more smites.

But yeah, again, I known I'm arguing a few ways at once. On the one hand I can relent that what I propose was not the intent and probably no one is ever gonna get to use it. But it's possible with the RAW and it would take a DM to say no or an official ruling. It seemed to me like you agree with that statement at least. I have just been arguing all along that the borken isn't quite as borken as some might originally have thought (I never envisioned the 20th caster who could cast any spell. I just wanted a Paladin/Sorcerer who could fight and sling spells and wasn't horrible at both). But yeah, I can't sit here and say, no way, what I suggest is actually UNDERpowered. Just, you know, playing Devil's advocate.

[CNagy]

Except the parts about multiclass characters not using single class spell slot charts anymore and the section in each class' description about being able to learn or prepare spells of a level for which you have spell slots. Other than those things, yeah, you're right. Except those exist.

...except none of that matters, because when the rules are telling you to treat your character as if it were a Paladin2, you are deciding to treat your character as if it were a Paladin2/Sorcerer2. That's what you are doing--that's what those multiclass spell slots represent. So you aren't following the rules as explicitly stated in the book and then wondering why people decide that one way is right and your way is wrong.

A large thread isn't evidence that the RAW is unclear. The more power a person stands to gain from a perceived rules ambiguity, the harder people will fight for it. But at the end of the day, it is telling you to treat your character as a Paladin2 and you aren't.

[durrin]

Clerics get their spells from their deities. When they reach a new level of class they gain access to a new level of spells. It has been this way for 40 years. It's just how the class works.

It's pretty simple and easy to rationalize: "you are now increased in power and have access to slightly higher levels of spell power in exchange". There is no similar simple rationalization for giving a level 1 cleric 9th level spells. This does not make sense: "you have just become an initiate in our religious order, so here's all the most powerful spells known to even level 20 clerics for you to use".

Honestly I am not sure why you are working so hard at this.. D&D isn't a computer game, the rules are a starting point and your DM can houserule anything he or she wants. You will never get support for what you want here because the rules clearly go against it and few people here would want to play with this sort of houserule in place.

Yeah but the whole argument is that this isn't a house rule. It's actually how the rules are written. Is it so outside the realm of belief that a 19th level Wizard who now levels up as a Cleric would be better at casting magic spells (arcane or divine), and have access to more, than a 1st level character who was a Cleric? Think about that. From on high the deity looks down at Cleric 1 and blesses him with certain knowledge appropriate to his station in life. But now a Wizard 19 is considering coming into the fold. He wants to serve me? What might I entice him with? Create or Destroy Water? Purify Food or Drink? I'm sure that's what Wizard 19 is after...

[durrin]

...except none of that matters, because when the rules are telling you to treat your character as if it were a Paladin2, you are deciding to treat your character as if it were a Paladin2/Sorcerer2. That's what you are doing--that's what those multiclass spell slots represent. So you aren't following the rules as explicitly stated in the book and then wondering why people decide that one way is right and your way is wrong.

A large thread isn't evidence that the RAW is unclear. The more power a person stands to gain from a perceived rules ambiguity, the harder people will fight for it. But at the end of the day, it is telling you to treat your character as a Paladin2 and you aren't.

We disagree. But we appear to be at an impasse as I'm sure at this point no one wants to repeat their arguments for or against again. And while I'm in the minority it is not a minority of one. This thread is evidence in and of itself. So barring an official ruling or DM's discretion, I just don't know.

[Shaofoo]

Yeah but the whole argument is that this isn't a house rule. It's actually how the rules are written. Is it so outside the realm of belief that a 19th level Wizard who now levels up as a Cleric would be better at casting magic spells (arcane or divine), and have access to more, than a 1st level character who was a Cleric? Think about that. From on high the deity looks down at Cleric 1 and blesses him with certain knowledge appropriate to his station in life. But now a Wizard 19 is considering coming into the fold. He wants to serve me? What might I entice him with? Create or Destroy Water? Purify Food or Drink? I'm sure that's what Wizard 19 is after...

Actually yes, why would I give someone who just started entering into my faith most of my power as opposed to the guy who spend his entire life devoted to me (Cleric20). The Wizard chose the level in Cleric, the god didn't force the level in Cleric in the Wizard so I am not sure why would the god want to give the wizard any extra bonuses for wanting to join in the faith. Besides Wizards and Clerics gain their spells in different ways so I doubt that even the Wizard 19 has very little aptitude to understand the divine side of things in comparison to a Cleric of a higher level.

If the all powerful Wizard wants to start being a Cleric he starts off like everyone else. It'd be like expecting a boxing champion to go to a Karate class and just expect them to hand the boxer a black belt in karate.


We disagree. But we appear to be at an impasse as I'm sure at this point no one wants to repeat their arguments for or against again. And while I'm in the minority it is not a minority of one. This thread is evidence in and of itself. So barring an official ruling or DM's discretion, I just don't know.

The official ruling is in the RAW, you are just basically ignoring part of the multiclass rules to be able to support your theory. You are breaking the rules to maintain your point when the rules are clear as to what you should do.

It is like saying if you are a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5/ Paladin 5/ Ranger 5 you can attack 8 times a round because you chose to stack up Extra attack 4 times (You attack twice so 4 x 2 = 8) even though the multiclass rules state that you only apply the highest Extra Attack and that Lifedrinker doesn't stack either.

[CNagy]

We disagree. But we appear to be at an impasse as I'm sure at this point no one wants to repeat their arguments for or against again. And while I'm in the minority it is not a minority of one. This thread is evidence in and of itself. So barring an official ruling or DM's discretion, I just don't know.

Which part exactly are we disagreeing about? Do you think you are actually treating your Paladin2/Sorcerer2 as a Paladin2 despite using the extra spell slots? It's the one thing you can't really get around: told to do X, decided to do Y.

[durrin]

Actually yes, why would I give someone who just started entering into my faith most of my power as opposed to the guy who spend his entire life devoted to me (Cleric20). The Wizard chose the level in Cleric, the god didn't force the level in Cleric in the Wizard so I am not sure why would the god want to give the wizard any extra bonuses for wanting to join in the faith. Besides Wizards and Clerics gain their spells in different ways so I doubt that even the Wizard 19 has very little aptitude to understand the divine side of things in comparison to a Cleric of a higher level.

If the all powerful Wizard wants to start being a Cleric he starts off like everyone else. It'd be like expecting a boxing champion to go to a Karate class and just expect them to hand the boxer a black belt in karate.

But a Champion boxer who started Karate is not going to be doing Karate at the same level as the 6 year olds. Not for long. Not even for a whole level I'd wager (if we had levels in real life). I have a feeling he's going to catch on a bit quicker...
But yeah, he's not going to be doing flying spinny flippy kicks first day either. It's nebulous. Who's to say?

[Shining Wrath]

This argument again?

Specific (PHB 164) trumps general (rules for the spellcasting classes as a whole).

We know very explicitly that if you have multiple classes, you can learn and prepare the spells for each class as though you were single-class in that class, taking each class individually. We know very explicitly that you can wind up with spell slots from "Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots Per Spell Level" higher than any spell you can learn and / or prepare.

Has anyone heard of a DM that reads the rules the way OP suggests?

I'm generally a generous DM, but if someone tried to argue this position for more than 10 seconds I'd be tempted to say "Other players can still multiclass. You cannot. Choose one class and stick with it for your character, because I don't want to deal with the ways you can try to munchkin multiclassing".

OK, I probably wouldn't do that ... but there would be a temptation.

EDIT: The rule "What PCs can do, NPCs can do" also applies. Anyone want to face a BBEG who is Cleric 1 / Wizard 19, or the reverse? Or Bard 4 / Cleric 4 / Sorcerer 4 / Warlock 4 / Wizard 4?

The suggested ruling makes the spellcasting classes mutually "gestalt" - taking a level in one gives you an increase in the most important class feature of all the others.

[durrin]

Actually yes, why would I give someone who just started entering into my faith most of my power as opposed to the guy who spend his entire life devoted to me (Cleric20). The Wizard chose the level in Cleric, the god didn't force the level in Cleric in the Wizard so I am not sure why would the god want to give the wizard any extra bonuses for wanting to join in the faith. Besides Wizards and Clerics gain their spells in different ways so I doubt that even the Wizard 19 has very little aptitude to understand the divine side of things in comparison to a Cleric of a higher level.

If the all powerful Wizard wants to start being a Cleric he starts off like everyone else. It'd be like expecting a boxing champion to go to a Karate class and just expect them to hand the boxer a black belt in karate.



The official ruling is in the RAW, you are just basically ignoring part of the multiclass rules to be able to support your theory. You are breaking the rules to maintain your point when the rules are clear as to what you should do.

It is like saying if you are a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5/ Paladin 5/ Ranger 5 you can attack 8 times a round because you chose to stack up Extra attack 4 times (You attack twice so 4 x 2 = 8) even though the multiclass rules state that you only apply the highest Extra Attack and that Lifedrinker doesn't stack either.

Well, no, there's a clear incontrovertible statement that extra attacks don't stack. There's an example that at first glance appears to negate what I argue, the Ranger/Wizard one, but I've given reasons why I don't think that applies in this case.

[durrin]

This argument again?

Specific (PHB 164) trumps general (rules for the spellcasting classes as a whole).

We know very explicitly that if you have multiple classes, you can learn and prepare the spells for each class as though you were single-class in that class, taking each class individually. We know very explicitly that you can wind up with spell slots from "Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots Per Spell Level" higher than any spell you can learn and / or prepare.

Has anyone heard of a DM that reads the rules the way OP suggests?

I'm generally a generous DM, but if someone tried to argue this position for more than 10 seconds I'd be tempted to say "Other players can still multiclass. You cannot. Choose one class and stick with it for your character, because I don't want to deal with the ways you can try to munchkin multiclassing".

OK, I probably wouldn't do that ... but there would be a temptation.

Welcome, thanks for chiming in. Your solution would certainly shut me up. lol.

[Shaofoo]

OK, I probably wouldn't do that ... but there would be a temptation.

I would totally do that if any player gave me any grief in multiclassing, I am not going to argue with a player over an optional part of the game, if he doesn't like how it goes then we just rip it off and we continue sans multiclassing, at least we have feats... until I get grief in feats...

Of course the problem player is going without the multiclassing, not everyone else. I am not going to punish everyone for the sins of one.


Well, no, there's a clear incontrovertible statement that extra attacks don't stack. There's an example that at first glance appears to negate what I argue, the Ranger/Wizard one, but I've given reasons why I don't think that applies in this case.

And there is a clear statement that says that you can only take spells from a specific class as if you only had levels in that class and nothing else. You are ignoring part of the multiclass rules, plain and simple. Your ruling about spell learning and my ruling about attacking 8 times a round are based on the same principle: ignoring the rules.

[durrin]

I also thought it might be useful for people to consider what I actually want to do with all this.
Which is have a Sorcerer who wears armor and can fight as well as sling spells. Like I said, I never envisioned teh borken that might ensue.
I just thought, hmmm, a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 vs. Paladin 4 or Sorcerer 4.
The way I was arguing it worked I'd have one less 2nd level casting than a Sorcerer 4. I'd know 2 less Sorcerer spells than a Sorcerer 4. I'd have one more 1st level spell slot than a Paladin 4 and would be able to cast 2nd level Paladin spells that a straight Paladin wouldn't get access to for one more level. But I'd have less hp and wouldn't have access to Divine Health or my Sacred Oath yet.

Is this really so messed up and out of balance? We're talking about, basically, casting 2nd level Paladin spells one level earlier than a pure Paladin would. But this guy devoted more of his life to the study of magic than a Paladin. That'd be my justification for why he knows just a bit more about magic or gets it just a bit earlier than the pure Paladin.

I understand that this could be munchkin'd. Lots of things can. You're not going to find an edition where they can't. But who looks at the above, and putting aside what else could happen and the slippery slope some may follow, and says wow that is just beyond what any other character could possible conceive of doing? {scrubbed}

[durrin]

I would totally do that if any player gave me any grief in multiclassing, I am not going to argue with a player over an optional part of the game, if he doesn't like how it goes then we just rip it off and we continue sans multiclassing, at least we have feats... until I get grief in feats...

Of course the problem player is going without the multiclassing, not everyone else. I am not going to punish everyone for the sins of one.



And there is a clear statement that says that you can only take spells from a specific class as if you only had levels in that class and nothing else. You are ignoring part of the multiclass rules, plain and simple. Your ruling about spell learning and my ruling about attacking 8 times a round are based on the same principle: ignoring the rules.

Clear to you, perhaps. Not clear to all. Intention seems clear. Execution is off. At this point it has been beat to death. I welcome you to go back and read everything and carefully consider. And again I relent that the DM can do whatever they want. {scrubbed}

[Shaofoo]

I also thought it might be useful for people to consider what I actually want to do with all this.
Which is have a Sorcerer who wears armor and can fight as well as sling spells. Like I said, I never envisioned teh borken that might ensue.
I just thought, hmmm, a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 vs. Paladin 4 or Sorcerer 4.
The way I was arguing it worked I'd have one less 2nd level casting than a Sorcerer 4. I'd know 2 less Sorcerer spells than a Sorcerer 4. I'd have one more 1st level spell slot than a Paladin 4 and would be able to cast 2nd level Paladin spells that a straight Paladin wouldn't get access to for one more level. But I'd have less hp and wouldn't have access to Divine Health or my Sacred Oath yet.

Is this really so messed up and out of balance? We're talking about, basically, casting 2nd level Paladin spells one level earlier than a pure Paladin would. But this guy devoted more of his life to the study of magic than a Paladin. That'd be my justification for why he knows just a bit more about magic or gets it just a bit earlier than the pure Paladin.

I understand that this could be munchkin'd. Lots of things can. You're not going to find an edition where they can't. But who looks at the above, and putting aside what else could happen and the slippery slope some may follow, and says wow that is just beyond what any other character could possible conceive of doing? Might as well declare you all time D&D champ. Game over man. Game over.

The problem isn't that what you are saying is inherently unbalanced and broken in the game or not, the problem is that it breaks the RAW and the RAW is clear as to what should happen. There isn't any other way you can have your way except by just ignoring RAW.

And like I said before, your justification hinges on the fact that Paladins and Sorcerers gain spells in the same ways. Saying that your Sorcerer/Paladin should know more about Sorcery or Paladining than one with more levels in one class is basically saying that Sorcerers and Paladin share a lot alike, and that is not true. Not all magic is the same.

If you want your concept then just go pure Paladin and get Magic Initiate for a couple of Sorcerer spells and change the fluff a bit for the Paladin so that instead of an oath you are a magic swordsman instead (without changing the rules, go Oath of the Ancients since I believe that is the most closest to a gish) or be an Eldritch Knight which you can both attack and cast spells at the same time, eventually.

[GiantOctopodes]

And there is a clear statement that says that you can only take spells from a specific class as if you only had levels in that class and nothing else. You are ignoring part of the multiclass rules, plain and simple. Your ruling about spell learning and my ruling about attacking 8 times a round are based on the same principle: ignoring the rules.

That is not what is actually in the rules. Nowhere does that statement occur. The examples seem to *imply* it, but due to poor execution of the examples fail to even directly state it. Had they used the example of going from Wizard 3 / Ranger 4 to Wizard 3 / Ranger 5 and said that the spells you learn are at most 2nd level, or used a Paladin or Cleric who knows their entire spell list and said directly they can only prepare spells of level X, or had they said the Wizard in question cannot add new spells to their spellbook of 3rd level, any of those would have made it clear. They just failed to do so. It's clear they tried, but they failed. Worst possible example, with the worst possible wording across the board.

And CNagy, you seem to be missing the fundamental point that per the rules, a Paladin 2 *can* prepare up to 5th level spells, if he has the slots. You *are* treating him as a Paladin 2 when doing so, because the spells a Paladin 2 can prepare are not intrinsically tied to the spellcasting chart at all, the 2nd level Paladin only being able to cast 1st level spells is a *result* of the chart, true, but they are not inherently linked in the fashion you are describing.

So, to your question "Do you think you are actually treating your Paladin2/Sorcerer2 as a Paladin2 despite using the extra spell slots?", the answer is yes, yes indeed.

The best example of that is the most obviously broken one, the Wizard. To prepare a spell, it must be of a level you have slots (check). It must be in your spellbook. What is required to be in your spellbook? "you can add it to your spellbook if it is
of a level for which you have spell slots" (check). My point is only that the specification you are describing, that you treat it as though you have the slots of the single class character of the class level in question for the purpose of learning and preparing spells, is not made in the rules. It is intended to be made, we all agree it *should* be in there, but the rule that it is argued over and over that he is "breaking" is not currently written in there.

And Shining Wrath, no, I'm not aware of a single DM who runs it that way, and I don't think we ever need to be worried about that occurring. But doesn't it say something to you that it's "this argument again" that maybe they're not trying to "munchkin" anything, but rather came to an incorrect understanding based on the rules as written, and if that many people are coming to incorrect understanding, maybe the rules could be written better?

[Shaofoo]

That is not what is actually in the rules. Nowhere does that statement occur. The examples seem to *imply* it, but due to poor execution of the examples fail to even directly state it. Had they used the example of going from Wizard 3 / Ranger 4 to Wizard 3 / Ranger 5 and said that the spells you learn are at most 2nd level, or used a Paladin or Cleric who knows their entire spell list and said directly they can only prepare spells of level X, or had they said the Wizard in question cannot add new spells to their spellbook of 3rd level, any of those would have made it clear. They just failed to do so. It's clear they tried, but they failed. Worst possible example, with the worst possible wording across the board.

And CNagy, you seem to be missing the fundamental point that per the rules, a Paladin 2 *can* prepare up to 5th level spells, if he has the slots. You *are* treating him as a Paladin 2 when doing so, because the spells a Paladin 2 can prepare are not intrinsically tied to the spellcasting chart at all, the 2nd level Paladin only being able to cast 1st level spells is a *result* of the chart, true, but they are not inherently linked in the fashion you are describing.

So, to your question "Do you think you are actually treating your Paladin2/Sorcerer2 as a Paladin2 despite using the extra spell slots?", the answer is yes, yes indeed.

The best example of that is the most obviously broken one, the Wizard. To prepare a spell, it must be of a level you have slots (check). It must be in your spellbook. What is required to be in your spellbook? "you can add it to your spellbook if it is
of a level for which you have spell slots" (check). My point is only that the specification you are describing, that you treat it as though you have the slots of the single class character of the class level in question for the purpose of learning and preparing spells, is not made in the rules. It is intended to be made, we all agree it *should* be in there, but the rule that it is argued over and over that he is "breaking" is not currently written in there.

And Shining Wrath, no, I'm not aware of a single DM who runs it that way, and I don't think we ever need to be worried about that occurring. But doesn't it say something to you that it's "this argument again" that maybe they're not trying to "munchkin" anything, but rather came to an incorrect understanding based on the rules as written, and if that many people are coming to incorrect understanding, maybe the rules could be written better?

So what you are saying is that the whole level up as if you were a single class is basically wasted space and should be stricken from the PHB for al the good that is has done.

[djreynolds]

Please tell me if I wrong. I'm new as well.

Unfortunately, even eldritch knight and evoker or abjuration wizard do not stack.

Best thing about paladin and sorcerer is that the recent errata, I believe I may be wrong, can use any of his character spell slots to smite.

A 10th level eldritch knight gets 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells,

a 10th level wizard gets 4 1st level, 3 2nd, 3 3rd, 3 4th, 2 5th.

A 10/10 eldritch knight combo gets the spells above and 1 6th level "slot" and 1 7th level "slot" but cannot cast those level spells but can use the slots to cast a lower level spells.

But even if the wizard casts a fifth level spell with that 7th level slot it is still a 5th level spell.
Unlike if he casted a 1st level spell in the fifth level slot I believe it would have 5th level damage or effect.

I believe he may use the wizard slots to cast eldritch knight spells, but I believe only at the eldritch knight level. And I'm not even sure of his caster level.

[GiantOctopodes]

So what you are saying is that the whole level up as if you were a single class is basically wasted space and should be stricken from the PHB for al the good that is has done.

No, I'm saying it doesn't say to "level up as if you were a single class" at all. And in terms of preparing spells, a Ranger 5 / Wizard 14 who started with 5 Ranger levels has spell slots of levels he can never prepare (above 5th, since that violates the "on the Ranger spell list" part of it), and that he doesn't know any spells for (above 2nd, since he never gained a level while having higher spell slots). As such, the OP's interpretation does *not* invalidate that rules text at all, which would indeed be one of the defining logical principles upon which a valid argument could be rested. If it did necessarily negate that text, then suddenly it would be a clearer logical fallacy to read it as the OP did, since all other things being equal you want to assume all words have meaning and steer clear of any interpretation that renders part of the text meaningless. I wish it did, and that the section you're referring to had been written in such a way as to preclude that interpretation or directly run counter to it. I have a feeling people would be bringing up this concern far less often.

[Shaofoo]

No, I'm saying it doesn't say to "level up as if you were a single class" at all.

Page 164 of the PHB so you can see if it says that in your PHB as well

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

In the ranger 4/ wizard 3 you prepare and know spells first as if you were a ranger 4 alone and then as a wizard 3 alone. Then afterwards you recalculate spell slots and proficiency bonuses.

I just can't see how else to do all that you just said without just ignoring the above quote.

[durrin]

So what you are saying is that the whole level up as if you were a single class is basically wasted space and should be stricken from the PHB for al the good that is has done.

Nah, as noted they just failed to make it explicit. And therefore we are each arriving at different implicit conclusions. Yours based on how you are reading and applying certain sentences and me with mine.

[Shaofoo]

Nah, as noted they just failed to make it explicit. And therefore we are each arriving at different implicit conclusions. Yours based on how you are reading and applying certain sentences and me with mine.

Ummm, I am reading it directly as it is said, you are coming to your conclusion by ignoring it wholesale. How are you using that quote in your conclusion again when it directly contradicts what you are saying.

Really try telling me your point again and also involve the above quote in some way.

Or better yet, explain to me how can a Paladin 2 learn spells like a Paladin 5?

[durrin]

{scrubbed}

[PoeticDwarf]

The whole point is you can't.

But paladin 2 is still an average dip, maybe is 5 or 6 better for a sorcerer.

[Shaofoo]

Here's an idea. You could try quoting the same things we've already quoted and, I don't know, highlight some different parts? Oh, you did! Well then it's all settled then. Dang, why didn't anyone think of that pages ago? Oh they did? And some people still think there's ambiguity or a lack of a specific sentence that says I can't possibly interpret it the way I did? Lookiethar. Right back where we were. For my next trick I'm going to go back and highlight the passage in the Sorcerer or Paladin section about learning or preparing spells of a level for which you have spell slots. Will that convince you? Probably not. And this same thing from you doesn't convince me. That's what an impasse is. And a good opportunity for an official ruling.

Emphasis on what you have said bolded, now please lets go back here

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

You are applying both Paladin and Sorcerer levels when you are only supposed to put Paladin or Sorcerer level. You are literally ingoring the quote that I have just said, you are trying to ignore the multiclass rules and put in the single class rules as if they were absolute. There is no ambiguity here, the people who are confused haven't fully read the multiclass rules at all.

You are forcing Sorcerer levels into a Paladin only rule set and vice versa, the Paladin and Sorcerer rulings only care about single class characters, multiclass characters follow the multiclass rules and the multiclass rules state that you must break all components into their individual parts for learning and preparing spells, therefore you follow the class rules as if you were single classed in each of the classes that you are.

[charlesk]

Yeah but the whole argument is that this isn't a house rule. It's actually how the rules are written.


I dunno about you, but when I read something one way and literally everyone else I discuss it with reads it the other way, I say to myself "self, maybe you are reading this incorrectly?" YMMV.

I haven't actually seen any sort of compelling argument from you that it is how the rules are written. You have mostly been discussing what is or isn't reasonable for a character to do, which deals in the realms of opinion and conjecture.


Yeah but the whole argument is that this isn't a house rule. It's actually how the rules are written.
Is it so outside the realm of belief that a 19th level Wizard who now levels up as a Cleric would be better at casting magic spells (arcane or divine), and have access to more, than a 1st level character who was a Cleric?


That is not and never was the comparison being made.

The comparison is between a Wizard 19 / Cleric 1 and either a Wizard 20 or Cleric 20. The Wizard 19 / Cleric 1, under your rules interpretation, is clearly stronger than both, and by a wide margin.

[durrin]

Emphasis on what you have said bolded, now please lets go back here

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

You are applying both Paladin and Sorcerer levels when you are only supposed to put Paladin or Sorcerer level. You are literally ingoring the quote that I have just said, you are trying to ignore the multiclass rules and put in the single class rules as if they were absolute. There is no ambiguity here, the people who are confused haven't fully read the multiclass rules at all.

You are forcing Sorcerer levels into a Paladin only rule set and vice versa, the Paladin and Sorcerer rulings only care about single class characters, multiclass characters follow the multiclass rules and the multiclass rules state that you must break all components into their individual parts for learning and preparing spells, therefore you follow the class rules as if you were single classed in each of the classes that you are.

lol, ok, I'm gonna do it. I'm getting sucked back in. I GET what you're saying. But then there's this...
pg. 84 for Paladins
You prepare the list of paladin spells that are available
for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list.
When you do so, choose a number of paladin spells
equal to your Charisma modifier + half your paladin
level, rounded down (minimum of one spell). The spells
must be of a level for which you have spell slots.

Normally there is nothing ambiguous about this. But then there's the multiclass rules about spell slots and me only using the multiclass spell slot chart and not ever using any other again. Now all of a sudden I have spell slots for levels of spells (Paladin or whatever) I wouldn't otherwise have if I were a single class Paladin. Where does it say I can't now prepare a Paladin spell of that level? It doesn't. That's the problem. It dances all around it. That example about the Ranger/Wizard definitely MEANS to keep me from doing this, but it doesn't. I believe I covered all this in the OP. I believe we've already made these exact same arguments. Furthermore there's the same argument on the Sorcerer side. I have a 2nd level spell slot when I go from Paladin 2/Sorcerer 1 to Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2. Why CAN'T I then learn a 2nd level Sorcerer spell as I get to learn a new Sorcerer spell at Sorcerer 2 and now have a 2nd level spell slot. That dumbass Ranger/Wizard in the multiclass rules messed up by never realizing this and learning high enough spells to take advantage of his spellcasting. That's on him.

[durrin]

{scrubbed}

[Shaofoo]

lol, ok, I'm gonna do it. I'm getting sucked back in. I GET what you're saying. But then there's this...
pg. 84 for Paladins


You are using rules that I have said only cares for single class characters, not multiclass characters and the multiclass rules says to break each component into single class parts.

Your Paladin part should only consider Paladin 2 to get all the Paladin stuff, not your multiclass slots or whatever you gain from your Sorcerer self. It is as simple as that.

[charlesk]

Same rule of thumb applies for me when only one person agrees with me out of an entire group. Especially when that one person is basically saying you are correctly only on a technicality and that the obvious meaning is the opposite.

Spending hours debating the exact wording in a book is a pointless academic exercise. The intent is clear, rulings have been made by the designers. Multiclassing is a special case and the multiclassing rules trump the single class rules.

Believe whatever you want. I'll take Crawford's word for this over yours: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/

I would never consider allowing this as a DM, and I wouldn't stay in a group where it was allowed.

[Shaofoo]

Maybe instead of trying to game the rules and hoping to pull a fast one on the DM you should just come up to him and say

"Listen, I know that by the rules I can't legally learn Find Steed but I was hoping if maybe for this time I could learn it at this level if it is okay with you?"

I think a DM would be much more willing to bend the rules if you ask them nicely and mention your intention wholesale instead of trying to pull a fast one and hoping the DM won't notice.

[durrin]

You are using rules that I have said only cares for single class characters, not multiclass characters and the multiclass rules says to break each component into single class parts.

Your Paladin part should only consider Paladin 2 to get all the Paladin stuff, not your multiclass slots or whatever you gain from your Sorcerer self. It is as simple as that.

Rules YOU said only care for single class characters. The rules didn't say that though. You did. You can say whatever you want. That doesn't mean what you say is the rules. The rules in the class sections don't even mention multi class but they certainly don't say ignore multiclass rules or spell slots.

Then later there is the part you're hung up on. And I've given arguments for how or why that doesn't apply in every case, just the specific one mentioned in the multiclass section.

[durrin]

Same rule of thumb applies for me when only one person agrees with me out of an entire group. Especially when that one person is basically saying you are correctly only on a technicality and that the obvious meaning is the opposite.

Spending hours debating the exact wording in a book is a pointless academic exercise. The intent is clear, rulings have been made by the designers. Multiclassing is a special case and the multiclassing rules trump the single class rules.

Believe whatever you want. I'll take Crawford's word for this over yours: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/

I would never consider allowing this as a DM, and I wouldn't stay in a group where it was allowed.

Your link won't work for me. What does it say? Who is Crawford? As stated I'd take an official word. I want one.

[Shaofoo]

Rules YOU said only care for single class characters. The rules didn't say that though. You did. You can say whatever you want. That doesn't mean what you say is the rules. The rules in the class sections don't even mention multi class but they certainly don't say ignore multiclass rules or spell slots.

Then later there is the part you're hung up on. And I've given arguments for how or why that doesn't apply in every case, just the specific one mentioned in the multiclass section.

The paladin rules only care for the paladin, not for multiclass or sorcerer levels. It is as simple as that. You are using rules that only cares for paladins and no one else, not multiclass rules.

And like I said the multiclass rules says what you should do. you are ignoring the multiclass rules in your favor because that is what you want.

Also I would like to remind you that multiclassing is optional by RAW, it would be odd for the classes to have reference to an optional part of the rules when everything was all wrapped up in the optional rules.

You have yet to even mention the part that I have quoted, you are hung up on the class part of the rules without even referencing the multiclass rules. You have yet to even give justification into the mentioning of the quotes, just ignoring it for hoping to use the single class rules as multiclass rules.

[durrin]

Maybe instead of trying to game the rules and hoping to pull a fast one on the DM you should just come up to him and say

"Listen, I know that by the rules I can't legally learn Find Steed but I was hoping if maybe for this time I could learn it at this level if it is okay with you?"

I think a DM would be much more willing to bend the rules if you ask them nicely and mention your intention wholesale instead of trying to pull a fast one and hoping the DM won't notice.

{scrubbed}

In actuality I haven't even created this character. I was just pondering it. And this came up. And my intention all along was not to bug my DM until I had something official. Why even put him through this when I could learn it wasn't possible here? But all I know for sure now is that most people think it isn't possible and everyone agrees it shouldn't be possible but there is not total agreement on if it is possible. So here we are. No one is making anyone continue to read and respond...

[charlesk]

Jeremy Crawford is the lead designer of D&D. That link is to a set of tweets.



Allen Shock @allenshock1

@JeremyECrawford : cleric 2/wizard 2 finds a 2nd level spell in a book. By multiclassing rule he has 4 1st and 3 2nd level slots? (cont.)
10:35 PM - 17 Sep 2014

Allen Shock @allenshock1

@JeremyECrawford (cont.) can he copy 2nd level wiz spell into his book even though Wiz 2 can't normally cast 2nd level spells? and then cast

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford

@allenshock1 No, and he can use those 2nd-level slots only to cast 1st-level spells.
3:07 AM - 18 Sep 2014


Pretty unambiguous.

[durrin]

{Scrubbed}

[LuisDantas]

Part of the problem with this and what I'm arguing is the magical POOF where you all of a sudden know a whole spell list because of the way divine casters work.

That is indeed a main difference between arcane casters (bard, sorcerer, wizard) and divine casters (cleric, druid, paladin, ranger). Warlocks are a special case - all their spell slots are at the same level and their rules and spell lists are more arcane than divine despite the concept.

Here, let's see the tables of spell slots and spells known or prepared (letting aside race benefits and ritual casting):

053 - Bard - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips and spells known, as well as spell slots per spell level.

057 - Cleric - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips known and spell slots per spell level. The number of spells prepared is calculated as per page 58. The prepared spells are chosen from the whole Cleric spell list and also from the applicable Domains at appropriate spell levels and may be changed after a long rest. Casting does not spend prepared spells, but it does use spell slots (of the spell level or higher).

065 - Druid - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips known and spell slots per spell level. The number of spells prepared is calculated as per page 66. The prepared spells are chosen from the whole Druid spell list at appropriate spell levels and may be changed after a long rest. Casting does not spend prepared spells, but it does use spell slots (of the spell level or higher).

075 ... Eldritch Knight (a Fighter subtype) - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips and spells known, as well as spell slots per spell level.

083 - Paladin - specifies rigid numbers spell slots per spell level. There are no Paladin cantrips. The number of prepared spells is calculated as explained in page 84. The prepared spells are chosen from the whole Paladin spell list at appropriate spell levels and may be changed after a long rest. Casting does not spend prepared spells, but it does use spell slots (of the spell level or higher).

090 - Ranger - specifies rigid numbers of spells known, as well as spell slots per spell level. There are no Ranger cantrips.

098 ... Arcane Trickster (a Rogue subtype) - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips and spells known, as well as spell slots per spell level.

100 ... Sorcerer - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips and spells known, as well as spell slots per spell level.

106 ... Warlock - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips and spells known, starting with level 1. Warlocks are unique in that all their spell slots have the same level. Introduces the class-specific Invocations, which are somewhat similar to Feats.

113 ... Wizard - specifies rigid numbers of cantrips known and spell slots per spell level. The number of spells known is variable but bottoms out at six at first level plus two per additional Wizard level (as explained in page 114).

165 ... Multiclass Spellcaster - specifies how many spell slots a multicaster has for each spell level. The level is calculated as specified in page 164, in a sum that includes half of the levels of paladin and ranger and a third of those of Fighter (for an Eldritch Knight) and Rogue (for an Arcane Trickster). It specifies nothing else, and makes no attempt to tell how many spells can be known, learned or prepared.


Incidentally, page 164 has this text under "Spell Slots":

"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 these spells, but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lower-level spell that you cast (...) 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."

Obviously, that means that the slots may (and will) exist without granting the ability to know or prepare spells of the same level. They are used to determine the level of casting spells, not of learning or preparing them. As said in page 201, a spell may expand to fill into a higher level slot for greater effect.

That and the text under "Spells Known and Prepared" earlier in that same page make it very clear to me: you learn spells separately for each class as if you had never multiclassed. Of course, you also learn spells from the other classes you might have, again at the appropriate levels for those classes. The higher level spell slots that might result from using the table in page 165 are explicitly unable of justifying the learning of higher level spells unless you can attain that learning with the individual levels of one of the caster classes taken by themselves.

[durrin]

Jeremy Crawford is the lead designer of D&D. That link is to a set of tweets.



Pretty unambiguous.

Thanks. This kind of thing is really helpful and what I was looking for all along. I agree that seems unambiguous. I'd have some follow up questions about could he at least copy the spell and use it at some point in the future, when he could cast 2nd level spells. But unless Crawford gets trumped by a higher power or something more official (ie printed errata vs Twitter) I can't argue with this.

[charlesk]

Thanks. This kind of thing is really helpful and what I was looking for all along. I agree that seems unambiguous.


Okay, thanks for being reasonable about it in the end.

It's important to realize that there's a difference between the rules of the game and the rules in the book. The book is an attempt to describe the game. It can never be perfect.



I'd have some follow up questions about could he at least copy the spell and use it at some point in the future, when he could cast 2nd level spells.

Well that's exactly what the guy in the tweet was asking about. :) That's what the "No" was for in Crawford's response. The rest of the tweet was just a reiteration of what we are discussing here.

Also see: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/PH_Errata_1.1.pdf -- This is official errata for the PHB. Under page 114 it says: "The spells copied into a spellbook must be of a spell level the wizard can prepare."

[Shaofoo]

Well, I don't mention it cause I feel like I have already, in the OP or maybe elsewhere in this thread. But that GiantOctopodes killed it in his first post and many since but you don't want to hear him or me. Why should I hear you?

FYI I did reply to him directly and said the same thing and he has yet to actually reply back to me. Also you never truly referenced my posts either while I did yours so I find it ironic that you say why should you listen to me when your entire conversation is based around not listening to anyone except those who echo your sentiments.

Also you got your official quoting that was everyone was saying anyway although I find it funny that you still want to fight it at some point. You can't copy spells for future use since Paladins and Sorcerers only can learn spells spontaneously, only Wizards can learn more spells by copying it into their spellbook. The only way you can even know about second level spells is if you have the Paladin 5 required to learn it, otherwise it is impossible to learn it.

[GiantOctopodes]

So rather than attacking the OP with a "no, you're wrong, how dare you try to pull this in your game" kind of attitude, I think it would be more helpful, more fair, and more impactful to explain that it's been clarified, point to the sage advice in question (that is what he was asking for, after all) and approach it from that angle.



Thanks. This kind of thing is really helpful and what I was looking for all along. I agree that seems unambiguous. I'd have some follow up questions about could he at least copy the spell and use it at some point in the future, when he could cast 2nd level spells. But unless Crawford gets trumped by a higher power or something more official (ie printed errata vs Twitter) I can't argue with this.

Ahhh, validation. Thanks durrin! Also thanks Charlesk for providing what the OP was actually looking for! I feel much better now. Not so hard, right? Rather than putting someone on the defensive for having a valid viewpoint and opinion by telling them over and over they're having badwrongfun by trying to munckin multiclassing, twist the rules, and so on, it works wonders to actually provide a helpful answer to the question that was posed.

Edit:

FYI I did reply to him directly and said the same thing and he has yet to actually reply back to me. Also you never truly referenced my posts either while I did yours so I find it ironic that you say why should you listen to me when your entire conversation is based around not listening to anyone except those who echo your sentiments.

Also you got your official quoting that was everyone was saying anyway although I find it funny that you still want to fight it at some point. You can't copy spells for future use since Paladins and Sorcerers only can learn spells spontaneously, only Wizards can learn more spells by copying it into their spellbook. The only way you can even know about second level spells is if you have the Paladin 5 required to learn it, otherwise it is impossible to learn it.



Page 164 of the PHB so you can see if it says that in your PHB as well

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

In the ranger 4/ wizard 3 you prepare and know spells first as if you were a ranger 4 alone and then as a wizard 3 alone. Then afterwards you recalculate spell slots and proficiency bonuses.

I just can't see how else to do all that you just said without just ignoring the above quote.


The rule I'm referring to is this one, from PHB 164:

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

A paladin 2 / sorcerer 2 determines which paladin spells they can prepare as if they were a single-classed 2nd-level paladin. A single-classed 2nd-level paladin uses the paladin spell slots table to determine how many spell slots they have, and in turn to determine which spells they can prepare.

Since a single-classed 2nd-level paladin has only 1st-level spell slots, they can only prepare 1st-level spells. This means that a multiclassed paladin 2 / sorcerer 2 can only prepare 1st-level paladin spells, not 2nd-level ones.


I have not missed that sentence. Once again, the preparation of spells for a Paladin: "You prepare the list of paladin spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list. When you do so, choose a number of paladin spells equal to your Charisma modifier + half your paladin level, rounded down (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." So how does that sentence support your position? A single classed 2nd level paladin determines what spells he can prepare based upon what slots he has available. *If* he had 4th level spells, he could prepare them. Normally a 2nd level Paladin does not, but that's a different thing entirely. A multiclass caster uses the multiclass caster chart to determine what slots they have. Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about pretending you only have the slots of a single class, in fact it's quite specifically *not* that way. The rules make no reference to referencing the Paladin spell slot chart at all, except to say don't use that, use this, in reference to the multiclass caster spell slot chart. The chart for Paladin slots does not apply to your character, and the rules make it clear that it's not like you can only cast 2 1st level Paladin spells, you quite specifically have your full multiclass spell slot chart available for spellcasting with the class in question.

Still not disagreeing on how the game is ran. Just what the rules say.

Edit: My main point is that even if he's wrong on how the rules *work*, that does not mean at all that this kind of thing:


If you don't want people to tell you're trying to twist the rules in an obviously degenerate way as means to build your character more powerfully than normal, then don't do that.

You don't get to go "Guys, by this reading of the law I can totally take stuff from anyone's house without asking so long as a use a pair of tongs" and also get to be offended when people tell you "That's stealing" or "You're a thief".

At the end of the day what the designers think or what the RAW is, what this forum thinks all doesn't matter. One and exactly one person's opinion here is relevant: Your GMs. If you want to get away with this try to smooth-talk this to them. Just don't expect a bunch of other people to give you evidence/ammunition for it.

is even remotely justified. My hackles get raised when people get attacked for 'manipulative rules lawyering munchkinry', or in this case "trying to twist the rules in an obviously degenerate way" (emphasis mine) simply because their "intuitive" "plain english" reading of the rules, which is absolutely justified and supported by the rules text, does not match the intent or what has been clarified. I don't disagree on how it works. But the first time it was brought to my attention, I looked at what the person was saying, looked at what the rules said, and tried to understand where they were coming from, and found they had a valid point. I think that if you approach it with an open mind and try seeing it the way the OP saw it you would find the same thing. So rather than attacking the OP with a "no, you're wrong, how dare you try to pull this in your game" kind of attitude, I think it would be more helpful, more fair, and more impactful to explain that it's been clarified, point to the sage advice in question (that is what he was asking for, after all) and approach it from that angle. I know you are not the poster who put comments like that, but you actually went the rules text argument route, and I have nothing I can meaningfully say to posters like the above, as there is no actual content to respond to, just personal attacks. Sorry if I came across as very aggressive, as indicated I just don't believe the attacks on the OP are remotely justified, nor conducive to welcoming new members to the forum.

Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you, it's just that your point is the exact same one I replied to earlier. My answer had not changed, so I saw no reason to post it again. I continue to stand behind that answer as well.

[durrin]

Okay, thanks for being reasonable about it in the end.

It's important to realize that there's a difference between the rules of the game and the rules in the book. The book is an attempt to describe the game. It can never be perfect.



Well that's exactly what the guy in the tweet was asking about. :) That's what the "No" was for in Crawford's response. The rest of the tweet was just a reiteration of what we are discussing here.

Also see: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/PH_Errata_1.1.pdf -- This is official errata for the PHB. Under page 114 it says: "The spells copied into a spellbook must be of a spell level the wizard can prepare."

Thanks. I don't claim to be an expert on every aspect and Wizard spell books is really something I haven't even looked at.

lol, when/if someone brings this up again you should just lead with the above.

[durrin]

Ahhh, validation. Thanks durrin! Also thanks Charlesk for providing what the OP was actually looking for! I feel much better now. Not so hard, right? Rather than putting someone on the defensive for having a valid viewpoint and opinion by telling them over and over they're having badwrongfun by trying to munckin multiclassing, twist the rules, and so on, it works wonders to actually provide a helpful answer to the question that was posed.

I fought the good fight in the face of overwhelming adversity. Alas, they slew me!

Thanks for participating and being understanding.

[Shaofoo]

Ahhh, validation. Thanks durrin! Also thanks Charlesk for providing what the OP was actually looking for! I feel much better now. Not so hard, right? Rather than putting someone on the defensive for having a valid viewpoint and opinion by telling them over and over they're having badwrongfun by trying to munckin multiclassing, twist the rules, and so on, it works wonders to actually provide a helpful answer to the question that was posed.

We did provide the answers and gave you references.

And this isn't about badwrongfun or munchkining. Hell I even gave the option that you should maybe ask the DM to bend the rules on a case by case basis since individual needs trumps whatever the book says. I have no problem seeing a Pal2/Sorc2 getting Find Steed for his next level if he asked nicely, I wouldn't be so happy if he tried to play it fast on me and hoping to gain spells faster than usual, especially when I pointed out in the book where he couldn't and he argued anyway.

It is all context, did you want one thing or all the things?

Also fyi if you read I also countered that other guy's quote so you still didn't answer me at all :P

[durrin]

We did provide the answers and gave you references.

And this isn't about badwrongfun or munchkining. Hell I even gave the option that you should maybe ask the DM to bend the rules on a case by case basis since individual needs trumps whatever the book says. I have no problem seeing a Pal2/Sorc2 getting Find Steed for his next level if he asked nicely, I wouldn't be so happy if he tried to play it fast on me and hoping to gain spells faster than usual, especially when I pointed out in the book where he couldn't and he argued anyway.

It is all context, did you want one thing or all the things?

Also fyi if you read I also countered that other guy's quote so you still didn't answer me at all :P

Well, you know, I WANT it all. I'll settle for what I can get...

[charlesk]

lol, when/if someone brings this up again you should just lead with the above.

Well I didn't know about it until I just searched for it. You may find this site useful in the future: http://www.sageadvice.eu/

I also had no idea what you would consider a valid source for an official ruling. Some people discount the tweets. And you seemed pretty set in your opinion. :)

[Alejandro]

I'd agree with the above totally on a single class character. But we're talking about multiclass and that's where there's ambiguity with the RAW (see entire thread up to now).

Yourself saying "there's ambiguity with the RAW" does not make it so. A correct statement would be "I think the RAW should allow X" and then provide reasons and support. There is no ambiguity with the RAW for multiclassing.

Also, let's use a thought exercise for your interpretation, with nonspellcasting thrown in. So if your 19th level Wizard takes 1 level of Fighter, should they immediately gain many levels' worth of Fighter hit points, saves, all the weapons and armor, not to mention a career's worth of hand to hand combat knowledge, despite most likely having low physical stats?

From your interpretation, they should, right?

[LuisDantas]

If I may, I think I made a fairly good case that the RAW are not ambiguous in the last four paragraphs of post #84:



(...)
Incidentally, page 164 has this text under "Spell Slots":

"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 these spells, but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lower-level spell that you cast (...) 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."

Obviously, that means that the slots may (and will) exist without granting the ability to know or prepare spells of the same level. They are used to determine the level of casting spells, not of learning or preparing them. As said in page 201, a spell may expand to fill into a higher level slot for greater effect.

That and the text under "Spells Known and Prepared" earlier in that same page make it very clear to me: you learn spells separately for each class as if you had never multiclassed. Of course, you also learn spells from the other classes you might have, again at the appropriate levels for those classes. The higher level spell slots that might result from using the table in page 165 are explicitly unable of justifying the learning of higher level spells unless you can attain that learning with the individual levels of one of the caster classes taken by themselves.

[durrin]

Everyone is welcome to keep arguing after I've already conceded, just making sure you're aware I have. The SageAdvice almost specifically tailored to my OP is what did it. Not any other arguments. Nor shall they! Muhahahaha. But by all means, don't let me dissuade you...

[obeseboywonder]

{scrubbed}

[durrin]

The biggest problem was your obtuseness, that simply required a figure of authority reiterating the RAW to penetrate through, when others offered more detailed and fleshed out answers that you discarded out of hand.

I think people were getting rather frustrated and annoyed with you, and that's why people feel the need to keep posting about your reading of the rules.

Maybe so. I hope they'll be ok. I never saw anything completely convincing from the forum posters. But if the creator can't say definitively then who can? Which is all I was asking for and I got it. If I was snarky or rude it was in response to others talking to me like I was an idiot and not taking me seriously/dismissing me out of hand. So it goes both ways.

[obeseboywonder]

{scrubbed}

[durrin]

{scrubbed}

[GiantOctopodes]

Then I see you are still being obtuse. They quoted the rules, where specific beats general, and where the multiclass rules contradicted the specific rules of a class's spellcasting. All strictly RAW, and the correct answer to a question that had been asked a multitude of times, and to which a simple google search could have answered. You didn't ask for a quote from a developer until well into the thread, you asked for the forum to answer your question, and didn't like it when they gave the RAW answer.

Your snark has the unfortunate quality of being very condescending, and others were generally polite in their answers to you until that snark came out. I'm pretty sure people were at most blunt about how unbalanced your reading of the rules was, and you were reading into their posts a little too much. "It goes both ways" in that you snarked them, and they responded.

But whatever, I never had a dog in this fight, just thought pointing out a little tact and introspection on your part might be helpful in the future for you.

I could say the exact same thing to you, virtually verbatim. I like too how you state that "your snark has the unfortunate quality of being very condescending, and others were generally polite in their answers to you until that snark came out", when the following was a statement from the OP

"I can accept that, I just need to know why. You haven't given me a reason I can snuggle up to, just that you don't like it."

and was replied to with "Well you've gotten what you're getting. I'm not your mom, I'm not going to spoon feed you this. Either use the search feature or convince your GM that you get the be a souped-up god caster at minimal opportunity cost. "

the next question, wherein he directly asked for the Sage Advice that Ninja_Prawn referred to (11th post in, still on the first page), was where he said "I don't know how to find those either or I would. I read about 10 threads on Paladin multiclass and never saw this come up. I did see the same argument over using spell slots for smite come up a million times though.", followed by why he felt there was ambiguity in the rules.

The response was this: "If you don't want people to tell you're trying to twist the rules in an obviously degenerate way as means to build your character more powerfully than normal, then don't do that.

You don't get to go "Guys, by this reading of the law I can totally take stuff from anyone's house without asking so long as a use a pair of tongs" and also get to be offended when people tell you "That's stealing" or "You're a thief".

At the end of the day what the designers think or what the RAW is, what this forum thinks all doesn't matter. One and exactly one person's opinion here is relevant: Your GMs. If you want to get away with this try to smooth-talk this to them. Just don't expect a bunch of other people to give you evidence/ammunition for it. "

So no, not so much. You are incorrect in your assertions regarding what happened in this thread, much less what the rules are. It has been explained multiple times why RAW supports his position. There is no argument to be had here, every single person in this thread (OP included!) agrees on how the game works. Just that if you're going to give the advice " just thought pointing out a little tact and introspection on your part might be helpful in the future for you.", it would help to take that advice to heart and think about applying it.

[durrin]

I could say the exact same thing to you, virtually verbatim. I like too how you state that "your snark has the unfortunate quality of being very condescending, and others were generally polite in their answers to you until that snark came out", when the following was a statement from the OP

"I can accept that, I just need to know why. You haven't given me a reason I can snuggle up to, just that you don't like it."

and was replied to with "Well you've gotten what you're getting. I'm not your mom, I'm not going to spoon feed you this. Either use the search feature or convince your GM that you get the be a souped-up god caster at minimal opportunity cost. "

the next question, wherein he directly asked for the Sage Advice that Ninja_Prawn referred to (11th post in, still on the first page), was where he said "I don't know how to find those either or I would. I read about 10 threads on Paladin multiclass and never saw this come up. I did see the same argument over using spell slots for smite come up a million times though.", followed by why he felt there was ambiguity in the rules.

The response was this: "If you don't want people to tell you're trying to twist the rules in an obviously degenerate way as means to build your character more powerfully than normal, then don't do that.

You don't get to go "Guys, by this reading of the law I can totally take stuff from anyone's house without asking so long as a use a pair of tongs" and also get to be offended when people tell you "That's stealing" or "You're a thief".

At the end of the day what the designers think or what the RAW is, what this forum thinks all doesn't matter. One and exactly one person's opinion here is relevant: Your GMs. If you want to get away with this try to smooth-talk this to them. Just don't expect a bunch of other people to give you evidence/ammunition for it. "

So no, not so much. You are incorrect in your assertions regarding what happened in this thread, much less what the rules are. It has been explained multiple times why RAW supports his position. There is no argument to be had here, every single person in this thread (OP included!) agrees on how the game works. Just that if you're going to give the advice " just thought pointing out a little tact and introspection on your part might be helpful in the future for you.", it would help to take that advice to heart and think about applying it.

My Shining Knight! Say, you don't have room in your game for a Heavy Armor Master Barbarian do you? See, I have this idea about raging in mithral plate mail I'd like to run by you...this spellcasting stuff is for the birds...

[obeseboywonder]

snip

Chill brah. Constructive criticism doesn't need an essay. Mr. Moron was a little blunt and dramatic (and clearly rude in your opinion), but I said "generally" not everybody. Using one poster as the norm for the other, actually very helpful, people in the thread is very disingenuous, and doesn't really help the point you're trying to make.

I was giving advice to OP for future threads. That's it.

PS The RAW doesn't support his position. I could see how there could be ambiguity without the explicit example of spells prepared in the MC section, but the example makes the rules very clear. As have the designer clarifications and numerous other topics on the subject, which could be found through google quite easily. (See here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=5e+d%26d+multiclass+spell+slots+and+spells+prep ared))

Edit: Didn't even see that durrin replied to me. Look bud I wasn't trying to be mean. I use obtuse, because the phrase "deliberately obtuse" came to mind as I read the thread. I was just saying, you really weren't understanding the arguments of the others if you were still arguing for your reading of the rules. No need to get all hyperbolic and act like I'm ripping you a new one.

[durrin]

{scrubbed}

[Shining Wrath]

That is not what is actually in the rules. Nowhere does that statement occur. The examples seem to *imply* it, but due to poor execution of the examples fail to even directly state it. Had they used the example of going from Wizard 3 / Ranger 4 to Wizard 3 / Ranger 5 and said that the spells you learn are at most 2nd level, or used a Paladin or Cleric who knows their entire spell list and said directly they can only prepare spells of level X, or had they said the Wizard in question cannot add new spells to their spellbook of 3rd level, any of those would have made it clear. They just failed to do so. It's clear they tried, but they failed. Worst possible example, with the worst possible wording across the board.

And CNagy, you seem to be missing the fundamental point that per the rules, a Paladin 2 *can* prepare up to 5th level spells, if he has the slots. You *are* treating him as a Paladin 2 when doing so, because the spells a Paladin 2 can prepare are not intrinsically tied to the spellcasting chart at all, the 2nd level Paladin only being able to cast 1st level spells is a *result* of the chart, true, but they are not inherently linked in the fashion you are describing.

So, to your question "Do you think you are actually treating your Paladin2/Sorcerer2 as a Paladin2 despite using the extra spell slots?", the answer is yes, yes indeed.

The best example of that is the most obviously broken one, the Wizard. To prepare a spell, it must be of a level you have slots (check). It must be in your spellbook. What is required to be in your spellbook? "you can add it to your spellbook if it is
of a level for which you have spell slots" (check). My point is only that the specification you are describing, that you treat it as though you have the slots of the single class character of the class level in question for the purpose of learning and preparing spells, is not made in the rules. It is intended to be made, we all agree it *should* be in there, but the rule that it is argued over and over that he is "breaking" is not currently written in there.

And Shining Wrath, no, I'm not aware of a single DM who runs it that way, and I don't think we ever need to be worried about that occurring. But doesn't it say something to you that it's "this argument again" that maybe they're not trying to "munchkin" anything, but rather came to an incorrect understanding based on the rules as written, and if that many people are coming to incorrect understanding, maybe the rules could be written better?

Except for the dozens of posters here who don't see any failure.

Especially with the example.

When you consider which spells you can prepare or learn, you do so as though you were single classed. Full stop. Simple declarative statement. After that issue is 100% settled and completely done, as an entirely different issue which does not to the slightest degree even begin to impact spells known and / or prepared, you have a table for spell slots - and it even goes on to explicitly state that you can have slots at a level you can't have spells known, just in case there are any munchkins underfoot.

The RAW doesn't leave any holes. Two issues:
1) Prepare spells. As though you were single-class in each spell casting class.
2) Use the table to find slots to power those spells. Explicit that this does not affect spells prepared or known.

Two separate steps in the process of character creation, each spelled out clearly. Only by trying to bring step 2 back into step 1, in contradiction to the clear statements of the rules and in contradiction to the example given, can you have a problem. It's not poor writing by WotC (for once), it's willful deliberate choice to misunderstand.

EDIT: I missed the direct question to me. Why do we keep having this argument? Because it's a FRP game. And people can 'see' this character they want to build, and he'd be AWESOME. So they want to build it. And that poses problems for DMs. As I said to my table session 0, everyone wants their character to be awesome, but if one character is TOO awesome, that reduces the rest of the party to saying "Thank you awesome character for awesomely saving us all again. Truly you are awesome", which is not so much fun.

Munchkins aren't usually bad people, they just have an idea in their minds that they want to put into play, and it'd be awesome! And so they do things to the rules that are banned by the Geneva conventions.

The second motive is the desire to look smarter than other people, "hey look what I found aren't I clever?" which doesn't seem to be the case here.

And of course, this is the Internetwebtubes, and you know how some people like to argue.

[durrin]

Talked to my DM. When he saw how people here wouldn't shut up, no matter what, he sprang into action (ostensibly to save the universe). He assured me that for every response after this one that he's going to gift my character with knowledge of any spell I like (off any class' list) of a level for which I have spell slots. And let me cast them with those slots. All I had to do was make this disclaimer. Pretty cool. Keep 'em coming fellers!

[Mr.Moron]

Talked to my DM. When he saw how people here wouldn't shut up, no matter what, he sprang into action (ostensibly to save the universe). He assured me that for every response after this one that he's going to gift my character with knowledge of any spell I like (off any class' list) of a level for which I have spell slots. And let me cast them with those slots. All I had to do was make this disclaimer. Pretty cool. Keep 'em coming fellers!

Now this is an interesting project. How many posts do we need to get this character every spell in the game?

One less now.

[obeseboywonder]

Talked to my DM. When he saw how people here wouldn't shut up, no matter what, he sprang into action (ostensibly to save the universe). He assured me that for every response after this one that he's going to gift my character with knowledge of any spell I like (off any class' list) of a level for which I have spell slots. And let me cast them with those slots. All I had to do was make this disclaimer. Pretty cool. Keep 'em coming fellers!

Sweet! Now what do we have to do to get that mithril plate barbarian onto the table?

Edit:

{scrubbed}
I did rejoin, but only because I couldn't remember what my old username-majig was. You are indeed lucky to have found someone as caring as I. Your stream of compliments are very nice, but unneeded. I gave advice out of the goodness of my fatty, sugary heart.

[CNagy]

It's not often I get to help break the balance of someone else's game by replying to a thread.

Edit: Just to keep some sort of content in my post: if you wanted to have an argument that could work by RAW, you should went with Paladin/Warlock. The multiclass spellcasting rules only come into effect when you have "the Spellcasting feature from more than one class," and the Pact Magic feature is not the same as the Spellcasting feature. If you've only got Spellcasting from one class, you follow the rules described in that class--which is where you were pointing for your argument (and incidentally why you were wrong, with multiple Spellcasting features, you are instructed to use multiclass spellcasting rules and thus not the rules as described in your single class.)

So, a Paladin/Warlock does not have multiple Spellcasting features, it has Spellcasting and Pact Magic. Therefore, when using the Paladin Spellcasting feature (as the book instructs) without the instruction that you are to treat it as a single-classed member of the class, you have these floating Warlock slots that could be anywhere from 1st to 5th level. And by RAW, they would enable your Paladin (or any other Spellcaster) to prepare/learn spells outside of what their class level should permit.

Obviously this is still not RAI, because the RAI has been made clear. But a quick examination of the book, tweets, and errata has not yielded anything obviously contrary to the RAW reading.

[durrin]

It's not often I get to help break the balance of someone else's game by replying to a thread.

Edit: Just to keep some sort of content in my post: if you wanted to have an argument that could work by RAW, you should went with Paladin/Warlock. The multiclass spellcasting rules only come into effect when you have "the Spellcasting feature from more than one class," and the Pact Magic feature is not the same as the Spellcasting feature. If you've only got Spellcasting from one class, you follow the rules described in that class--which is where you were pointing for your argument (and incidentally why you were wrong, with multiple Spellcasting features, you are instructed to use multiclass spellcasting rules and thus not the rules as described in your single class.)

So, a Paladin/Warlock does not have multiple Spellcasting features, it has Spellcasting and Pact Magic. Therefore, when using the Paladin Spellcasting feature (as the book instructs) without the instruction that you are to treat it as a single-classed member of the class, you have these floating Warlock slots that could be anywhere from 1st to 5th level. And by RAW, they would enable your Paladin (or any other Spellcaster) to prepare/learn spells outside of what their class level should permit.

Obviously this is still not RAI, because the RAI has been made clear. But a quick examination of the book, tweets, and errata has not yielded anything obviously contrary to the RAW reading.

Well, all snarkery aside, I wanted to make a Sorcerer to take advantage of the Staff of Defense and Staff of Spiders from the Starter Set. We already have a Warlock in the group and he gets some benefit from those items but not as much as someone else would. Since we're still so early on and the danger level seems such that any or all of us are likely to die and need a new character (I am playing a 3rd level Hill Dwarf War Domain Cleric), why not one who could inherit some good gear?
I've always disliked Paladins because I thought Charisma was a crap stat. But in this edition, the ease of multiclassing is such that I could start as a Paladin, get all kinds of melee oriented proficiencies, then transition into Sorcerer and also be able to cast in armor (which blows my mind). Ultimately, I think that's still a great idea. It just won't be quite as uber as I initially thought possible. I'm sure everyone else in the group will be happy to hear that. It's no big deal. Thanks for the thought you put into your post and for participating along the way.

[georgie_leech]

It's not often I get to help break the balance of someone else's game by replying to a thread.

Edit: Just to keep some sort of content in my post: if you wanted to have an argument that could work by RAW, you should went with Paladin/Warlock. The multiclass spellcasting rules only come into effect when you have "the Spellcasting feature from more than one class," and the Pact Magic feature is not the same as the Spellcasting feature. If you've only got Spellcasting from one class, you follow the rules described in that class--which is where you were pointing for your argument (and incidentally why you were wrong, with multiple Spellcasting features, you are instructed to use multiclass spellcasting rules and thus not the rules as described in your single class.)

So, a Paladin/Warlock does not have multiple Spellcasting features, it has Spellcasting and Pact Magic. Therefore, when using the Paladin Spellcasting feature (as the book instructs) without the instruction that you are to treat it as a single-classed member of the class, you have these floating Warlock slots that could be anywhere from 1st to 5th level. And by RAW, they would enable your Paladin (or any other Spellcaster) to prepare/learn spells outside of what their class level should permit.

Obviously this is still not RAI, because the RAI has been made clear. But a quick examination of the book, tweets, and errata has not yielded anything obviously contrary to the RAW reading.

Kind of amusing that the secret to advanced Paladin-ness involves demonic contracts :smallbiggrin:

[GiantOctopodes]

Kind of amusing that the secret to advanced Paladin-ness involves demonic contracts :smallbiggrin:

Not necessarily demonic. An Ancients Paladin / Achfey Warlock is entirely thematically consistent.

(enjoy the free spell!)

[georgie_leech]

Not necessarily demonic. An Ancients Paladin / Achfey Warlock is entirely thematically consistent.

(enjoy the free spell!)

Hm. Actually, now I kinda want to try and build a Paladin that studies the ways of demons and even enters into infernal contracts to better understand and so Smite them...

[zinycor]

Hm. Actually, now I kinda want to try and build a Paladin that studies the ways of demons and even enters into infernal contracts to better understand and so Smite them...

After years of study, the paladin has finnaly discovered that the best wy to smite demons is to use Divine Smite

[Shining Wrath]

Talked to my DM. When he saw how people here wouldn't shut up, no matter what, he sprang into action (ostensibly to save the universe). He assured me that for every response after this one that he's going to gift my character with knowledge of any spell I like (off any class' list) of a level for which I have spell slots. And let me cast them with those slots. All I had to do was make this disclaimer. Pretty cool. Keep 'em coming fellers!

Hello to durrin's DM!

Just because I find this hilarious, here's my reply. May you, and durrin, and everyone at your table, prosper and enjoy your BadWrongFun. If I get to pick my spell, I hereby grant Durrin Spirit Guardian, which is very cool and not a Paladin or Sorcerer spell.

[Mr.Moron]

Hello to durrin's DM!

Just because I find this hilarious, here's my reply. May you, and durrin, and everyone at your table, prosper and enjoy your BadWrongFun. If I get to pick my spell, I hereby grant Durrin Spirit Guardian, which is very cool and not a Paladin or Sorcerer spell.

Keep in mind it's per response, not per poster. Presumably you don't have to limit yourself to granting just one spell (this is my second). Though if we're choosing, let's go in and get him Find Familiar to go with Find Steed. Double the pets, double the fun.

Is "any class list" limited to 5e classes, or even D&D classes? The rule is ambigious enough that a fair reading of that might presumably mean any spell from any class based system with spell levels could be selected. After all a Druid from Pillars of Eternity is a Class with a spell list.

Winter Wind (http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Winter_Wind) might be a good choice.

30-50 Damage (1d10+1d12+28?) in a 30ft cone vs Con (+10 to save DC) /w 15 knock back is pretty good for 1st level spell.

EDIT: Also it says "Per Response" not "Per Post" If I clarify that this edit is an additional "Response" intended to be conceptually different from the text above this post, does it count as a 2nd response. (This would be the... 11th spell known I think?)

[Shining Wrath]

If we're going to *really* break the game, I announce my homebrew spell named ... uh ... Ask. Ask is a first level spell that let's you Ask your DM for any rules interpretation you can invent, and he / she has to grant it.

[Shaofoo]

I find it funny that Durrin was basically using us to break his game. I am sure if we all unanimously said that he was right all along then he would've shown this to his DM and give confirmation to his validation, and apparently Durrin knows of his DM that if he sees a forum slapfight that he feels the need to reward his players for starting it. I guess there was no way Durrin couldn't have his way, so kudos to you sir, you truly are a master tactician and I do hope you will get all the spells you ever want and more.

Also when you gt to 3rd level slots, make sure you get Leomund's Tiny Hut, it is an invincible dome with no weaknesses and you can even cast it as a ritual so you can always have it if you prepare long enough

[Scarab112]

As long as we're suggesting spells, I'd toss in Guided Bolt. Pretty thematic for a Sorcerer/Paladin, but not something they normally get.

[durrin]

Well, the rules were simple but vague (my favorite kind). My posts or replies don't count but each one by anyone other than me does. I'm not sure about edited responses. But discretion is the better part of valor I'm told. Why be greedy and don't let your reach exceed your grasp I always say. Well, I said that once.

Also I think I'm not supposed to bait responses and in the spirit of that I've remained neutral or actually tried dissuading further responses so I think I'm good.

I do have a totally unrelated question about my Cleric though. My DM already allowed this (for now) but what are people's opinions on casting a spell like Aid (8hr duration bonus party hp) right before you get your spells back each day. My setup was I'd take the last two hour watch each long rest and cast Aid on the party right before I woke them up. Get my spells back and everyone gets an 8hr HP buff. Lame? Gaming? Requires that you had an appropriate spell slot left over from the day before but as a PC you often have some measure of control over when you storm the dungeon.

Probably won't get credit for responses related to this, but a man can't win 'em all...

[Shaofoo]

Well, the rules were simple but vague (my favorite kind). My posts or replies don't count but each one by anyone other than me does. I'm not sure about edited responses. But discretion is the better part of valor I'm told. Why be greedy and don't let your reach exceed your grasp I always say. Well, I said that once.

Also I think I'm not supposed to bait responses and in the spirit of that I've remained neutral or actually tried dissuading further responses so I think I'm good.

I do have a totally unrelated question about my Cleric though. My DM already allowed this (for now) but what are people's opinions on casting a spell like Aid (8hr duration bonus party hp) right before you get your spells back each day. My setup was I'd take the last two hour watch each long rest and cast Aid on the party right before I woke them up. Get my spells back and everyone gets an 8hr HP buff. Lame? Gaming? Requires that you had an appropriate spell slot left over from the day before but as a PC you often have some measure of control over when you storm the dungeon.

Probably won't get credit for responses related to this, but a man can't win 'em all...

Well I would quote page 186 that you can't cast spells or you forefit your rest but hey maybe you want to complain because the text could mean spending more than one hour casting spells since the way it is worded it could mean like that. So take that what you will, sorry I can't say any more useful spells you, maybe ask if you can get class abilities for free?

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread locked for review.

EDIT: After reviewing the thread I have concluded that this discussion has reached its conclusion and will now lead nowhere other than redundant arguments and problematic remarks. Thread is now locked permanently.