So I have a minor question.

[Typhon]

Mostly for my clarification, I might just have missed it in reading. If you multiclass, say wizard and cleric, do those spell slots just add together or are they treated as different?

Previous editions I know they were kept separate, but the way everyone goes on about multiclassing I thought I would ask.

[Naanomi]

Added together, but the spells you know and can cast are class-level bound (so you just get the slots for higher level castings of lower level spells potentially)

Warlock is the exception l, and is tracked separately

[Ninja_Prawn]

You may want to read page 164 of the PHB extra closely.

In a nutshell, you add together your class levels to determine an 'equivalent caster level' and get the corresponding spell slots. Spells known is by class though, so a Wizard 1 / Cleric 19 can only cast 1st-level Wizard spells, despite having 9th level slots available (though they would have 9th level cleric spells).

[Typhon]

It might just be me, most likely it is just me, but that feels very wonky.

So going with the example laid out, 1 Wiz / 19 Cleric, I could upcast Magic Missile as a 9th level spell even though I only have one level of arcane spellcasting. Simply because I am a 20th level spelluser, just mostly divine over arcane.

That just doesn't click in my mind as being right. Like I said though, it is most likely just me. Don't get me wrong, if there is an archtype that merges them together; favored soul, arcana sphere or MC bard; I understand perfectly. It is just odd to me that you would gain arcane power while studying divine spells.

Makes me wonder why a necromancer in 5e couldn't learn healing magics similar to clerics.

[DivisibleByZero]

It might just be me, most likely it is just me, but that feels very wonky.

So going with the example laid out, 1 Wiz / 19 Cleric, I could upcast Magic Missile as a 9th level spell even though I only have one level of arcane spellcasting. Simply because I am a 20th level spelluser, just mostly divine over arcane.

That just doesn't click in my mind as being right. Like I said though, it is most likely just me. Don't get me wrong, if there is an archtype that merges them together; favored soul, arcana sphere or MC bard; I understand perfectly. It is just odd to me that you would gain arcane power while studying divine spells.

Makes me wonder why a necromancer in 5e couldn't learn healing magics similar to clerics.

It's about magical power vs magical knowledge.
a Wiz1/Clr19 has the magical power to cast those 9th level spells, but only has the magical knowledge of a 1st level wizard on the arcane side.

[Typhon]

It's about magical power vs magical knowledge.
a Wiz1/Clr19 has the magical power to cast those 9th level spells, but only has the magical knowledge of a 1st level wizard on the arcane side.

So magic is magic. Divine magic = Arcane magic = all magic in this edition.

That still feels wrong and it is most likely my preference for 2nd ed. I always saw wizards growing in magical power as they grew in knowledge and understanding of the ways of magic. Clerics grew in power as they grew closer to their Gods/patrons and were entrusted with more power.

Makes me understand why people multiclass the spellcasting and martial caster classes so much more this go. There is no drawback spellwise.

[Ninja_Prawn]

So going with the example laid out, 1 Wiz / 19 Cleric, I could upcast Magic Missile as a 9th level spell even though I only have one level of arcane spellcasting.

Yep, that's how it works. Of course, Magic Missile IX is nowhere near as dangerous as the Meteor Swarm that a Wizard 20 would be casting with that slot, but that's probably not going to make you feel any better about the blurring of arcane & divine power...

[Millstone85]

So magic is magic. Divine magic = Arcane magic = all magic in this edition.Alternatively, cleric magic =/= druid magic =/= wizard magic =/= sorcerer magic.

You would also end up with higher level slots than spells when combining two "divine" or two "arcane" classes.

[DivisibleByZero]

So magic is magic. Divine magic = Arcane magic = all magic in this edition.

Alternatively, cleric magic =/= druid magic =/= wizard magic =/= sorcerer magic.


The distinction between Divine magic and Arcane magic is not a mechanical one as it was in previous editions. If you scour the PHB, you'll actually see that the distinction technically doesn't even exist any longer.
The difference is fluff only.
So yes, magic is magic.

[Typhon]

Yep, that's how it works. Of course, Magic Missile IX is nowhere near as dangerous as the Meteor Swarm that a Wizard 20 would be casting with that slot, but that's probably not going to make you feel any better about the blurring of arcane & divine power...

Not arguing a true 9th level spells damage potential to an upcast 1st level (that is like a little league team playing a major league team). Just saying that being able to upcast to that spell level without having that level of spells seemed odd.

I do understand that it was done to simplify the game and counter balance the loss of power when multiclassing multiple caster classes. It just seems odd to me, all in all.

[Tanarii]

The distinction between Divine magic and Arcane magic is not a mechanical one as it was in previous editions. If you scour the PHB, you'll actually see that the distinction technically doesn't even exist any longer.
The difference is fluff only.
So yes, magic is magic.
It exists. Side bar. "The difference is fluff only" does not make the distinction cease to exist.

[DivisibleByZero]

It exists. Side bar. "The difference is fluff only" does not make the distinction cease to exist.

There is zero mechanical difference as there was previously.
And quite literally the only difference in the entire book where it is even mentioned is in that side bar. And even that side bar quite clearly relays that the difference is fluff.
So once again, magic is magic. There is no difference other than fluff, which means from a mechanical standpoint, the distinction technically doesn't exist any longer.

[Typhon]

It exists. Side bar. "The difference is fluff only" does not make the distinction cease to exist.

Ok, so since source is fluff, not looking for a fight, couldn't a necromancer cast healing/harming spells now? They are necromancy by school and it would probably fit someones specific build. Even if they were cast as ritual, that is something.

[DivisibleByZero]

Ok, so since source is fluff, not looking for a fight, couldn't a necromancer cast healing/harming spells now? They are necromancy by school and it would probably fit someones specific build. Even if they were cast as ritual, that is something.

Sure, but those spells aren't on the Wizard list, so they'd have to gain access to them somehow.

[Typhon]

Sure, but those spells aren't on the Wizard list, so they'd have to gain access to them somehow.

I was assuming the same way any good wizard gets a spell not explicitly in the book or on a list. Research, research research.

[DivisibleByZero]

I was assuming the same way any good wizard gets a spell not explicitly in the book or on a list. Research, research research.

You're entering DM Fiat territory. No answer we can give you is going to hold true for any particular game.

[Tanarii]

There is zero mechanical difference as there was previously.
And quite literally the only difference in the entire book where it is even mentioned is in that side bar. And even that side bar quite clearly relays that the difference is fluff.
So once again, magic is magic. There is no difference other than fluff, which means from a mechanical standpoint, the distinction technically doesn't exist any longer.
What? It's the default rules. Of course a DM can override whatever he wants for his particular settings. But the default 'fluff' is that there is in fact a difference between Arcane and Divine magic. The primary difference being in how the character manipulates the Weave in-game. Who cares if it's 'mechanical' or 'fluff'? The fact of the matter is there is a difference in the default rules.

[Millstone85]

I was assuming the same way any good wizard gets a spell not explicitly in the book or on a list. Research, research research.Research is already how a leveling up wizard gets a spell on the list in the book.

The PHB doesn't exist in-universe. That spell may be one the setting has long forgotten or never seen before.

You, as the DM, can of course homebrew more spells and add them to the wizard spell list.

[Typhon]

You're entering DM Fiat territory. No answer we can give you is going to hold true for any particular game.

I entered no such territory. I asked a question regarding my newly gained perspective. I then postulated whether something was possible and a route to gaining the postulated item/knowledge.

If I had said that DMs should mandated my postulation, then yes I would have entered their territory. If a player is playing such a character as per the postulation that would like to do as I postulated and does not ACTIVELY discuss the idea/matter with their DM. I am not to be held responsible.

Spells and spell research are always things to be talked out between an individual and her/his DM. If the DM sees a course of action resulting in something that is beneficial/useful, and not too easily gained or exploitable then there is no trouble.

What did I do? I postulated, concluded a possible method of development, and that is all.

[Typhon]

Research is already how a leveling up wizard gets a spell on the list in the book.

Exactly, wizards research and study. Why not allow a Necromancer to research such a spell through arcane means. No one says Necromancers have to be evil.


The PHB doesn't exist in-universe.

I didn't say it did. However, Bards, Paladins, Druids, Rangers, and Clerics do exist and they have healing spells and spell like abilities that can be studied in the name of spell research.


That spell may be one the setting has long forgotten or never seen before.

This is if a DM chooses to allow the spell and it works as a "fast" introduction or part of the discovery of such a spell.


You, as the DM, can of course homebrew more spells and add them to the wizard spell list.

This point here.

[DivisibleByZero]

I entered no such territory.

Researching new spells is 100% DM Fiat territory, so any question pertaining to researching new spells is by definition DM Fiat territory, which we cannot answer for you.

[Fayd]

Think of it this way: a 20th level spellcasters has learned how to channel the magical power of a 9th level spell. No matter how you're getting the power, from raw arcane power or from a god, you can still only channel so much at once. So while you know how to channel the power of a 9th level spell, you only understand the mechanics of casting 1st level wizard spells. But you can certainly use the capacity for power that you built up as a cleric to put a lot of oomph behind it (Magic Missile IX).

[Typhon]

Researching new spells is 100% DM Fiat territory, so any question pertaining to researching new spells is by definition DM Fiat territory, which we cannot answer for you.

No allowing new spells and alterations to existing spells is DM fiat territory.

I can research any spell I ever want, completely new, altered from another class, or adapted from previous editions. Whether a DM allows it in game is entirely his/her fiat territory. I did not seek to undermine any set role of the game, but I will not have my choices or the choices of any player be smothered by a myopic point of view. DMs decide and have fiat over what is allowed in game, not what a character does in game as their character. If a player wants his character to research a spell to create giant miniature space hamsters during every single level of 20 levels, so be it. No one says it will ever work, and whether it works or not is up to the DM and the DM alone. That character however, can research that spell to their hearts content.

[Typhon]

Think of it this way: a 20th level spellcasters has learned how to channel the magical power of a 9th level spell. No matter how you're getting the power, from raw arcane power or from a god, you can still only channel so much at once. So while you know how to channel the power of a 9th level spell, you only understand the mechanics of casting 1st level wizard spells. But you can certainly use the capacity for power that you built up as a cleric to put a lot of oomph behind it (Magic Missile IX).

That is a fair and reasoned explanation. I can buy that.

[Millstone85]

If a player wants his character to research a spell to create giant miniature space hamsters during every single level of 20 levels, so be it. No one says it will ever work, and whether it works or not is up to the DM and the DM alone. That character however, can research that spell to their hearts content.That is true. But then, I don't get what you are asking.

[DivisibleByZero]

That is true. But then, I don't get what you are asking.

Precisely.

Whether it works or not is really the important part. Sure, research to your heart's content. Knock yourself out. But if the DM says that it doesn't work, then we're right back where we started.
So yes, it is 100% DM Fiat territory. You're arguing semantics. The result is what we're talking about, and that result is up the the DM to do as he or she pleases for his or her game. DM Fiat.

[Typhon]

Precisely.

Whether it works or not is really the important part. Sure, research to your heart's content. Knock yourself out. But if the DM says that it doesn't work, then we're right back where we started.
So yes, it is 100% DM Fiat territory. You're arguing semantics. The result is what we're talking about, and that result is up the the DM to do as he or she pleases for his or her game. DM Fiat.

Which is why you are arguing semantics and roles. I stated research as a way of allowing a player to find a way to do something. Not to just doing it. You jumped to the presumption that I thought it should just happen in an off-handed manner, which I did not. It is still crossing what has been stated as a fluff barrier between mechanical classes, so it has to cross it in the fluff approved method.

You specifically said, and I quote:


Researching new spells is 100% DM Fiat territory, so any question pertaining to researching new spells is by definition DM Fiat territory, which we cannot answer for you.

Now if you meant say, that DM Fiat territory is allowing new spells, altered spells, or granting spells to a different spell list than normally associated with that spell/class, that would have been correct. It also would have been less adversarial.

Neither of us was wrong on this point, however, wording of thoughts and presumption of meaning are the bane of written word forums. We should all, keep that in mind and understand its meaning in the future.

[DivisibleByZero]

Now if you meant say, that DM Fiat territory is allowing new spells, altered spells, or granting spells to a different spell list than normally associated with that spell/class, that would have been correct. It also would have been less adversarial.

The bolded part?
That's what researching spells is. Just simply saying that your character is spending his time researching spells is meaningless without that bolded part.
So thank you for calling it correct.

[Fayd]

That is a fair and reasoned explanation. I can buy that.

Glad to help! :smallbiggrin:

[Phoenix042]

Neither of us was wrong on this point, however, wording of thoughts and presumption of meaning are the bane of written word forums. We should all, keep that in mind and understand its meaning in the future.

I wouldn't be so hasty to claim that neither of you is wrong here.

You clearly said "gets a new spell" by "research, research, research."

Now you're backpedaling, saying you didn't claim it would be allowed and that DM's don't have fiat over research.

While obviously any character can "try to research" anything they want given downtime and some research materials, that's quite obviously not at all what you meant when you said "get" a new spell.

You said that necromancer's should be able to actually pick up healing and harming spells. But that's not how the rules governing wizard spell selection work, so your original statement is solidly in DM fiat territory, whether you get angry at us for saying so or not.

edit: You meant that "research" is how you'd fluff a necromancer wizard multiclassing into cleric to grab the healing spells, didn't you?

At this point, it should be obvious to you how NOT obvious to us that implication was.

[SharkForce]

just to be clear, if you're seeing a lot of multiclassing for spellcasters, it's probably either because they don't really understand what they're giving up (and it is significant), they don't really care about what they're giving up (they want to build a certain concept and are willing to make some sacrifices... like a wizard with a 2 level knowledge cleric splash so they can use the channel divinity with fabricate or something like that), they're only thinking about level 20 and ignoring everything before then (the last 3 levels of warlock genuinely don't offer a lot, but unless you've already got the first 17 under your belt more warlock levels are probably better), or they're thinking in terms of adding a spellcasting class onto a non-spellcaster (or limited spellcaster) rather than the other way around (typically paladin/sorcerer builds, but you'll sometimes see druid/barbarian, warlock/barbarian, paladin/bard, paladin/warlock, warlock/fighter, shadow monk/warlock, etc). there may also be the rare occasion where the abilities they gain are better than they would get from one more level of their original spellcasting class, but those are rare (the only one that comes to mind is arguably cleric/sorcerer, and i almost never actually see anyone build a cleric/sorcerer).

you keep your spell slot progression, and that is certainly nice. there are a handful of spells where this is actually going to be worth it (most spells, you should only cast in a higher level slot if you don't have an appropriate level slot available... but some, like planar binding, mass suggestion, bestow curse, and geas, do get stronger quadratically rather than linearly and are worth upcasting)

but it is seldom as good as what you would get for sticking with a single-classed spellcaster. meteor swarm vs magic missile in a level 9 slot is a very easy one to compare because it's just straight up bigger numbers, but when you look at other spells it can stand out just as much.

for example, a 2 cleric (knowledge)/9 wizard (divination) is missing out on 6th level spells. spells like mass suggestion, sunbeam, disintegrate, etc are worth far more to a wizard being able to use fabricate to make anything, even if it also comes with medium armour and shield proficiency and a few level 1 spells known. a 3 sorcerer/2 warlock gets quicken spell and agonizing eldritch blast, but won't get stuff like fireball, hypnotic pattern, stinking cloud, fear, etc for another 2 levels (not that the sorcerer could choose all of those or have slots for all of them, but fireball once or twice a day is amazing at level 5, way better than any cantrip). there are a few exceptions, but generally, you're going to get *so* much more out of staying single-classed than you could ever hope for out of multiclassing two spellcasting classes.

i realize you're also struggling with the fluff part of things, but i just want to be clear: in terms of balance, being able to multiclass wizard and cleric is not a major power increase, it is a trade-off where you are far more likely to gain less than you give up.

[Typhon]

Now if you meant say, that DM Fiat territory is allowing new spells, altered spells, or granting spells to a different spell list than normally associated with that spell/class, that would have been correct. It also would have been less adversarial.
The bolded part?
That's what researching spells is. Just simply saying that your character is spending his time researching spells is meaningless without that bolded part.
So thank you for calling it correct.

I feel that too much has been wasted on a useless argument of a misguided misinterpretation of words and presumptuous assumptions of intent and meaning. As Milstone stated:


Research is already how a leveling up wizard gets a spell on the list in the book.

Research of a new spell or adaption of a spell from another class is a collaboration between players and DMs to make a functional model of such a spell or its implementation, and a goal as to how to achieve the end result. Players have to want to do something. DMs have to decide whether it is ok for the characters and game to have said thing. Players and DMs work together like adults and compromise to see desired goal happen. Otherwise, if the players don't want said spell, then the DM cares not as their main role is adjudication of standing rules and guiding the storytelling.

So it has been and so shall it forever be.

If the DM wants to introduce a new or adapted spell of their own volition, that is entirely their choice as the guide for the overall story and feel of the game. But do not call it research, it would be a DM choice or Fiat, if you prefer.

DM Fiat should be noted as judgement/adjudication as to whether a particular item or items are against the rules of the game and/or ruins the fun for players of a game.

The part in bold summed up your stand well, because it is what you keep meaning to say. I also presume you meant to use an exclamation point instead of a question mark when you said, "The bolded part!". Which would have been more grammatically correct as, "The part here in bold!", as bolded is neither proper grammar or correct spelling of any word.

As far as meaningless actions in a game played with little figures on a board or in our minds as we act out and give voice to the pretend lives of imaginary people, I will bear your statement in mind.

[Typhon]

I wouldn't be so hasty to claim that neither of you is wrong here.

You clearly said "gets a new spell" by "research, research, research."

Now you're backpedaling, saying you didn't claim it would be allowed and that DM's don't have fiat over research.

While obviously any character can "try to research" anything they want given downtime and some research materials, that's quite obviously not at all what you meant when you said "get" a new spell.

You said that necromancer's should be able to actually pick up healing and harming spells. But that's not how the rules governing wizard spell selection work, so your original statement is solidly in DM fiat territory, whether you get angry at us for saying so or not.

edit: You meant that "research" is how you'd fluff a necromancer wizard multiclassing into cleric to grab the healing spells, didn't you?

At this point, it should be obvious to you how NOT obvious to us that implication was.

What a DM does or does not allow could fill entire novels in some cases. For examples just check the homebrew forums or go here http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404100-What-Are-Some-Recommend-House-Rules-For-5e.

It was noted by another Playgrounder that outside of the "fluff" of divine and arcane subsets there is no difference for magical power. I stated two things regarding this which were, and I directly quote:

Ok, so since source is fluff, not looking for a fight, couldn't a necromancer cast healing/harming spells now? They are necromancy by school and it would probably fit someones specific build. Even if they were cast as ritual, that is something.

I was assuming the same way any good wizard gets a spell not explicitly in the book or on a list. Research, research research.

Now unless I really missed a language course at some point in my years of living or I just don't have the reading comprehension of a middle school child. Where exactly did I say they should or would, " "get" a new spell."? Let me know when I am to be corrected on what I did say. If you are looking to deeply, then it could be misinterpreted.

Stating Research is DM only turf is misguided, misanthropic, and disingenious.

I meant "research" as in, two adults talking about the possibility of a caster class, lets say necromancer(wizard), researching classically non-accessible spells, such as cure wound, heal, etc. One adult, lets say player 1, wants to make said spell/s and checks feasibility of being able to make such desired spell/s with another adult, lets say DM. DM doesn't see any reasonable objection and checks to make sure that no one will feel put out or upset by player 1 having desired spell/s. So Player 1 and DM discuss what goals/milestones are needed to reach such a point as to have desired item/s and what, if any, modification/s the final version/s have compared to their original counterpart/s. You know, like it has always been.

Since the argument was about the meaning of the word "research" and who holds ultimate sway over everything. Then, whatever. Spell research isn't a short term deal, and should never be looked at as such. Spell research is like real research, sometimes it will never be completed in your lifetime or achieve appreciable results.

I dislike multiclassing in general, and was asking a speculative question which I meant as a reference to my new understanding. Which seems to have set off a firestorm of people worried about blurred roles at the table and power over the game. I asked the secondary question to ensure I understood correctly the new form of magical power for this edition and to put forth the question as to whether someone who was arcane in nature could gain typically divine type spells. It was in no way a direct statement that they should or would get access to those spells as they do not currently exist in such a form.

Now, if you would like to attack me again over this? Please do two things. One, take it out of this forum and put it somewhere else. Two, actually include my earlier quotes for the sake of perspective and make them complete if possible.

[DivisibleByZero]

You're entering DM Fiat territory. No answer we can give you is going to hold true for any particular game.

I entered no such territory.

Except, what you just said:
I meant "research" as in, two adults talking about the possibility of a caster class, lets say necromancer(wizard), researching classically non-accessible spells, such as cure wound, heal, etc. One adult, lets say player 1, wants to make said spell/s and checks feasibility of being able to make such desired spell/s with another adult, lets say DM. DM doesn't see any reasonable objection and checks to make sure that no one will feel put out or upset by player 1 having desired spell/s. So Player 1 and DM discuss what goals/milestones are needed to reach such a point as to have desired item/s and what, if any, modification/s the final version/s have compared to their original counterpart/s. You know, like it has always been.
...is 100% DM Fiat territory. You just pretty much perfectly described a DM Fiat scenario, to the T.
So I stand by my initial assessment that Researching spells is 100% DM Fiat territory.

[Typhon]

just to be clear, if you're seeing a lot of multiclassing for spellcasters, it's probably either because they don't really understand what they're giving up (and it is significant), they don't really care about what they're giving up (they want to build a certain concept and are willing to make some sacrifices... like a wizard with a 2 level knowledge cleric splash so they can use the channel divinity with fabricate or something like that), they're only thinking about level 20 and ignoring everything before then (the last 3 levels of warlock genuinely don't offer a lot, but unless you've already got the first 17 under your belt more warlock levels are probably better), or they're thinking in terms of adding a spellcasting class onto a non-spellcaster (or limited spellcaster) rather than the other way around (typically paladin/sorcerer builds, but you'll sometimes see druid/barbarian, warlock/barbarian, paladin/bard, paladin/warlock, warlock/fighter, shadow monk/warlock, etc). there may also be the rare occasion where the abilities they gain are better than they would get from one more level of their original spellcasting class, but those are rare (the only one that comes to mind is arguably cleric/sorcerer, and i almost never actually see anyone build a cleric/sorcerer).

you keep your spell slot progression, and that is certainly nice. there are a handful of spells where this is actually going to be worth it (most spells, you should only cast in a higher level slot if you don't have an appropriate level slot available... but some, like planar binding, mass suggestion, bestow curse, and geas, do get stronger quadratically rather than linearly and are worth upcasting)

but it is seldom as good as what you would get for sticking with a single-classed spellcaster. meteor swarm vs magic missile in a level 9 slot is a very easy one to compare because it's just straight up bigger numbers, but when you look at other spells it can stand out just as much.

for example, a 2 cleric (knowledge)/9 wizard (divination) is missing out on 6th level spells. spells like mass suggestion, sunbeam, disintegrate, etc are worth far more to a wizard being able to use fabricate to make anything, even if it also comes with medium armour and shield proficiency and a few level 1 spells known. a 3 sorcerer/2 warlock gets quicken spell and agonizing eldritch blast, but won't get stuff like fireball, hypnotic pattern, stinking cloud, fear, etc for another 2 levels (not that the sorcerer could choose all of those or have slots for all of them, but fireball once or twice a day is amazing at level 5, way better than any cantrip). there are a few exceptions, but generally, you're going to get *so* much more out of staying single-classed than you could ever hope for out of multiclassing two spellcasting classes.

i realize you're also struggling with the fluff part of things, but i just want to be clear: in terms of balance, being able to multiclass wizard and cleric is not a major power increase, it is a trade-off where you are far more likely to gain less than you give up.

Initially I was only asking a mechanical question. Which was very well explained quite adequately. I have never thought of multiclass characters as major power players, but the clarification did help me understand the RAW. Which made it clear that multiclassing full casters were not as hamstrung as I had believed them to be.

When I posed a secondary sub-question concerning adapting classically divine spells into arcane forms for wizard use in terms of a single class caster, understanding the fluffy bits are only fluffy, but wondering if it would be possible, for some reason it drew a great deal of ire.

The object of conflict being a statement I made which ended in my saying research, research, research. Referring too the long established fact that a wizard can always research any spell to achieve any effect, not saying it would work but they could research. Some people on the forums took my statement to mean that the player of a character doing such, was usurping the DM and running slipshod over the established rules of the game, which it did not. I posed a speculation as to a certain archetype of a class that made sense, and saw the possibility for certain spells to be adapted. I at no time said they would or should automatically gain access to such spells freely or without hindrance.

"Research" of spells, especially from outside class or non-source, always involves the player and DM working to achieve a compromise between the established DM and player. Some say the DM is the only one to make such a call. I countered that a player could always do whatever "research" they wanted and was not stepping on toes, but I never said it would be successful. The sum total of the argument is that it is up to the DM and player to find a compromise to such an endeavor, which I had not argued against.

[Typhon]

Except, what you just said:
...is 100% DM Fiat territory. You just pretty much perfectly described a DM Fiat scenario, to the T.
So I stand by my initial assessment that Researching spells is 100% DM Fiat territory.

Researching is not DM Fiat. Successful product as a result of research is. The research itself is the player choice to undertake. The end result is the DM discretion.

A DM is always the final say, I did not question that. But saying that a character cannot research is not the DM Fiat, that is being a d***.

You may say I am arguing semantics, but you are trying to alter the meaning of a word.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research


Research is to studiously inquire or examine, and at no point does that mean a person will create anything more than understanding or anything even approaching usable. The player may not get a single thing they were trying to achieve, but at best they may gain some other benefit. Thus the crux of research, to a T. Which is the actual phrase you were trying to use.

[SharkForce]

Initially I was only asking a mechanical question. Which was very well explained quite adequately. I have never thought of multiclass characters as major power players, but the clarification did help me understand the RAW. Which made it clear that multiclassing full casters were not as hamstrung as I had believed them to be.

When I posed a secondary sub-question concerning adapting classically divine spells into arcane forms for wizard use in terms of a single class caster, understanding the fluffy bits are only fluffy, but wondering if it would be possible, for some reason it drew a great deal of ire.

The object of conflict being a statement I made which ended in my saying research, research, research. Referring too the long established fact that a wizard can always research any spell to achieve any effect, not saying it would work but they could research. Some people on the forums took my statement to mean that the player of a character doing such, was usurping the DM and running slipshod over the established rules of the game, which it did not. I posed a speculation as to a certain archetype of a class that made sense, and saw the possibility for certain spells to be adapted. I at no time said they would or should automatically gain access to such spells freely or without hindrance.

"Research" of spells, especially from outside class or non-source, always involves the player and DM working to achieve a compromise between the established DM and player. Some say the DM is the only one to make such a call. I countered that a player could always do whatever "research" they wanted and was not stepping on toes, but I never said it would be successful. The sum total of the argument is that it is up to the DM and player to find a compromise to such an endeavor, which I had not argued against.

for clarity: i'm not remotely interested in having a discussion about whether a wizard could research cure wounds or not. that's between you and your DM and nobody else (or, if you're the DM, it's between you and the player who wants to research cure wounds). i just wanted to be clear that a wizard who multiclasses cleric is, in fact, paying for access to those cleric spells. certainly, WotC seems hell-bent on giving all the good spells on the cleric spell list to arcane casters with their UA subclasses, being able to research only the healing ones doesn't sound nearly as ridiculously broken at least.

(with that said, in a D&D game i generally wouldn't allow a wizard to learn healing magic unless they were of a special subclass or something at the very least... it's the sort of spell where if it could just be researched by anyone, it would have been researched by everyone already; it's just too obvious and too good to have not been done if it was possible to do)

[Typhon]

for clarity: i'm not remotely interested in having a discussion about whether a wizard could research cure wounds or not. that's between you and your DM and nobody else (or, if you're the DM, it's between you and the player who wants to research cure wounds). i just wanted to be clear that a wizard who multiclasses cleric is, in fact, paying for access to those cleric spells. certainly, WotC seems hell-bent on giving all the good spells on the cleric spell list to arcane casters with their UA subclasses, being able to research only the healing ones doesn't sound nearly as ridiculously broken at least.

(with that said, in a D&D game i generally wouldn't allow a wizard to learn healing magic unless they were of a special subclass or something at the very least... it's the sort of spell where if it could just be researched by anyone, it would have been researched by everyone already; it's just too obvious and too good to have not been done if it was possible to do)

I understand you perfectly. I was originally seeing the spell progression as it would have been in previous editions. As in wiz 4/ cler or bard 4 were casting only 2nd level spellslots at max instead of progressing to 4th level spellslots but only having access to 2nd level spells as I now correctly understand it.

My second point was very specific in both class/archetype(even if it is a base one) that would be doing research and the specific spells/variation of spells they would gain access too. Specifically, if a player made a good version of a typically evil character setup. Helping others instead of hurting them. Looking at it as the full on healer aspect but without being a cleric. I don't see it as ever really being a common build for the vast majority of players. It was a simple question and answer that got way out of hand due to interpretations. I think most would be in the same camp as you about the allowance requiring special circumstances.

[Vogonjeltz]

You may want to read page 164 of the PHB extra closely.

In a nutshell, you add together your class levels to determine an 'equivalent caster level' and get the corresponding spell slots. Spells known is by class though, so a Wizard 1 / Cleric 19 can only cast 1st-level Wizard spells, despite having 9th level slots available (though they would have 9th level cleric spells).

They could up-cast that 1st level spell into a 9th level slot, however.

Also worth noting, per the rules in the sidebar on PHB 114; if you were to encounter a Wizard spell for a higher level (i.e. 9th level Wizard spell and you have 9th level spell slots) you can copy that into your spellbook.

To be fair, it's quite unlikely that you're going to collect the spellbook of a Wizard with enough higher level spells to make this worthwhile...but it isn't outside the realm of possibility.


There is no drawback spellwise.

The drawbacks are several.

1) You don't learn spells of a higher level, normally. (Wizards might be the only potential exception courtesy of the spellbook)

2) You trade off benefits (i.e. The Wizard level 1 only nets you a low level Wizard spell. And to get that it cost you Divine Intervention's improvement and a better hit die.)

3) How you cast your spells is markedly different. i.e. a Cleric Focus isn't a Wizard Focus.

4) Preparing and Knowing spells are based on class (this touches on #1 slightly)

5) Casting spells from different classes uses their spellcasting modifier (i.e. Wisdom for Clerics, Intelligence for Wizards) which of course makes a character much less likely to be as good at either as they could be if they focused on a single casting stat. Also known as Multiple Ability Dependency.

[Tanarii]

Also worth noting, per the rules in the sidebar on PHB 114; if you were to encounter a Wizard spell for a higher level (i.e. 9th level Wizard spell and you have 9th level spell slots) you can copy that into your spellbook.I thought this was prohibited by the multiclassing rules limit on spell level being limited by each individual class? In other words multiclassing spellcaster rules are more specific than the general spell book rules.

[DivisibleByZero]

I thought this was prohibited by the multiclassing rules limit on spell level being limited by each individual class? In other words multiclassing spellcaster rules are more specific than the general spell book rules.

This is correct.
Copying a spell into your spellbook is the wizard's version of "learning" a spell, so they're gated by level.
They are not an exception, not even because of their spellbook. If you can't cast it as a wizard, you can't copy it onto your spellbook.