Multiclass and Spells - how does it work?

[mgshamster]

Let's say we have a 9 Cleric/8 Wizard.

We have 9th level spell slots.

Can we prepare 5th level spells for the cleric and 4th level spells for the wizard? Or can we prepare 9th level spells for the cleric and 9th level spells for the wizard?

Both the cleric and wizard class reads, "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." Some say that this means that since you have 9th level spell slots, you can prepare 9th level spells as one or even both classes.

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

But since it doesn't say, "...as if you were a single-classed member of that class of which no other classes contribute their caster level to," some people believe that this means you get 9th level spells as a cleric and/or wizard.

How does this all work, and what's actually going on here. Are the spell Multiclass really nonsensical, as some claim? Or do they make perfect sense and these people just misunderstanding how the rules work?

[Mikal]

I thought it was clear. You can prepare 9th level
Spells but you can't know any, so you can only upcast existing spells to 9th level if you want to use those slots.

[krugaan]

I thought it was clear. You can prepare 9th level
Spells but you can't know any, so you can only upcast existing spells to 9th level if you want to use those slots.

er, the other way around, you mean? Clerics and druids always know all their spells, but can only prepare ones that their available spell slots allow.

Regardless, it's ridiculous to assume it works the other way, because then the best sorc builds will all be 18 sorc / 1 cleric / 1 druid or 17 sorc / 2 lock / 1 cleric or druid.

[Mikal]

er, the other way around, you mean? Clerics and druids always know all their spells, but can only prepare ones that their available spell slots allow.

Regardless, it's ridiculous to assume it works the other way, because then the best sorc builds will all be 18 sorc / 1 cleric / 1 druid or 17 sorc / 2 lock / 1 cleric or druid.

No the phb is clear. Page 164
You can prepare your spells for each class as if you were only considering the levels you have in that class.

You add your spell slots together for the number of spells ou can cast per day.
For spell slots higher than the level of spells you can prepare you must fill those slots with lower level spells you do know or can prepare. You do get the higher level effect though.

So as a 9 wizard/8 cleric, you know and prepare spells as if you were a 9th level wizard and 8th level cleric respectively, and have spell slots as if you were 17th level.

For the spell slots above the level of spells you know and can prepare, you use the lower level spells you know.

In summary, you prepare 5th level spells but can cast as
Up to 9th level until that slot is used up.

[SpamCreateWater]

I thought it was clear. You can prepare 9th level
Spells but you can't know any, so you can only upcast existing spells to 9th level if you want to use those slots.

This is the argument for being crazy as I see it: You can prepare 9th level Cleric spells as a Sorcerer 16+ / Cleric 1 because Cleric says that you prepare your spells based on the spell slots you have available. As you use the Mutliclass table for spellcasting you have 9th level spell slots available.



er, the other way around, you mean? Clerics and druids always know all their spells, but can only prepare ones that their available spell slots allow.

Regardless, it's ridiculous to assume it works the other way, because then the best sorc builds will all be 18 sorc / 1 cleric / 1 druid or 17 sorc / 2 lock / 1 cleric or druid.

Are you arguing for being able to prepare spells based on available spell slots? :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

As an aside, that it's ridiculous isn't an argument. 3.5 showed us this :smallbiggrin:

[krugaan]

This is the argument for being crazy as I see it: You can prepare 9th level Cleric spells as a Sorcerer 16+ / Cleric 1 because Cleric says that you prepare your spells based on the spell slots you have available. As you use the Mutliclass table for spellcasting you have 9th level spell slots available.


Yes, well there is no way this could be considered RAI.

Sorc 20 - 15 spells known
Sorc 19 / cleric 1 - infinity billions of spells known!

[Mikal]

The cleric thing doesn't hold water.

Cleric spell casting is defined for cleric levels alone. Multiclassing rules specifically state you prepare each classes known/castable spells using each classes specific levels only, not the spell slots.

As it specifically says you prepare know spells each class individually, then each class is considered its own thing and in a vacuum when it comes to spells known/prepared.

[krugaan]

The cleric thing doesn't hold water.

Cleric spell casting is defined for cleric levels alone. Multiclassing rules specifically state you prepare each classes known/castable spells using each classes specific levels only, not the spell slots.

As it specifically says you prepare know spells each class individually, then each class is considered its own thing and in a vacuum when it comes to spells known/prepared.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying and virtually everyone agrees on.

Sure you can cast it with other classes spell slots. Hell, you can upcast it if you want. But you can't prepare SuperPowerfulThunderGodSmite as a level 1 cleric.

[SpamCreateWater]

Yes, well there is no way this could be considered RAI.

Sorc 20 - 15 spells known
Sorc 19 / cleric 1 - infinity billions of spells known!

I agree.

I'm not sure how your eleventy-billion thing works.


The cleric thing doesn't hold water.

Cleric spell casting is defined for cleric levels alone. Multiclassing rules specifically state you prepare each classes known/castable spells using each classes specific levels only, not the spell slots.

As it specifically says you prepare know spells each class individually, then each class is considered its own thing and in a vacuum when it comes to spells known/prepared.

You prepare spells as a level 1 Cleric, yes. Cleric prepares its spells according to its available spell slots - your spell slots are as per the multiclass table, it replaces your usual spell slots available.

I believe this to be why people consider it to be poorly written.

Edit: I think the big problem here is which part Spell Slots or Spell Preparation you prioritise. If you prioritise Spell Preparation section, you go with the RAI; if you prioritise Spell Slots, you can read it such that you get shenanigans.

[mgshamster]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying and virtually everyone agrees on.

Sure you can cast it with other classes spell slots. Hell, you can upcast it if you want. But you can't prepare SuperPowerfulThunderGodSmite as a level 1 cleric.

That's how I've always thought of it. I was just surprised that there were people actually arguing for it to work the powerful way. And more than one person. So I made a thread to stop us from going off topic in your thread. :)

[Mikal]

I agree.

I'm not sure how your eleventy-billion thing works.



You prepare spells as a level 1 Cleric, yes. Cleric prepares its spells according to its available spell slots - your spell slots are as per the multiclass table, it replaces your usual spell slots available.

I believe this to be why people consider it to be poorly written.

You ignore the part where you treat each class individually for
Knowing and prep. That means that you only count your cleric levels. Which means you use the available spell slots as if you were a 1st level cleric.

Which means you get 1st level spells

[krugaan]

That's how I've always thought of it. I was just surprised that there were people actually arguing for it to work the powerful way. And more than one person. So I made a thread to stop us from going off topic in your thread. :)

Oh, I don't care. I created that thread as a way to escape from the unrelenting boneheadedness in the various coffeelock threads, but that seems to have died down.

[LeonBH]

I thought it was clear. You can prepare 9th level
Spells but you can't know any, so you can only upcast existing spells to 9th level if you want to use those slots.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, your reading allows a Sorc 19/Wiz 1 to write 9th level spells into their spellbook.

[Greywander]

Here's the answer you're looking for:

As a Cleric 9/Wizard 8
You can know and can prepare up to 5th level cleric spells and 4th level wizard spells, as if you were only a Cleric 9, or only a Wizard 8.
You can cast those spells as 9th level spells using a 9th level spell slot, even though you don't know any 9th level spells.
You prepare spells separately for each class. Yes, this means you can have a lot more spells prepared than a single class could.
Basically, think of yourself as two separate characters, one a Cleric 9 and the other Wizard 8. You know the spells they would know. You can prepare the spells they can prepare.
BUT, you don't have the spell slots they would have. Instead, you have the spell slots of a single classed 9 + 8 = 17th level full caster.
Even though you don't know any spells 6th level or higher with either class, you can still upscale the spells you do know to 9th level.
Any spell you know can be cast using any spell slot you have. Most casters don't have separate spell slots, with warlocks being the only exception.
But you could cast cleric spells using the warlock's pact magic spell slots, or warlock spells using cleric spell slots.

It has to work this way, or some variation of this, otherwise you would be able to do a single level dip into every caster class and get access to 9th level spells from all of them. Cleric 1/Bard 1/Druid 1/Wizard 17 doesn't have 9th level spells for all those classes, only for the wizard.

Hope that answers all your questions.

[SpamCreateWater]

That's how I've always thought of it. I was just surprised that there were people actually arguing for it to work the powerful way. And more than one person. So I made a thread to stop us from going off topic in your thread. :)

Just a small nitpick. I think there were two people in the other thread and neither of them are arguing for it to work the powerful way.

One person started it by saying that the multiclassing section is poorly written because you can read it in such a way that you get crazy things.
The other person, me, has been trying to further explain and unpack to others why it works that way (from what I can see).

Edit: Ugh, too many replies.


You ignore the part where you treat each class individually for
Knowing and prep. That means that you only count your cleric levels. Which means you use the available spell slots as if you were a 1st level cleric.

Which means you get 1st level spells

That's where the issue is. Because your spell slots don't have that same section, just the preparation section.

[Mikal]

If you're saying what I think you're saying, your reading allows a Sorc 19/Wiz 1 to write 9th level spells into their spellbook.

Well sorcs don't have spellbooks, but sorry no. I clarified what I meant further in. Apologies if it wasn't clear

When I say prepare 9th level spells I meant you can cast spells in those slots. However you only know spells equal to the level of the individual class.

So you know a 5th level slot but can cast it as 9th level.

Was my fault for forgetting for a second no one prepares spells in advance anymore

That's where the issue is. Because your spell slots don't have that same section, just the preparation section.

No. The spell slots combine only for the purposes of casting spells.

When it comes to preparation the rules are explicit that you consider each class as if it were its own separate entity and you ignore any other classes.

That means when preparing spells as a cleric total spell slots does not factor in- only the spell slots you would get as if you were a cleric equal to the number of cleric levels you have.

Remember the known prepared area says "as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

So if you have x class of cleric, you prepare it as if you were a SINGLE CLASSED CLERIC OF X LEVEL.

Any other levels are superfluous and do not factor in. This includes the spell slots you would get for the levels in those
Classes.

[bid]

Anything in the Classes chapter uses class level.
If you are a 9th cleric, you are only a 9th cleric when using cleric features.

And cleric is no different from other classes:
- bard "learn [...] you have spell slots"
- cleric "prepare [...] you have spell slots"
- druid "prepare [...] you have spell slots"
- EK "learn [...] you have spell slots"
- paladin "prepare [...] you have spell slots"
- ranger "learn [...] you have spell slots"
- AT "learn [...] you have spell slots"
- sorcerer "learn [...] you have spell slots"
- wizard "add [...] you have spell slots"
The "you" here is the single-classed "you", not the MC "you".

Warlock is the only exception, with "no higher than [table]"


Now, those who read it differently are using the same perverted logic as those who wanted lifedrinker at level 12. They were shot down.

[mgshamster]

The other person, me, has been trying to further explain and unpack to others why it works that way (from what I can see)

Then I misunderstood you, good sir, and I apologise for it.

Still, it's an idea to pursue for clarity's sake. :)

[krugaan]

No offense spamdrinkwater, but this argument is such low hanging fruit that everyone is willing to jump in here.

And not only because it would naturally follow for every caster to dip one or two levels into cleric or druid to gain a vastly expanded spell pool, particularly bards and sorcs.

[SpamCreateWater]

Then I misunderstood you, good sir, and I apologise for it.

Still, it's an idea to pursue for clarity's sake. :)

No issues have arisen from this misunderstanding, so all's forgiven.

At least, until the screaming hordes come knocking at my door. Then we shall have words :smalltongue:


No offense spamdrinkwater, but this argument is such low hanging fruit that everyone is willing to jump in here.

I fail to see what offense I could take. People have been arguing the exact same thing and I continue to make the same point straight back at them. It really doesn't feel like this conversation is going anywhere.

[krugaan]

I fail to see what offense I could take. People have been arguing the exact same thing and I continue to make the same point straight back at them. It really doesn't feel like this conversation is going anywhere.

It really isn't, we should switch to nonsensical ad hominems.

SpamCreateWater is a ... is a DUMB name.

[Mikal]

What about my point that in preparation process you only factor in the classes of each spell casting level as if you were single classed for the number of levels you have for the class?

I.e. Any other level base variables such as combined spell slots are ignored

[SpamCreateWater]

It really isn't, we should switch to nonsensical ad hominems.

SpamCreateWater is a ... is a DUMB name.

You're krugaan for a bruisin', buddy.


What about my point that in preparation process you only factor in the classes of each spell casting level as if you were single classed for the number of levels you have for the class?

I.e. Any other level base variables such as combined spell slots are ignored

I've answered this several times :smallconfused: It's the whole reason this conversation is happening in the first place.
Your I.E. doesn't translate to what is said.

[Mikal]

You're krugaan for a bruisin', buddy.



I've answered this several times :smallconfused: It's the whole reason this conversation is happening in the first place.
Your I.E. doesn't translate to what is said.

From the phb:
"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."

Replace the word ranger with cleric and pretend it's talking about the number of spells a cleric can prepare. My I.e. makes more sense. Your other class levels do not factor in whatsoever. This includes spell slots you may have from having levels in those classes.

[krugaan]

You're krugaan for a bruisin', buddy.

Lol, touché.



I've answered this several times :smallconfused: It's the whole reason this conversation is happening in the first place.
Your I.E. doesn't translate to what is said.

Wait, I got this one, Mikal:

Mikal: "You can't separate part of the rule from the entirety of the rule. The rule states you prepare spells as if you are a single classed caster of appropriate level. A single classed caster only has slots of only up to X level, so you may only prepare spells of up to X level of that class. Only after the whole preparation phase is complete can you then cast these spells at the appropriate level using multiclass slots."

Spam: "No, because of all the stuff I said earlier."

Mikal: "Lets ask JC then!"

JC: "Oh, you can totally ignore parts of rules you don't like. See what I did with the Aspect of the Moon thing? I hate you, Mikal, logic doesn't come into it at all."

Mikal: "God f!@(!D!H@ !@(&!($&!(@&($"

ME: BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[LeonBH]

SpamCreateWater, are you saying that a Sorcerer 19/Wiz 1 can prepare 9th level Wizard spells in their Wizard spellbook, due to having 9th level spell slots?

[Mikal]

... I second this krugaan for a bruising sentiment.
If only because your premise is frighteningly apt on how this would probably play out.

[krugaan]

... I second this krugaan for a bruising sentiment.
If only because your premise is frighteningly apt on how this would probably play out.

The only real solution is to find JC and ask if you can have some of whatever he's smoking, LOL.

I really think your interpretation is the correct one, and he just went: "huh, can't have coffeelock shenanigans at too low a level."

[SpamCreateWater]

Lol, touché.



Wait, I got this one, Mikal:

Mikal: "You can't separate part of the rule from the entirety of the rule. The rule states you prepare spells as if you are a single classed caster of appropriate level. A single classed caster only has slots of only up to X level, so you may only prepare spells of up to X level of that class. Only after the whole preparation phase is complete can you then cast these spells at the appropriate level using multiclass slots."

Spam: "No, because of all the stuff I said earlier."

Mikal: "Lets ask JC then!"

JC: "Oh, you can totally ignore parts of rules you don't like. See what I did with the Aspect of the Moon thing? I hate you, Mikal, logic doesn't come into it at all."

Mikal: "God f!@(!D!H@ !@(&!($&!(@&($"

ME: BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anyone have a twitter account that they can remember the password/username/email address for? :smalltongue:


SpamCreateWater, are you saying that a Sorcerer 19/Wiz 1 can prepare 9th level Wizard spells in their Wizard spellbook, due to having 9th level spell slots?

Aside from the "I'm not saying that, I'm just attempting to explain to others" disclaimer :smalltongue: ... I couldn't tell you. The Wizard has a spellbook section, from memory, and I don't know what is says in there.

[LeonBH]

... I second this krugaan for a bruising sentiment.
If only because your premise is frighteningly apt on how this would probably play out.

This is an old issue. JC's answered tons of questions in this vein already. And you're in the right.

Clr 1/Wiz 9 must roll a Wis check to cast Greater Restoration from a scroll. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/846813734018310144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2017%2F0 4%2F23%2Fcleric-1-wizard-9-find-scroll-of-greater-restoration%2F)

Clr 2/Wiz 2 cannot write 2nd level Wiz spells into their spellbook. They can only cast 1st level spells from their 2nd level slots (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/512498067870736384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2014%2F0 9%2F19%2Fmulticlass-caster-spellbook%2F).

Druid 19/Wiz 1 cannot scribe 9th level Wiz spells into their spellbook (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/723581328839434240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F0 5%2F20%2Fcan-multiclass-druid-19-wizard-1-scribe-9th-level-wizard-spells-into-their-spellbook%2F).


Aside from the "I'm not saying that, I'm just attempting to explain to others" disclaimer :smalltongue: ... I couldn't tell you. The Wizard has a spellbook section, from memory, and I don't know what is says in there.

Just checking. I wasnt sure on your position as it wasn't entirely clear to me.

[krugaan]

This is an old issue. JC's answered tons of questions in this vein already. And you're in the right.

Clr 1/Wiz 9 must roll a Wis check to cast Greater Restoration from a scroll. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/846813734018310144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2017%2F0 4%2F23%2Fcleric-1-wizard-9-find-scroll-of-greater-restoration%2F)

Clr 2/Wiz 2 cannot write 2nd level Wiz spells into their spellbook. They can only cast 1st level spells from their 2nd level slots (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/512498067870736384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2014%2F0 9%2F19%2Fmulticlass-caster-spellbook%2F).

Druid 19/Wiz 1 cannot scribe 9th level Wiz spells into their spellbook (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/723581328839434240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F0 5%2F20%2Fcan-multiclass-druid-19-wizard-1-scribe-9th-level-wizard-spells-into-their-spellbook%2F).

SomeOtherGuy c/o SpamCreateWater: "Aha, but could a 19 sorc / cleric 1 prepare and cast 9th level cleric spells?"

[LeonBH]

SomeOtherGuy c/o SpamCreateWater: "Aha, but could a 19 sorc / cleric 1 prepare and cast 9th level cleric spells?"

My hypothetical response to this hypothetical retort. A 19 sorc/cleric 1 is a 1st level cleric, and cannot prepare anything beyond 1st level spells. Take this example from the cleric entry (not the multiclass entry):

"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."

[SpamCreateWater]

SomeOtherGuy c/o SpamCreateWater: "Aha, but could a 19 sorc / cleric 1 prepare and cast 9th level cleric spells?"

Unfortunately, as amusing as that is, it's not going to happen. I can't remember any of my Twitter details :smallwink:

Also, the tweet would be more "could a 19 sorc / cleric 1 prepare and cast 9th level cleric spells? asking for an acquaintance."

[toapat]

My hypothetical response to this hypothetical retort.

lets put it this way,

First: there are the Platnium and the Golden Rules of DnD 5e:

Platnium Rule: 5E DnD is a social game, treat it as such, Always favor the Rules as Intended over the Rules as Written. If a rule is stupid and the RAI cant be found, dont accept it for what it is and try to fix it, or crowdsource a solution if you must and share your solution.

Golden Rule: Specific trumps general.

RAI: literally you will never see anyone allowed to play the straight RAW because the intention that you dont get to prepare 9th level cleric spells the second you hit CL17 is pretty clear, from formatting, wording, and the fact that multiclassing is severed from the class rules by two chapters of the book.

RAW: The wording of Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spells Known and prepared states that you only prepare spells as a single class, this is a problem because it actually doesnt prevent the next rule in the book "Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spell Slots" from Specifically overriding the spell slots of each prepared spellcaster, this is a problem because all spellcasters reference their spell slots in a more general manner than the multiclassing rule specifically overriding their available spell slots.

in Forum discussion this matters in a hypothetical environment, in practice, the RAI is so blatantly clear i cant in good faith of discussion not also point out that while the RAW functions in an entirely overpowered way, said RAW should not be used at the table.

There are some hilarious RAW even further if we look at the Spells Known casters, who can, in the RAW, learn 9th level spells if their first level in that class is at lvl 17, but cant learn 2nd level spells until they have 3 levels in that class.

[SpamCreateWater]

*snip*

Omg, you're here. Save me.

Except, as I type that I realise the thread has died down and this will only kick the hornet's nest.

[toapat]

Omg, you're here. Save me.

im not sure how, even pointing out what Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared SHOULD say doesnt get people to actually look, read, and think about the rules.

People in the 5E subforum forgot how to recognize the difference between RAW and RAI in discussion, which yes shouldnt ever be the case but every editor makes a mistake or 40 when they are handling a book with just under 213k words (Yay Reddit).

[bid]

im not sure how, even pointing out [...] doesnt get people to actually look, read, and think about the rules.
Exactly.


No the phb is clear. Page 164
You can prepare your spells for each class as if you were only considering the levels you have in that class.
QED

[toapat]

QED

Except thats not how 5E dnd works. the first rule of the entire system is its still an exceptions based system which assumes Specific trumps general, and the wording which the MC: Spells prepared/known section isnt actually specific enough to invalidate the application of MC: Spellcasting from itself.

again, the RAI is probably the clearest we will ever see it being, but RAI is, by definition, not synonymous with RAW

[LeonBH]

Toapat, you're talking very vaguely. Yes, RAW and RAI are things that exist. Are you saying a Sorc 19/Cleric 1 can prepare 9th level cleric spells?

If you aren't, then we're agreeing, and there's no discussion.

If you are, then we can discuss why.

If you're talking about another topic entirely, well, I'm not interested in that tangent before learning your position on the relevant topic.

[krugaan]

Except thats not how 5E dnd works. the first rule of the entire system is its still an exceptions based system which assumes Specific trumps general, and the wording which the MC: Spells prepared/known section isnt actually specific enough to invalidate the application of MC: Spellcasting from itself.

again, the RAI is probably the clearest we will ever see it being, but RAI is, by definition, not synonymous with RAW

This is one of those times when I'm not seeing it, even after I quoted the rules earlier. Parsing arguments are the worst kinds of arguments, but hey, that's what the thread is for.

PHB states "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 a 3rd level wizard, you know three cantrips, and you spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which can be 2nd level spells, blah blah."

Note that a ranger 4 / wizard 3 should have 4/3/2 for spell slots. According to your interpretation, you should be able to cast 3rd level ranger spells, if only the ranger knew any. The fact that he cannot know any makes RAI and "RAW" adhere in this case.

Note also: according to RAW, this character can, according to your interpretation and multiclassing rules, inscribe spells of up to 3rd level in his book.


When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare ...

"Spell slots ... blah blah ... IF you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spell you know or can prepare."

My question for spam and toalot: given the bolded sentence, can you present me a situation where the bolded statement would ever actually apply, given that you claim, by RAW, that a 19sorc / 1 cleric can know and prepare 9th level cleric spells?

edit: actually this question is easily answered, because of the known spell thing. That's enough for now, the rest can wait for an actual response.

[Mikal]

Except thats not how 5E dnd works. the first rule of the entire system is its still an exceptions based system which assumes Specific trumps general, and the wording which the MC: Spells prepared/known section isnt actually specific enough to invalidate the application of MC: Spellcasting from itself.

Yes it is. It specifically says that you treat each spellcasting class as if it were a single classed spellcaster of the level you have in that class.
I.E. A ranger 4/cleric 7 treats themselves as a ranger 4 when preparing ranger spells and a cleric 7 when preparing cleric spells.

Spell slots come into it only when it comes to number of spells cast per day, not preparation.


again, the RAI is probably the clearest we will ever see it being, but RAI is, by definition, not synonymous with RAW

No, the RAW is pretty clear here, and unlike some areas, actually meshes with RAI.


lets put it this way,

First: there are the Platnium and the Golden Rules of DnD 5e:

Strange. I don't see "Platinum" or "Gold" rules in the index for the PHB or DMG except in relation to coins.


Platnium Rule: 5E DnD is a social game, treat it as such, Always favor the Rules as Intended over the Rules as Written. If a rule is stupid and the RAI cant be found, dont accept it for what it is and try to fix it, or crowdsource a solution if you must and share your solution.

Funny. I don't see that rule anywhere. Perhaps you can tell me what page it's on?


Golden Rule: Specific trumps general.
Yup. I know that rule, but never heard it call a golden rule. Perhaps you have a different printing of the books then me?



RAI: literally you will never see anyone allowed to play the straight RAW because the intention that you dont get to prepare 9th level cleric spells the second you hit CL17 is pretty clear, from formatting, wording, and the fact that multiclassing is severed from the class rules by two chapters of the book.

RAW: The wording of Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spells Known and prepared states that you only prepare spells as a single class, this is a problem because it actually doesnt prevent the next rule in the book "Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spell Slots" from Specifically overriding the spell slots of each prepared spellcaster, this is a problem because all spellcasters reference their spell slots in a more general manner than the multiclassing rule specifically overriding their available spell slots.

See above about RAW and RAI meshing. You're trying to conflate Spell Slots available for casting with the rules for known spells. Known/Prepared spells specifically states you treat the ability to prepare/know spells as if you were single classed in whatever class you're using. That means any effects from other spellcasting levels and classes do not apply. This includes spell slots.

[samcifer]

So if I were to go 10 Light Cleric and 10 Land Druid, I'd have 5 Cleric cantrips + Light (for Light Cleric) and access to Lv. 5 Cleric spells with the Light spells added, 4 Druid cantrips, access to Lv. 5 Druid spells with the Land spells for the circle spells of lv.s 3 and 5, and for spell slots, I'd have 4 lv. 1 slots, 3 lv. 2, 3, and 4 slots, But what about for levels beyond 10 in a class? How do spell slots of levels 5 - 9 worK. this has always confused me.

EDIT: I meant 10 levels each of Light Cleric and Land Druid. Not sure why I typed warlock when I meant to type cleric. :P

[pdegan2814]

So if I were to go 10 Light Warlock and 10 Land Druid, I'd have 5 Cleric cantrips + Light (for Light Cleric) and access to Lv. 5 Cleric spells with the Light spells added, 4 Druid cantrips, access to Lv. 5 Druid spells with the Land spells for the circle spells of lv.s 3 and 5, and for spell slots, I'd have 4 lv. 1 slots, 3 lv. 2, 3, and 4 slots, But what about for levels beyond 10 in a class? How do spell slots of levels 5 - 9 worK. this has always confused me.

Not sure I follow. I'm seeing references to "Light Warlock", "Land Druid" and "Light Cleric". Which two classes are you? I'm going to assume you meant Light Cleric at the beginning since you don't mention Warlock anywhere else.

Spell slots for levels 5-9 work the same as spell slots of levels 1-4, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're a Level 20 character with 10 in Light Cleric and 10 in Land Druid, you know 5 Cleric cantrips plus Light, you also know 5 Druid cantrips(since all L10 Druids know 4, and Land Druids get an extra at L2). So that's 10 cantrips total that you always have at your disposal. You WILL need to keep track of which are which, because Light Cleric's 8th-level ability(Potent Spellcasting) lets you add you Wisdom mod to damage for Cleric cantrips only. So even if one of your Druid cantrips is also on the Cleric list, if you picked it as one of your Druid choices, Potent Spellcasting will not apply. Now, for your SPELL spells. Each morning your character essentially prepares two lists of spells they will have access to that day. One list will be as a 10th-level Light Cleric, so you will choose 10 + your Wisdom mod off the Cleric list of 1st through 5th level spells. You will also get ALL of the Light Domain spells, since they are given up through Cleric L9. Then on the Druid side you'll do much the same thing. You choose 10 + Wisdom mod off the Druid list of 1st through 5th, plus all of the spells for your Land choice(since again, they are granted up through Druid L9). So you'll have spells of 1st through 5th level, but as a 20th-level character you'll have spell slots up through 9th level. Those 6th-9th level slots can be used simply as extra slots for your 1st-5th level spells, or you can use them to cast your spells at a higher level for increased effect(Like a 7th-level Spirit Guardians, for example).

[samcifer]

So you'll have spells of 1st through 5th level, but as a 20th-level character you'll have spell slots up through 9th level. Those 6th-9th level slots can be used simply as extra slots for your 1st-5th level spells, or you can use them to cast your spells at a higher level for increased effect(Like a 7th-level Spirit Guardians, for example).

That part about being lv. 10 in two different classes as a total level 20 character, but having level 9 spell slots is the part that confuses he. I've read if several times, but perhaps an example or two would help me to understand it better.

Also edited my previous post. I meant to type cleric, not warlock. :P

[pdegan2814]

That part about being lv. 10 in two different classes as a total level 20 character, but having level 9 spell slots is the part that confuses he. I've read if several times, but perhaps an example or two would help me to understand it better.

Also edited my previous post. I meant to type cleric, not warlock. :P

First things first, if you're going to play a multiclassed caster, take some time to go through the section in Chapter 6 of the PHB about Multiclassing. They do lay it all out, but you need to read through it piece by piece. The key thing I think that's tripping you up is while you pick your spells from each class based on your level in that class only, your set of available spell slots is based on your total number of Spellcasting levels. "Spellcasting" and "Pact Magic" are the two class features that give you the ability to cast spells from spell slots. Warlocks get Pact Magic, everyone else(so far) gets Spellcasting. Rather than give you a set of Spellcasting spell slots for each of your classes with that feature, the PHB gives you a formula to determine what your effective "Spellcasting Level" is(my term, not theirs) and give you a single set of Spellcasting slots based on that level. The reason there is a formula is because while Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Bards and Sorcerers are all what most folks call "full casters", not everyone is a "full caster". If you look at the spell slots for Paladins & Rangers compared to the full caster classes, you'll see that they gain their spell slots more slowly. And the spellcasting subclasses for Fighter & Rogue(Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster) gain them even more slowly. Think of it almost like your Proficiency Bonus. It's based on the total number of levels you have. Similarly, the number of Spellcasting slots you have is based on your total Spellcasting Level as determined by the formula. But rather than combining ALL your levels, it just combines the levels of your Spellcasting classes. Some examples:

Cleric 3 / Druid 1 - you're a 4th-level caster, so you have 1st- and 2nd-level spell slots, but no 2nd-level Druid spells. You CAN however use a 2nd-level slot to cast a Druid spell, and it will gain the benefit of being cast at a higher level if there is one(extra damage for a Thunderwave, for example)

Bard 5 / Sorcerer 7 - you're an 11th-level caster, so you have spell slots up to 6th level. But you only have up to 3rd-level Bard spells and 4th-level Sorcerer spells

Wizard 5 / Fighter(Eldritch Knight) 3 - here's where you've gotta do math. The formula says you add all your Wizard levels, plus one third of your Fighter levels if you're an EK. So in this case you'd be a 6th-level caster for purposes of determining how many spell slots you get. A little wrinkle here, you're picking off the same list for both classes, but you have to keep in mind that EK's are limited to a subset of the Wizard spell list. Another reason to take it one class at a time when choosing spells :)

Bard 4 / Paladin 8 - Paladin levels are halved in the formula, so get spell slots like an 8th-level caster. In this case, you're limited to 2nd-level spells from both class' spell lists because Paladins progress more slowly. But you have up to 4th-level spell slots.

I hope that helps some.

[toapat]

Toapat, you're talking very vaguely. Yes, RAW and RAI are things that exist. Are you saying a Sorc 19/Cleric 1 can prepare 9th level cleric spells?

If you aren't, then we're agreeing, and there's no discussion.

If you are, then we can discuss why.

If you're talking about another topic entirely, well, I'm not interested in that tangent before learning your position on the relevant topic.

By strict, exact RAW as based on Rule #1 of 5E, a Sorc 19/cleric 1 can prepare 9th level cleric spells.

this is because the clause "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." doesnt actually prevent "Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table." from applying because there is no strictly defined timing to these paragraphs, and because generally ever caster is worded in "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."

the problem is that classes use spellslots you have, but you dont have class spell slots in Multiclassing, you have Character spell slots.

Conversely speaking, "can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." makes the RAI very clear.

[bid]

EDIT: I meant 10 levels each of Light Cleric and Land Druid. Not sure why I typed warlock when I meant to type cleric. :P
You are a light cleric 10, with all its features. Prepare any spell a light cleric 10 can.
You are a land druid 10, with all its features. Prepare any spell a land druid 10 can.
That's it.

[Mikal]

By strict, exact RAW as based on Rule #1 of 5E, a Sorc 19/cleric 1 can prepare 9th level cleric spells.

this is because the clause "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." doesnt actually prevent "Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table." from applying because there is no strictly defined timing to these paragraphs, and because generally ever caster is worded in "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."

Timing doesn't matter. Your spell slot total is based on your total number of levels. However, when preparing your spells, you ignore all level variables except those related to the class you are preparing spells for.

So if you are a cleric 1/sorc 19, when preparing cleric spells the sorc 19 spells and all effects, including spell slots do not exist for the purposes of preparing spells

[samcifer]

First things first, if you're going to play a multiclassed caster, take some time to go through the section in Chapter 6 of the PHB about Multiclassing. They do lay it all out, but you need to read through it piece by piece. The key thing I think that's tripping you up is while you pick your spells from each class based on your level in that class only, your set of available spell slots is based on your total number of Spellcasting levels. "Spellcasting" and "Pact Magic" are the two class features that give you the ability to cast spells from spell slots. Warlocks get Pact Magic, everyone else(so far) gets Spellcasting. Rather than give you a set of Spellcasting spell slots for each of your classes with that feature, the PHB gives you a formula to determine what your effective "Spellcasting Level" is(my term, not theirs) and give you a single set of Spellcasting slots based on that level. The reason there is a formula is because while Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Bards and Sorcerers are all what most folks call "full casters", not everyone is a "full caster". If you look at the spell slots for Paladins & Rangers compared to the full caster classes, you'll see that they gain their spell slots more slowly. And the spellcasting subclasses for Fighter & Rogue(Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster) gain them even more slowly. Think of it almost like your Proficiency Bonus. It's based on the total number of levels you have. Similarly, the number of Spellcasting slots you have is based on your total Spellcasting Level as determined by the formula. But rather than combining ALL your levels, it just combines the levels of your Spellcasting classes. Some examples:

Cleric 3 / Druid 1 - you're a 4th-level caster, so you have 1st- and 2nd-level spell slots, but no 2nd-level Druid spells. You CAN however use a 2nd-level slot to cast a Druid spell, and it will gain the benefit of being cast at a higher level if there is one(extra damage for a Thunderwave, for example)

Bard 5 / Sorcerer 7 - you're an 11th-level caster, so you have spell slots up to 6th level. But you only have up to 3rd-level Bard spells and 4th-level Sorcerer spells

Wizard 5 / Fighter(Eldritch Knight) 3 - here's where you've gotta do math. The formula says you add all your Wizard levels, plus one third of your Fighter levels if you're an EK. So in this case you'd be a 6th-level caster for purposes of determining how many spell slots you get. A little wrinkle here, you're picking off the same list for both classes, but you have to keep in mind that EK's are limited to a subset of the Wizard spell list. Another reason to take it one class at a time when choosing spells :)

Bard 4 / Paladin 8 - Paladin levels are halved in the formula, so get spell slots like an 8th-level caster. In this case, you're limited to 2nd-level spells from both class' spell lists because Paladins progress more slowly. But you have up to 4th-level spell slots.

I hope that helps some.

Okay, I knew I'd probably end up with 3 5th level slots at lv 20 as a cleric 10/Druid 10, but was uncertain if you still got access to spell slots of higher levels or not even though you never learn any spells of those same levels. That was what confused me. So at character level 17, I get a lv. 9 spell slot and can use it to cast any of my lv 5 or lower spells as a lv 9 spell from either the cleric or druid spells I prepared.

I assume that lat max level with this guild, I could, with 20 Wisdom, prepare 15 cleric spells and 15 Druid spells? (5 for WIS and 10 for the level of that class)?

[bid]

Conversely speaking, "can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." makes the RAI very clear.
Nice. So rule as written is the new RAI.
That sounds double-plus good.


But as I said: QED.

[toapat]

you ignore all level variables except those related to the class you are preparing spells for

this is NOT how an exception oriented rules system operates

[krugaan]

this is NOT how an exception oriented rules system operates

It might help if you explain your view of this beyond the vague "specific trumps general" phrase.

AFAIK, exception oriented rules systems denote exceptions *very* clearly.

This is a parsing argument: you are taking each sentence as evidence of RAW both out of order and in isolation.

I (we?) are taking each section as a whole, in the written order.

Technically, we're both exactly RAW according to our own parsing.

[toapat]

It might help if you explain your view of this beyond the vague "specific trumps general" phrase.

AFAIK, exception oriented rules systems denote exceptions *very* clearly.

This is a parsing argument: you are taking each sentence as evidence of RAW both out of order and in isolation.

I (we?) are taking each section as a whole, in the written order.

Technically, we're both exactly RAW according to our own parsing.

"Specific Trumps General" Aka the Golden Rule, is the Standard Construction of the structure of an Exception Oriented Rules System.

Appearing sequentially in the printing of the rulebook of DnD does not actually correlate to the RAW. Most people i know role characters basically as "Background + Race > Class > Ability values" because in storytelling terms, you tell Prologue:(Beginning, Middle, End). But the RAW construction of a character is Race > Class > Ability score> Background. While they appear in the books with ability scores appearing 50 pages after backgrounds.

Similarly, the actual First Rule of DnD 5E, is the 7th header in the introduction, despite being the most significant rule in the game.

So the first mistake you are making is to assume Sequential Presentation is synonymous with Sequential Rules application.

Now, onto spellcasting:

A mono-classed spellcaster has Mono-classed spell slots, with each class investing access to their own spell slots.

As defined by Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spell slots, Individual classes do not contribute any spell slots to the character, instead contributing a gestalt Caster Level which is used to reference a table. For instance, a lvl 9 Monoclassed paladin can prepare 3rd level spells, if they then take a level in ranger, because they halve both classes and round down their caster level, the paladin contributes 4 CL and ranger contributes 0 CL, resulting in the paladin Losing the ability to cast 3rd level spells.

The problem with Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared comes from the fact that individual classes Under multiclassing do not have or contribute spell slots. The only spell slots that character has are those as defined in the Multiclass: Spellcasting" Spell Slots rules. If Spells Known and Prepared stops you from having the spell slots from Multiclass: Spellcasting, Spell slots, then you have No spell slots at the moment of preparation and cannot cast at all.

If you can prepare spells, you only have spell slots as determined by Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots which you use to determine your maximum level spell prepared

[krugaan]

"Specific Trumps General" Aka the Golden Rule, is the Standard Construction of the structure of an Exception Oriented Rules System.

Appearing sequentially in the printing of the rulebook of DnD does not actually correlate to the RAW. Most people i know role characters basically as "Background + Race > Class > Ability values" because in storytelling terms, you tell Prologue:(Beginning, Middle, End). But the RAW construction of a character is Race > Class > Ability score> Background. While they appear in the books with ability scores appearing 50 pages after backgrounds.

Similarly, the actual First Rule of DnD 5E, is the 7th header in the introduction, despite being the most significant rule in the game.

So the first mistake you are making is to assume Sequential Presentation is synonymous with Sequential Rules application.

Ok, I'll accept this as a postulate of your argument. So, where does it say the correct sequence in which we apply the rules?



Now, onto spellcasting:

A mono-classed spellcaster has Mono-classed spell slots, with each class investing access to their own spell slots.


This I'll have to look up, because IIRC correctly, spell slots are spell slots, unless they're pact slots.



As defined by Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spell slots, Individual classes do not contribute any spell slots to the character, instead contributing a gestalt Caster Level which is used to reference a table. For instance, a lvl 9 Monoclassed paladin can prepare 3rd level spells, if they then take a level in ranger, because they halve both classes and round down their caster level, the paladin contributes 4 CL and ranger contributes 0 CL, resulting in the paladin Losing the ability to cast 3rd level spells.


Because spell slots are spell slots.



The problem with Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared comes from the fact that individual classes Under multiclassing do not have or contribute spell slots. The only spell slots that character has are those as defined in the Multiclass: Spellcasting" Spell Slots rules. If Spells Known and Prepared stops you from having the spell slots from Multiclass: Spellcasting, Spell slots, then you have No spell slots at the moment of preparation and cannot cast at all.


This is covered by "as if you were a single classed caster of the same level".



If you can prepare spells, you only have spell slots as determined by Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots which you use to determine your maximum level spell prepared

This I disagree with as outlined above.

I also fail to see how "specific beats general" applies to any of this. At least in terms of supporting your argument.

I'm going to guess we're going to differ on our interpretation of "specific" next.

[toapat]

Ok, I'll accept this as a postulate of your argument. So, where does it say the correct sequence in which we apply the rules?

I'm going to guess we're going to differ on our interpretation of "specific" next.

The RAW order of character creation comes from pages 11-15 of the PHB. i did truncate steps 5-6 because everyone picks Equipment then has the party show up in the <Conveinient plot location>, because you cant have everyone show up before you finish rolling really, and you dont know what equipment you want before the other parts of your character are assembled

What youre failing to understand is that Specific trumps General does not mean that the rule its trumping is not a specific rule in and of itself. a Specific rule can either Specifically override other rules (Spell slots granted by individual classes) or it can override a general rule, such as how a character of arbitrary level does not have spellcasting unless they specifically are at least a Cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, or Bard of 1st level, or a Paladin or Ranger of 2nd level, or a Fighter Eldrich Knight or a Rogue Arcane Trickster of 3rd level.

[krugaan]

The RAW order of character creation comes from pages 11-15 of the PHB. i did truncate steps 5-6 because everyone picks Equipment then has the party show up in the <Conveinient plot location>, because you cant have everyone show up before you finish rolling really, and you dont know what equipment you want before the other parts of your character are assembled

I'll have to check the PHB (damn being AFB!) but how, exactly, is the order RAW in this case? More importantly, how does it apply to preparing spells?



What youre failing to understand is that Specific trumps General does not mean that the rule its trumping is not a specific rule in and of itself. a Specific rule can either Specifically override other rules (Spell slots granted by individual classes) or it can override a general rule, such as how a character of arbitrary level does not have spellcasting unless they specifically are at least a Cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, or Bard of 1st level, or a Paladin or Ranger of 2nd level, or a Fighter Eldrich Knight or a Rogue Arcane Trickster of 3rd level.

I totally understand that.

So, which is more specific for preparing spells as multiclass caster, the rule in the section marked "preparing" or the one marked "slots"?

[Mikal]

Order doesn't matter though.
Specific trumps general, and it specifically says you treat each class as if you only had levels in that class when it comes to prepared/known spells.

[krugaan]

Order doesn't matter though.
Specific trumps general, and it specifically says you treat each class as if you only had levels in that class when it comes to prepared/known spells.

You're going to have to be more specific with your argument here.

/bazing

[LeonBH]

By strict, exact RAW as based on Rule #1 of 5E, a Sorc 19/cleric 1 can prepare 9th level cleric spells.

:smallconfused:


this is because the clause "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." doesnt actually prevent "Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."

Yes, you prepare spells for each class individually, but you get spell slots for your total caster level.


from applying because there is no strictly defined timing to these paragraphs, and because generally ever caster is worded in "You prepare the list of paladin Spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list.

Yes, but a level 2 Paladin only has 1st level Paladin spells available to them, regardless of their caster level.


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).

Yes, correct so far.


The Spells must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots."

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

Instead of choosing spells based on available spell slots, as a multiclassed character to which the multiclassing rules are binding, it is your character level that you must use instead.


the problem is that classes use spellslots you have, but you dont have class spell slots in Multiclassing, you have Character spell slots.

No, this one is wrong. Classes use the individual character level they have, not the spell slots. This is because the rule says:

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

This restricts the clause "The Spells must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots" when the character is multiclassed.


Conversely speaking, "can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." makes the RAI very clear.

That sentence you're quoting is RAW though, and so it makes RAW very clear as well.

[toapat]

Order doesn't matter though.
Specific trumps general, and it specifically says you treat each class as if you only had levels in that class when it comes to prepared/known spells.

you really dont understand why comprehensiveness matters


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

This clause, which is the only portion of rules under Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared, does not interact with or define how you determine spell slots when you have no spell slots from any classes. If you have spell slots, you have spell slots equal to the number defined under Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots. you can either prepare spells of upto maximum spell slot level from paladin, cleric, and druid lists, or you can prepare and know no spells because you have no spell slots at all from individual classes.

it doesnt matter that it says "individually". if it was written competently "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class in isolation, as if you were a single-classed member of that class of which no other classes contribute to your spell slots.", as this specifically calls out the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules and prevents them from applying before.

Remember, Adverbs with more than 1 definition are blank spaces in Legalese

[LeonBH]

This clause, which is the only portion of rules under Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared, does not interact with or define how you determine spell slots when you have no spell slots from any classes.

I'll let you have your debate with Mikal undisturbed by me (mostly), but could you clarify this for me?

Of course the rule on determining your spell slots does not interact with classes that do not give you spell slots.


Remember, Adverbs with more than 1 definition are blank spaces in Legalese

Are you saying that because the word used is "individually" then you are choosing to read it as "a person," as in:

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

Since "individually" stems from "individual", which itself has more than one definition?

[krugaan]

you really dont understand why comprehensiveness matters


You keep saying "don't understand", yet you're not defining anything here...



This clause, which is the only portion of rules under Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared, does not interact with or define how you determine spell slots when you have no spell slots from any classes. If you have spell slots, you have spell slots equal to the number defined under Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots. you can either prepare spells of upto maximum spell slot level from paladin, cleric, and druid lists, or you can prepare and know no spells because you have no spell slots at all from individual classes.

it doesnt matter that it says "individually".


...wat? So you can just ignore words?


...if it was written competently "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class in isolation, as if you were a single-classed member of that class of which no other classes contribute to your spell slots.", as this specifically calls out the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules and prevents them from applying before.


Your edited version is even more unclear than the original. Do you think you could mark out the clauses for us?

You determine [what spells {you {know and can prepare}} for each class] in isolation, *as if* you were a single-classed member of that class of which no other classes contribute to your spell slots.

I honestly cant make heads or tails of the last clause(s).



Remember, Adverbs with more than 1 definition are blank spaces in Legalese

Ok then.

[toapat]

You keep saying "don't understand", yet you're not defining anything here...

...wat? So you can just ignore words?

Your edited version is even more unclear than the original. Do you think you could mark out the clauses for us?

Ok then.

1: Cover Every edge case

2: no, each distinct class has specific rules that are actually entirely devoid of exception in preparing non-approved spells. the SKaP clause stops you from preparing ranger spells as wizard spells or learning wizard spells as ranger spells. which you already cant do.

3: i call out the problem in that the SKaP clause DOES NOT invalidate the application of MC:SC: Spell slots in the PHB before spell preparation.

4: any word with multiple definitions, and basically all adverbs. Legalese and good writing have the same opinion on adverbs, that is that they do not belong in English.

[LeonBH]

Toapat, can you address my posts, please?

[toapat]

Toapat, can you address my posts, please?

If MC:SC:SKaP prevents spell slots from MC:SC:SS from applying during preparation, your classes doing spell preparation have no existant spell slots in preparation/level up, and thus CANNOT Know/Prepare any spells.

SKaP has to specifically define how spell preparation works which it does not

[LeonBH]

If MC:SC:SKaP prevents spell slots from MC:SC:SS from applying during preparation, your classes doing spell preparation have no existant spell slots in preparation/level up, and thus CANNOT Know/Prepare any spells.

Let me unpack this. You're saying that if the following rule:

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

Overwrites the following rule:

"The Spells must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots."

Then nobody can prepare any spells. Therefore, since that is absurd, it must be the case that it doesn't overwrite that rule.

Have I understood you correctly?

[krugaan]

1: Cover Every edge case


They have done that, as will be outlined in 2 and 3.



2: no, each distinct class has specific rules that are actually entirely devoid of exception in preparing non-approved spells. the SKaP clause stops you from preparing ranger spells as wizard spells or learning wizard spells as ranger spells. which you already cant do.


So we can't ignore words...



3: i call out the problem in that the SKaP clause DOES NOT invalidate the application of MC:SC: Spell slots in the PHB before spell preparation.


It does if you complete the SKaP sentence in it's entirety without arbitrarily omitting words like "individually"... and (barring pact slots) there is no differentiation between slots, whether single class or multi class.



4: any word with multiple definitions, and basically all adverbs. Legalese and good writing have the same opinion on adverbs, that is that they do not belong in English.

Precise, i think is a better term here. Good is ... well, i'm sure you know.

So, your entire argument is resting on your objection to the specific word "individually," specifically that it is "bad," if that is an acceptable term for "not good" in this situation ... do I have that correct?

[toapat]

Have I understood you correctly?

No, youre looking at the wrong rule


You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.

this rule specifically replaces the spell slots of all caster classes with Caster Level, which is composited and causes you to have a non-class specific spell slot allocation. this rule is ALWAYS in effect once you have multiple classes with "inherent spellcasting" (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard).

Depending on how exactly you consider the existence of Individually in the previous rule (redundant/nondescriptive Or functional beyond the defined parameters), since your individual classes do not have spell slots which are intrinsically tied to spell preparation, you either have No spell slots at moment of learn/preparation of spells. or all of the spell slots of your classes. because the rule does not call out how the rules interact in a meaningful way.

[LeonBH]

this rule specifically replaces the spell slots of all caster classes with Caster Level, which is composited and causes you to have a non-class specific spell slot allocation. this rule is ALWAYS in effect once you have multiple classes with "inherent spellcasting" (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard).

I see what you mean now. You're saying that no multiclassed caster has individual spell slots. You're correct.


Depending on how exactly you consider the existence of Individually in the previous rule (redundant/nondescriptive Or functional beyond the defined parameters), since your individual classes do not have spell slots which are intrinsically tied to spell preparation, you either have No spell slots at moment of learn/preparation of spells. or all of the spell slots of your classes. because the rule does not call out how the rules interact in a meaningful way.

Ah, but this is not true. If you consider the rule:

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

Then the clause "as if you were a single-classed member of that class" modifies the premise substantially. When you consider yourself only as a level 1 cleric (despite also being a level 19 Sorcerer), you don't get 9th level spell slots anymore. Therefore, you cannot prepare 9th level spells.

Do we agree here?

[krugaan]

Let me unpack this. You're saying that if the following rule:

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

Overwrites the following rule:

RULE 2) "The Spells must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots."

Then nobody can prepare any spells. Therefore, since that is absurd, it must be the case that it doesn't overwrite that rule.

Have I understood you correctly?

No, he's presenting two cases here:

1) during application of rule 1), we hit Rule 2), and since Spell Slots are determined by the multiclassing table, we use that as the limiting factor

or

2) during application of rule 1), we hit Rule 2), but since we have no slots "as a single level caster" because we're supposed to use the multiclassing table, as it is more specific.

1) is flawed because it ignores "as if you were a single classed caster" mid procedure, and

2) is flawed because it ignores slot generation entirely, and also ignores that the wording in each individual class says nothing about any different kinds of slots, which do not exist anyway (except pact slots, those are different)

[Mikal]

you really dont understand why comprehensiveness matters



This clause, which is the only portion of rules under Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared, does not interact with or define how you determine spell slots when you have no spell slots from any classes. If you have spell slots, you have spell slots equal to the number defined under Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots. you can either prepare spells of upto maximum spell slot level from paladin, cleric, and druid lists, or you can prepare and know no spells because you have no spell slots at all from individual classes.

it doesnt matter that it says "individually". if it was written competently "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class in isolation, as if you were a single-classed member of that class of which no other classes contribute to your spell slots.", as this specifically calls out the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules and prevents them from applying before.

Remember, Adverbs with more than 1 definition are blank spaces in Legalese

So in other words, you are completely ignoring the fact that the rule specifically says you specifically use only the single class spellcasting level information when it comes to spells known and prepared, so you can add context such as Legalese which has no actual context in this discussion.

This isn't a contract, nor is it a legal brief.

Spellcasting slots are combined only for the number of spells you can cast. It has nothing whatsoever to do with spells known/prepared as that specifically says you only factor in the specific single class itself.

[toapat]

1) is flawed because it ignores "as if you were a single classed caster" mid procedure, and

2) is flawed because it ignores slot generation entirely, and also ignores that the wording in each individual class says nothing about any different kinds of slots, which do not exist anyway (except pact slots, those are different)

Both of these conclusions are flawed from the assumption that you have a valid rule in the first place modifying the definition and extent of spell preparation in 5E.

Fallacy #1 relies on ignoring the myriad definition of options involved in spell selection as defined by the Spellcasting Class Feature, and the reference to tables which are not in effect with a character because they were removed by the multiclassing rules. If the "Individually, as though a single classed character" was wholly valid, then you do not have any spell slots from classes because you do not further define temporary suspension of application of the MC:SC: Spell slots rule, because those classes are still contributing spell slots to the character as a whole and not from the class.

Fallacy #2 ignores that because you replace the defined access to spell slot progression, there is cause to interpret the change in defined spell progression as effecting every interparty class.

youre reading this like Pre-FAQ Celestine/Imagnifiers in 8E WH40k where you are so hung up on the RAI that you are completely ignoring the RAW because the RAW is a bad thing that we only bring up in logical, procedural discussion involving understanding the limits and technical errors in the system, rather than actually playing with it because AoF Exorcists is badass.


*spam*

Go read literally ANY Spellcaster's spells known/prepared rules. nothing of what you said involved reading rules and tracing interactions

[LeonBH]

If the "Individually, as though a single classed character" was wholly valid, then you do not have any spell slots from classes because you do not further define temporary suspension of application of the MC:SC: Spell slots rule, because those classes are still contributing spell slots to the character as a whole and not from the class.

You are ignoring the full implication of "Individually, as though a single classed character" and that is, you must prepare as if you had the full spellcasting slots of only a single classed character, for the purposes of preparing spells and spells known.

For the cleric, they prepare like the following:

"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"

Since you must prepare spells as if you were a single classed character, then you must assume that the above is how the cleric would prepare spells, regardless of the actual spell slots they have due to multiclassing.

[toapat]

You are ignoring the full implication of "Individually, as though a single classed character" and that is, you must prepare as if you had the full spellcasting slots of only a single classed character, for the purposes of preparing spells and spells known.

im not ignoring those implications, those implications mean nothing when i have a rule that completely invalidates the existence of each individual class's spell slot tables that isnt named Warlock, because every single class first line of the Spellcasting entry says "Reference this table to determine your spell slots". That table is invalid in multiclassing even under a "as though a single classed character"

WotC shoulld have realized this during the hundreds of hours in editing of the PHB.

[bid]

im not ignoring those implications, those implications mean nothing when i have a rule that completely invalidates the existence[...]
You mean, the same rule that states:

"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."Don't you?

Such level of selective memory is hard to reach without living under a bridge.

[LeonBH]

im not ignoring those implications, those implications mean nothing

Let me re-word that. You are selectively choosing parts of the RAW that fit your reading.


when i have a rule that completely invalidates the existence of each individual class's spell slot tables that isnt named Warlock, because every single class first line of the Spellcasting entry says "Reference this table to determine your spell slots".

When you say "Individually, as though a single classed character," then you must prepare as if you had the full spellcasting slots of a single classed character. The fact they do not have their own cleric spell slots does not factor into it because you just pretend that they do.

That is why you prepare "Individually, as though a single classed character,"

If a 3rd level cleric prepared spells as if they had no spell slots, they are violating RAW.

Similarly, if they prepared spells as if they had 9th level spell slots, they are violating RAW again.

The rule they are violating is:

"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"

However, if a 3rd level cleric prepared spells like a 3rd level cleric, they are in full accordance of the RAW.


That table is invalid in multiclassing even under a "as though a single classed character".

This is logically inconsistent.

"As though a single classed character" validates that table, because that table is what single classed characters use.


WotC shoulld have realized this during the hundreds of hours in editing of the PHB.

They probably realized someone would like to twist the RAW in certain ways. There was likely nothing they can do about that.

[krugaan]

I think I've expended about as much effort as Im willing, looks like you lads have a handle on it.

Pip pip, cheerio, and all that rot.

[BoringInfoGuy]

im not ignoring those implications, those implications mean nothing when i have a rule that completely invalidates the existence of each individual class's spell slot tables that isnt named Warlock, because every single class first line of the Spellcasting entry says "Reference this table to determine your spell slots". That table is invalid in multiclassing even under a "as though a single classed character"

WotC shoulld have realized this during the hundreds of hours in editing of the PHB.
WotC is not able to create rules that can only be interpreted one way. Then again, neither can anyone else. No phrasing could possibly be 100% clear to 100% of the people.

That is not really the problem though. Sometimes someone will misunderstand a rule. It happens. Sadly, what often happens next is that confirmation bias will set in, causing the person in the wrong to reject any information that would allow him to realize he was in error. The only arguments that are acceptable for consideration are those that appear to confirm the original mistake.

I’ve learned that there is a point where you need to realize that further discussion is a pointless exercise in frustration. Your best option is simply to walk away, shake your head, and hope you don’t fall in the same confirmation bias trap next topic. (Or that it wasn’t you in the wrong this time)

[LeonBH]

Very wise, BoringInfoGuy. Out of curiosity, since you hopped in the discussion, and without the need to convince anyone of your stance, do you think a Cleric 1/Sorc 19 can prepare 9th level cleric spells by RAW?

I ask because your post sounds like you're implying toapat is guilty of confirmation bias, but then turn around and imply he is not.

[pdegan2814]

By strict, exact RAW as based on Rule #1 of 5E, a Sorc 19/cleric 1 can prepare 9th level cleric spells.

this is because the clause "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." doesnt actually prevent "Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table." from applying because there is no strictly defined timing to these paragraphs, and because generally ever caster is worded in "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."

the problem is that classes use spellslots you have, but you dont have class spell slots in Multiclassing, you have Character spell slots.

Conversely speaking, "can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." makes the RAI very clear.

If anyone tried to pull that RAW interpretation at my table and claim that 1 level in Cleric gives them access to 9th-level Cleric spells, I'd laugh in their face.

[pdegan2814]

Okay, I knew I'd probably end up with 3 5th level slots at lv 20 as a cleric 10/Druid 10, but was uncertain if you still got access to spell slots of higher levels or not even though you never learn any spells of those same levels. That was what confused me. So at character level 17, I get a lv. 9 spell slot and can use it to cast any of my lv 5 or lower spells as a lv 9 spell from either the cleric or druid spells I prepared.

I assume that lat max level with this guild, I could, with 20 Wisdom, prepare 15 cleric spells and 15 Druid spells? (5 for WIS and 10 for the level of that class)?

I believe so, yes. Plus the bonus spells from your Domain/Land choice. The key is to separate the determination of spells from the determination of spell SLOTS. It can be confusing because "level" can have multiple meanings(character, class, spellcaster, spell), so you have to keep track of which "level" you're referring to at any given time. In the build you mentioned, you pick Cleric spells like a 10th-level Light Cleric, you pick Druid spells like a 10th-level Land Druid, and you determine how many spell slots you have like a 20th-level Spellcaster. Any abilities that say they are specific to spells of one particular class, like the Light Cleric's Potent Spellcasting feature, only apply to the spells you picked AS a member of that class. So Sacred Flame would benefit, Thorn Whip would not.

[toapat]

WotC is not able to create rules that can only be interpreted one way.

This is literally the exact role and function of Contract Lawyers and TT Game designers during final design, and the reason why comprehensive negotiation contracts read like they are written by aliens who we gave a Mirriam Webster's dictionary to. Failing that they go for clearly interpreted language to communicate intent. There is a reason why MTG 25 years ago was a general conjecture of a rules system and today is a codified programming language in a game architecture.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is literally the exact role and function of Contract Lawyers and TT Game designers during final design, and the reason why comprehensive negotiation contracts read like they are written by aliens who we gave a Mirriam Webster's dictionary to. Failing that they go for clearly interpreted language to communicate intent. There is a reason why MTG 25 years ago was a general conjecture of a rules system and today is a codified programming language in a game architecture.

And yet contract lawyers fail--more specifically they cannot succeed. Writing a truly unambiguous work in a natural (as opposed to, for example, a computer language) is inherently impossible. Especially when said work must be interpreted by non experts. And this is compounded by the fact that there are no neutral arbiters (even in law, but much worse at the table top). Everyone has a conflict of interest here.

[mgshamster]

I think it should be noted that WOTC specifically stated they were going away from a defined language and going with a natural language. They didn't want to have another rules lawyer edition, and they didn't want to go the route of MtG.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it should be noted that WOTC specifically stated they were going away from a defined language and going with a natural language. They didn't want to have another rules lawyer edition, and they didn't want to go the route of MtG.

And I strongly agree with this decision. Creating a culture or expectation that players (or DMs) can weaponize the rules against each other is a recipe for antagonism and hurt feelings. The rules function as a sane default setting for the social contract of a game, not as a legal code interpreted by a neutral arbiter or a computer code simulating the fictional universe.

This decision also has consequences--if your interpretation of a rule relies on a particular reading of the exact wording of the text but fails under other reasonable readings, it's probably not the intended interpretation. And the interpretation in question (that a Cleric 1/Wizard 17 can cast any cleric spell, including 9th level ones, and 0-9th level wizard spells, while a Bard 1/Wizard 17 can only cast 1st level bard spells and 0-9th level wizard spells) is definitely not the intended (or best) interpretation here, regardless of how you parse the text.

[LeonBH]

This decision also has consequences--if your interpretation of a rule relies on a particular reading of the exact wording of the text but fails under other reasonable readings, it's probably not the intended interpretation. And the interpretation in question (that a Cleric 1/Wizard 17 can cast any cleric spell, including 9th level ones, and 0-9th level wizard spells, while a Bard 1/Wizard 17 can only cast 1st level bard spells and 0-9th level wizard spells) is definitely not the intended (or best) interpretation here, regardless of how you parse the text.

The funny thing is, even the RAW says that exact same thing: first level casters prepare spells like first level casters, regardless of if they are multiclassed or not.

In this case, there was no need to implement legalese. The intent is clear, but also the text itself is clear.

[samcifer]

The funny thing is, even the RAW says that exact same thing: first level casters prepare spells like first level casters, regardless of if they are multiclassed or not.

In this case, there was no need to implement legalese. The intent is clear, but also the text itself is clear.

so if that's true, a lv. 20 character that's cleric 10 / druid 10 with 20 wisdom would prepare 15 cleric spells (cleric level + wis mod +5) and 15 druid spells (lv. 10 druid + wis mod +5) for a grand total of 30 spells prepared (not counting extra spells granted by subclasses)?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The funny thing is, even the RAW says that exact same thing: first level casters prepare spells like first level casters, regardless of if they are multiclassed or not.

In this case, there was no need to implement legalese. The intent is clear, but also the text itself is clear.

I very much agree. Edit: I unfairly blamed the OP here. Reading again, he wasn't defending the claim, just expressing confusion. My bad.

[LeonBH]

so if that's true, a lv. 20 character that's cleric 10 / druid 10 with 20 wisdom would prepare 15 cleric spells (cleric level + wis mod +5) and 15 druid spells (lv. 10 druid + wis mod +5) for a grand total of 30 spells prepared (not counting extra spells granted by subclasses)?

Yes, and note that the maximum level of spells they can cast is 5th level. Also note that a L1 Druid/L19 Cleric can prepare 30 spells as well, where 6 of those are 1st level druid spells and 24 of them are cleric spells of any level.

Note further that a L20 Wizard can prepare 25 spells, whereas a L1 Cleric/L19 Wizard with 20 Wisdom and 20 Int can also prepare 30 spells, where 24 of those are Wizard spells of any level and 6 of them are 1st level cleric spells.

It's how multiclassing works. It's why a Sorc 1/Bard 1 knows 6 spells in total, and why a Sorc 5/Lock 5 knows 12 spells in total. They can know more total spells than either class allows at their character level due to the synergy, but they can't know higher level spells or spells appropriate to their total character level.

[mgshamster]

I very much agree. The OP is engaged in motivated reasoning.

I am?

The only motivation I had was that others were saying the multiclass spellcasting rules were nonsensical. I was baffled by that, and instead of filling up the other thread, I brought their argument, as best I understood it, to a new thread.

I'm still baffled by their argument and cannot parse what they're saying. Even when Taopat tries to explain it over and over, I still cannot parse her argument. I truly have no clue how toapat's argument works.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am?

The only motivation I had was that others were saying the multiclass spellcasting rules were nonsensical. I was baffled by that, and instead of filling up the other thread, I brought their argument, as best I understood it, to a new thread.

I'm still baffled by their argument and cannot parse what they're saying. Even when Taopat tries to explain it over and over, I still cannot parse her argument. I truly have no clue how toapat's argument works.

My apologies. I remembered wrong. I just edited my post to remove that part. I was thinking taopat was the OP.

[mgshamster]

My apologies. I remembered wrong. I just edited my post to remove that part. I was thinking taopat was the OP.

Fair enough. It's an easy mistake to make. :)

[LeonBH]

I'm still baffled by their argument and cannot parse what they're saying. Even when Taopat tries to explain it over and over, I still cannot parse her argument. I truly have no clue how toapat's argument works.

Roughly, they're saying that because multiclassing removes individual character spell slots, then when classes "individually" prepare spells, they can't prepare any spells because the multiclassed character has no individual spell slots for each class.

Alternatively, because the multiclassed character has spell slots of their total caster level, they must be able to prepare up to the maximum spells available to them because the single-classed spell slot table is replaced by the multiclassed spell slot table, and that table is the basis of the maximum spell level you can know.

I've already pointed out the error in this reasoning but I've been ignored. But obviously, it's an incorrect reading either way.

[Tanarii]

I'm still baffled by their argument and cannot parse what they're saying. Even when Taopat tries to explain it over and over, I still cannot parse her argument. I truly have no clue how toapat's argument works.
That's because it doesn't.

[samcifer]

Yes, and note that the maximum level of spells they can cast is 5th level. Also note that a L1 Druid/L19 Cleric can prepare 30 spells as well, where 6 of those are 1st level druid spells and 24 of them are cleric spells of any level.

Note further that a L20 Wizard can prepare 25 spells, whereas a L1 Cleric/L19 Wizard with 20 Wisdom and 20 Int can also prepare 30 spells, where 24 of those are Wizard spells of any level and 6 of them are 1st level cleric spells.

It's how multiclassing works. It's why a Sorc 1/Bard 1 knows 6 spells in total, and why a Sorc 5/Lock 5 knows 12 spells in total. They can know more total spells than either class allows at their character level due to the synergy, but they can't know higher level spells or spells appropriate to their total character level.

That's why I'm glad I'm going for a divine soul 17 / hexblade 3 so I can have a full complement of spells as far as number of spells known goes. pure sorcs get far too few spells known on their own.

[bid]

I'm still baffled by their argument and cannot parse what they're saying. Even when Taopat tries to explain it over and over, I still cannot parse her argument. I truly have no clue how toapat's argument works.
It can only work if you selectively ignore the whole Spell Known and Prepared block of p164. Hence the attempt to call it a "generic" rule subservient to the next block.

[krugaan]

This is literally the exact role and function of Contract Lawyers and TT Game designers during final design, and the reason why comprehensive negotiation contracts read like they are written by aliens who we gave a Mirriam Webster's dictionary to. Failing that they go for clearly interpreted language to communicate intent. There is a reason why MTG 25 years ago was a general conjecture of a rules system and today is a codified programming language in a game architecture.

It's odd that you bring up programming. Programming is indeed more precise, yet the way you are handling the skap rules is decidedly not object oriented, or ... anything really. You're creating definitions that don't exist.

Also, what mghamster said about natural language. I suspect that rules in 3.5 and 4 were consciously designed towards programming, because the money was in video games at that point. After the mobile revolution, it makes much more sense to after the expanding tabletop gaming market.

Your argument that the wording is bad and therefore our arguments are incorrect is like saying:

"I like this place, but it has a really lame vegan selection."
"It's a steakhouse, shrug. They should beef up their vegan food."
"Get a salad."
"I do. I'm just saying, they need more vegan food."
"Wait, isn't that a cobb salad? I see bacon and eggs in there."
"Yeah, so?"
"Bacon and eggs come from animals."
"Well ... they have a really lame vegan section."
"We could go somewhere else to eat."
"I like it here, though."

[Seafarer]

Now, onto spellcasting:

A mono-classed spellcaster has Mono-classed spell slots, with each class investing access to their own spell slots.

As defined by Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spell slots, Individual classes do not contribute any spell slots to the character, instead contributing a gestalt Caster Level which is used to reference a table. For instance, a lvl 9 Monoclassed paladin can prepare 3rd level spells, if they then take a level in ranger, because they halve both classes and round down their caster level, the paladin contributes 4 CL and ranger contributes 0 CL, resulting in the paladin Losing the ability to cast 3rd level spells.

The problem with Multiclass: Spellcasting: Spells Known and Prepared comes from the fact that individual classes Under multiclassing do not have or contribute spell slots. The only spell slots that character has are those as defined in the Multiclass: Spellcasting" Spell Slots rules. If Spells Known and Prepared stops you from having the spell slots from Multiclass: Spellcasting, Spell slots, then you have No spell slots at the moment of preparation and cannot cast at all.

If you can prepare spells, you only have spell slots as determined by Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots which you use to determine your maximum level spell prepared

Bold = wrong. A ranger 1 doesn't have the Spellcasting class feature, so the multiclass Spellcasting rules don't apply. A paladin 9/ranger 1 has the same spell slots as a paladin 9.

As far as first-level clerics preparing 9th-level spells goes...

PHB 164, 7th printing: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare from each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

Now, sorcerer 19/cleric 1 was the example given, yes? A 1st-level cleric has 2 1st-level spell slots, so the multiclass can prepare 1st-level cleric spells. Seems clear-cut to me. There's no rule saying that you use your multiclass spell slots to determine what you can prepare. Just "as if you were a single-classed member of that class".

EDIT: Ah, most of this was already covered. I don't like it when people screw up the half- and third-caster multiclass rules, so I jumped the gun a bit.

EDIT 2: Wait, toapat was trying to say that "individually" is the problematic word here? Okay. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare from each class as if you were a single-classed member of that class." ...that still seems pretty unambiguous.

[Vaz]

Bold = wrong. A ranger 1 doesn't have the Spellcasting class feature, so the multiclass Spellcasting rules don't apply. A paladin 9/ranger 1 has the same spell slots as a paladin 9.

As far as first-level clerics preparing 9th-level spells goes...

PHB 164, 7th printing: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare from each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

Now, sorcerer 19/cleric 1 was the example given, yes? A 1st-level cleric has 2 1st-level spell slots, so the multiclass can prepare 1st-level cleric spells. Seems clear-cut to me. There's no rule saying that you use your multiclass spell slots to determine what you can prepare. Just "as if you were a single-classed member of that class".

This is correct.

Also, Clerics do not know their spells. Nowhere does it say they do, no idea where anyone got that idea.

[krugaan]

Bold = wrong. A ranger 1 doesn't have the Spellcasting class feature, so the multiclass Spellcasting rules don't apply. A paladin 9/ranger 1 has the same spell slots as a paladin 9.

As far as first-level clerics preparing 9th-level spells goes...

PHB 164, 7th printing: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare from each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

Now, sorcerer 19/cleric 1 was the example given, yes? A 1st-level cleric has 2 1st-level spell slots, so the multiclass can prepare 1st-level cleric spells. Seems clear-cut to me. There's no rule saying that you use your multiclass spell slots to determine what you can prepare. Just "as if you were a single-classed member of that class".

EDIT: Ah, most of this was already covered. I don't like it when people screw up the half- and third-caster multiclass rules, so I jumped the gun a bit.

EDIT 2: Wait, toapat was trying to say that "individually" is the problematic word here? Okay. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare from each class as if you were a single-classed member of that class." ...that still seems pretty unambiguous.

different "class" spell slots aren't a thing either. There are pact slots and spells slots. The only difference between the two is when they come back and whether they can be used for eldritch smite.

[Seafarer]

different "class" spell slots aren't a thing either. There are pact slots and spells slots. The only difference between the two is when they come back and whether they can be used for eldritch smite.

Didn't say they were. What was your point? This doesn't seem relevant what I was saying.

EDIT: Assuming mgshamster is right: Yes. This. Though I wish they'd used "Pact Magic spell slots" instead of "warlock spell slots", so that a hypothetical new class or subclass getting the Pact Magic feature in future won't be dragged down into nitpicky rules debates ('It says warlock spell slot!' 'But it's still Pact Magic!' 'Let's ask JC for intent.' 'Screw him, RAW 4 lyfe!' 'Sigh.').

[mgshamster]

Didn't say they were. What was your point? This doesn't seem relevant what I was saying.

I think he was adding to your post, not arguing against it.

[krugaan]

I think he was adding to your post, not arguing against it.

er, yeah, this.

[thoroughlyS]

I am in the camp that says a multiclassed spellcaster prepares spells using their class levels (e.g. no, a sorcerer 19/cleric 1 cannot prepare 9th-level cleric spells).

However, I was previously under the impression that a multiclassed spellcaster prepares spells using their character levels. I first got that impression after reading this (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) article, which is full of half-understood discussion on the game. I was able to recognize that this article didn't quite know what it was talking about, which prompted me to read through the multiclassing section on my own. Turning to page 164, I found the same section everyone else is quoting:

You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.
I skipped over the example text because I usually only read that when I realize I am having trouble understanding a passage.

I took this paragraph to mean "you still prepare cleric spells like a single-classed cleric, and wizard spells like a single-classed wizard. There isn't some new method specifically for multiclassed characters". Yes, this seems obvious, but because this was a new edition, I didn't want to go into it with any assumptions. I continued on to the next paragraph:

You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lower-level spell that you cast, like burning hands, has an enhanced effect when cast using a higher-level slot, you can use the enhanced effect, even though you don’t have any spells of that higher level.
I took the last paragraph to refer to the situation which arises when you stop learning spells for one of your classes (e.g. If you make a wizard 2/sorcerer X, you never add more spells to your spellbook (by level up), even after you gain new slots).

I decided to test a theoretical character to see if the article's argument held water, so I envisioned a wizard 2/cleric 1. Turning to the cleric description I found the following:

You prepare the list of cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. When you do so, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Reaching the end of that paragraph, I remembered that my character would have 2nd-level spell slots, so I believed that the article was correct.



About two months ago, I was having this discussion with one of my players in the Adventurer's League. He brought the multiclassing rules section to my attention. Now, with a couple of years of experience under my belt, I noticed the "single-classed" clause again. This made me re-evaluate my understanding, which in turn lead to me reading the example text for the first time.

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.
The bolded section got me to realize the intention of the rules, because according to my previous viewpoint this example character should have been able to add 2nd-level spells to their spellbook as soon as they had 2nd-level slots (i.e. when they gained their 2nd level of wizard).

I believe toapat and I are on the same page in saying: clearly the designers want a cleric X/wizard Y to prepare cleric spells as a cleric of level X. However, the rules of the game only specify "prepare cleric spells as a cleric" and not "as a cleric of level X". I am of the opinion that the rule should be rewritten to be more direct.

As an aside, I don't really see a problem with the "prepare according to character level" interpretation. Taking the hypothetical cleric 1/sorcerer 19 the only thing that changes using this interpretation is that they could prepare higher level cleric spells. These spells still use the character's wisdom modifier for their effects, and the character still only has one 9th-level slot per long rest. This character has a minimum of 13 Wisdom, and so would prepare 2 cleric spells (in addition to the two 1st-level spells from their domain). If they want more than that, they have to pump their wisdom, which takes away from other aspects of the character.

[pdegan2814]

As an aside, I don't really see a problem with the "prepare according to character level" interpretation. Taking the hypothetical cleric 1/sorcerer 19 the only thing that changes using this interpretation is that they could prepare higher level cleric spells. These spells still use the character's wisdom modifier for their effects, and the character still only has one 9th-level slot per long rest. This character has a minimum of 13 Wisdom, and so would prepare 2 cleric spells (in addition to the two 1st-level spells from their domain). If they want more than that, they have to pump their wisdom, which takes away from other aspects of the character.

I see a big problem with the character-level interpretation. Even if someone bends the wording to fit that theory, it defies in-game logic. The very idea that a character who has only one level of Cleric could prepare and cast ninth-level Cleric spells is just plain nuts. "Hi, I've only been a priest for 3 months but I can cast True Resurrection"? No way.

[thoroughlyS]

"Hi, I've only been a priest for 3 months but I can cast True Resurrection"
"Hi, I've only been a priest for 3 months but my deep understanding of the inherent magic I already possessed and experience wielding powerful magic can be applied to channeling the will of my god."

It's like how a barbarian 2/fighter 11 can benefit from reckless attack even on the extra attacks from being a fighter. Or how a paladin 2/sorcerer X can fuel divine smite with spell slots of higher than 1st-level.

[Tikkun]

It appears that some people are equating "spell slots" with "spells known and prepared"--which, it appears to me, WoTC consider two different and distinct matters. A character "knows" so many spells. In a game where there is no multi-classing and everyone's character is a single class and there is no dispute as to how many spells a character knows and how many spell slots that character has to play with to cast them. Some characters, for example a cleric, will have X number of first level spells known and prepared and Y first level spell slots. However, that character may only cast one spell--'Bless' for example--repeatedly consuming all their level 1 spell slots. The other spells, even though they are known and prepared, are not used.

What WoTC has done for multi-classing spell-casters is provide them with a formula to ascertain "spell slots". These interesting items are based on your overall level as opposed to class level. That has nothing to do with the spells you know and prepare. Spells known and prepared relate to your specific magic-casting class. In fact, if one peruses the chart provided for each magic using class, it soon becomes apparent that the "spell slots" you have are greater then the spells you know and prepare. To my mind, the intent is quite clear--you can cast some spells more than once and you have the ability to 'upcast' spells as you gain levels. The same is true for the multi-classing spell slot table in the PHB. WoTC is saying something along the lines of : "Great, you are so stubborn that you took and leveled 2 magic using classes; your reward is extra spell slots so you can upcast some spells and not be a drain on your party." That's all it is. Here are the total number of spell slots you have earned per your level from 1 to 20. In most cases, I am willing to wager, those high level slots go to to waste as you have nothing or very little useful spells to 'upcast' with them. Its probably just a penalty for multi-classing 2 spell casters evenly. Now an uneven spell caster multi-class might be able to take advantage of it. But that's a different situation.

[krugaan]

I believe toapat and I are on the same page in saying: clearly the designers want a cleric X/wizard Y to prepare cleric spells as a cleric of level X. However, the rules of the game only specify "prepare cleric spells as a cleric" and not "as a cleric of level X". I am of the opinion that the rule should be rewritten to be more direct.


Well, if this many people are having problems with the rule, i guess it could have been written better, although i really don't see any interpretation where you could reread the "individually, as if singleclassed caster" as "as single classed caster but counting all levels in casters".

edit: Although they did include the example, which is very clear on the whole damn thing.



As an aside, I don't really see a problem with the "prepare according to character level" interpretation. Taking the hypothetical cleric 1/sorcerer 19 the only thing that changes using this interpretation is that they could prepare higher level cleric spells. These spells still use the character's wisdom modifier for their effects, and the character still only has one 9th-level slot per long rest. This character has a minimum of 13 Wisdom, and so would prepare 2 cleric spells (in addition to the two 1st-level spells from their domain). If they want more than that, they have to pump their wisdom, which takes away from other aspects of the character.

To a large extent this would invalidate the divine soul. There is a huge list of cleric spells that don't require a high wis, and with 1 level in cleric you can swap between any two of them every day.

[thoroughlyS]

Well, if this many people are having problems with the rule, i guess it could have been written better, although i really don't see any interpretation where you could reread the "individually, as if singleclassed caster" as "as single classed caster but counting all levels in casters".
Again, back when the game first came out I took "as if you were a single-classed member of that class" to mean "in the same manner as a single-classed member of that class" (i.e. follow the rules for preparing spells in each class's description). I took it as a clarification that there was not a new method to learn or prepare spells, and nothing more.

edit: Although they did include the example, which is very clear on the whole damn thing.
Yeah, I only read the example text if I realize that I don't understand the rule they explain. Also, I feel like they could've chosen a better example character like say a paladin 4/sorcerer 3. This would've still explained for a half caster, a full caster, and a known caster, but would have also shed light on the more common prepared caster type.

To a large extent this would invalidate the divine soul. There is a huge list of cleric spells that don't require a high wis, and with 1 level in cleric you can swap between any two of them every day.
To be fair, this discussion has been around for longer than the divine/favored soul, especially in its current incarnation. The first iteration (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA3_ClassDesignVariants.pdf) of the favored soul gained bonus spells known drawn from a cleric domain.

[Beelzebubba]

This is the argument for being crazy as I see it: You can prepare 9th level Cleric spells as a Sorcerer 16+ / Cleric 1 because Cleric says that you prepare your spells based on the spell slots you have available. As you use the Mutliclass table for spellcasting you have 9th level spell slots available.

Let me fix that for you.

Cleric says that you prepare your spells based on the spell slots you have available AS A CLERIC OF THAT LEVEL.

Multiclass says that you cast spells using the spell slots of the MULTICLASS TABLE.

Christ, it's such a blatantly intentional misread. There is no possible way the rules would be that way.

[SpamCreateWater]

Let me fix that for you.

No thank you, because:

*snip* AS A CLERIC OF THAT LEVEL.
It doesn't say that in the Cleric section. So you wouldn't be fixing it.


Christ, it's such a blatantly intentional misread. There is no possible way the rules would be that way.
RAI is not something I believe anyone is debating.

[krugaan]

No thank you, because:

It doesn't say that in the Cleric section. So you wouldn't be fixing it.


RAI is not something I believe anyone is debating.

Curious if you can defend your raw position any better than toapat has. This thread has become very circular, lol

[SpamCreateWater]

Curious if you can defend your raw position any better than toapat has. This thread has become very circular, lol
It has. I think the most succinct and direct way to put the position has already been said. Perhaps the best summation was Jsketchy:


I believe toapat and I are on the same page in saying: clearly the designers want a cleric X/wizard Y to prepare cleric spells as a cleric of level X. However, the rules of the game only specify "prepare cleric spells as a cleric" and not "as a cleric of level X". I am of the opinion that the rule should be rewritten to be more direct.

From what I've seen in this thread so far, no one has sufficiently countered this basic fact. Any and all claims have either missed the point of what is being stated, or argue something different.

Unless someone has something new, I think that this particular topic has reached its obvious conclusion. Both sides walk away shaking their heads at the idiocy of the other side... only to realise they're going to the same destination anyway :smalltongue:

[Vaz]

No thank you, because:

It doesn't say that in the Cleric section. So you wouldn't be fixing it.


RAI is not something I believe anyone is debating.

Hey man, it's not your problem you're just slow, but as it's already been broken down to you that you're ignoring the prior bit to make your point, your argument has been built on sand.

Waves are here now buddy.

[Tanarii]

From what I've seen in this thread so far, no one has sufficiently countered this basic fact.
It's not a basic fact, so it doesn't need to be countered. It's an incorrect assumption of what it means to prepare spells as a single class cleric. That inherently means you do it of your cleric level, since a cleric only has cleric levels.

[LeonBH]

I believe toapat and I are on the same page in saying: clearly the designers want a cleric X/wizard Y to prepare cleric spells as a cleric of level X. However, the rules of the game only specify "prepare cleric spells as a cleric" and not "as a cleric of level X". I am of the opinion that the rule should be rewritten to be more direct.

From what I've seen in this thread so far, no one has sufficiently countered this basic fact. Any and all claims have either missed the point of what is being stated, or argue something different.


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.

There you go, in case you missed it.

[SpamCreateWater]

Hey man, it's not your problem you're just slow, but as it's already been broken down to you that you're ignoring the prior bit to make your point, your argument has been built on sand.

Waves are here now buddy.

Hi friend. No need for that. All I was saying was what the person put forth isn't actually what is written down.

Edit:

There you go, in case you missed it.
That point has been replied to already.

[krugaan]

Unless someone has something new, I think that this particular topic has reached its obvious conclusion. Both sides walk away shaking their heads at the idiocy of the other side... only to realise they're going to the same destination anyway :smalltongue:

You know what? Sure.

Put er there, partner.

/handshake

Merry Christmas!

[Vaz]

Hi friend. No need for that. All I was saying was what the person put forth isn't actually what is written down.

Edit:

That point has been replied to already.

But you're wrong, though, and you haven't proven why you're correct? What aren't you getting fren?

[SpamCreateWater]

You know what? Sure.

Put er there, partner.

/handshake

Merry Christmas!

And to you too :smallsmile:



Edit:

But you're wrong, though, and you haven't proven why you're correct? What aren't you getting fren?
Just so we're on the same page, what are you saying I'm wrong about?

That Cleric literally says:

... that you prepare your spells based on the spell slots you have available AS A CLERIC OF THAT LEVEL.

If so, then we are at another impasse. Because it does not say that in the Cleric entry. Specifically, it does not say "AS A CLERIC OF THAT LEVEL". Which is what I was rebutting.
If you weren't saying I was wrong about that, then I'm confused as to why you would quote that particular response.




Specific (Multiclassing rules) trumps general (Cleric section).

Correct.

I was replying to a statement that said: Cleric says that you prepare your spells based on the spell slots you have available as a cleric of that level.
My reply was simply that Cleric does not say that.

[Daphne]

It doesn't say that in the Cleric section. So you wouldn't be fixing it.

Specific (Multiclassing rules) trumps general (Cleric section).

[LeonBH]

That point has been replied to already.

No, it hasn't been yet.

[SpamCreateWater]

Specific (Multiclassing rules) trumps general (Cleric section).

I edited my post and ended up replying to you there (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22652422&postcount=120). But then just realised how confusing it would be :smalltongue:

[Seafarer]

It's not a basic fact, so it doesn't need to be countered. It's an incorrect assumption of what it means to prepare spells as a single class cleric. That inherently means you do it of your cleric level, since a cleric only has cleric levels.

I believe this is an important point. toapat and SpamCreateWater, do you have any specific rebuttal to this reasoning? Or are you now going to claim that a single-classed cleric can have levels in other classes?

[bid]

Because it does not say that in the Cleric entry.
Of course it won't. The entire Classes chapter assumes you are single class.
And the MC block about SKaP repeats the same thing: "single-classed".


That silly definition of MCs spell known/prepared requires that you ignore the RAW block about MC spell known/prepared. You can't get more twisted than that.

[toapat]

I believe this is an important point. toapat and SpamCreateWater, do you have any specific rebuttal to this reasoning? Or are you now going to claim that a single-classed cleric can have levels in other classes?

Take a hypothetical lvl 9 ranger, with 3 1st level, 2 2nd level, and 1 3rd level spell known. On level up, you take a level of paladin. you gain all the benefits of a first level paladin, and lose your 1 3rd level spell slot. you now know a 3rd level spell of which you have 0 spell slots, meaning you cannot know the 3rd level spell. as the paladin does not contribute any spellcasting at this point, you cannot have this third level spell known, as according to the strict rules of the Spells Known clause of ranger, you can only know spells of which you have spell slots, Which are not defined as determined by the ranger casting table.

[thoroughlyS]

I believe toapat and I are on the same page in saying: clearly the designers want a cleric X/wizard Y to prepare cleric spells as a cleric of level X. However, the rules of the game only specify "prepare cleric spells as a cleric" and not "as a cleric of level X". I am of the opinion that the rule should be rewritten to be more direct.From what I've seen in this thread so far, no one has sufficiently countered this basic fact. Any and all claims have either missed the point of what is being stated, or argue something different.It's not a basic fact, so it doesn't need to be countered. It's an incorrect assumption of what it means to prepare spells as a single class cleric. That inherently means you do it of your cleric level, since a cleric only has cleric levels.I believe this is an important point. toapat and SpamCreateWater, do you have any specific rebuttal to this reasoning? Or are you now going to claim that a single-classed cleric can have levels in other classes?

I wasn't explicitly asked, but because I was pointed to as "the best summation" and because I've tried to explain this twice now, I figure another attempt can't hurt.

The "basic fact" SpamCreateWater alludes to is that the Spells Known and Prepared section does not mention levels (character OR class levels) in the rules text. Yes, it does mention class levels in the example text which follows, but people can often skip example text; I admitted to as much in an earlier post. This is the "incorrect assumption" Tanarii mentions.
In addition, "as if you were a single-classed member of that class" can be taken to mean "in the same manner as a single-classed member of that class" (i.e. follow the rules for preparing spells in each class's description), and this is not a stretch to accomplish.
When discussing learning or preparing spells, the class descriptions refer to the spell slots a character has and not the levels a character has. If you miss the example text, it would be logical to use the Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots by Level table, because the section on multiclassing explicitly says to "determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table".

I'd like to take a moment to reiterate that the discussion in this thread so far is not between "use character level" and "use class level". This discussion is between "it can be read as character level" and "no it can't". For transparency, I am in camp "it can be read as character level", specifically because I used to read it as "use character level".


It's an incorrect assumption of what it means to prepare spells as a single class cleric. That inherently means you do it of your cleric level, since a cleric only has cleric levels.
I'd like to zoom in on this statement, because I feel that it misrepresents the text. It doesn't "inherently mean" to use your class level, it can be inferred to mean that. Again - setting aside the example text - if I am preparing cleric spells for a cleric 2/sorcerer 3 "as if [I was] a single-classed member of that class", I could just as easily infer that I prepare as if I was a single-classed cleric with access to 3rd-level spell slots (determined using the multiclass spellcaster table). Given only the rules text, this is not an impossible conclusion to reach. However, once given the additional context from the example it becomes clear that this is not what the designers intended (as we can all agree).

[Vaz]

Take a hypothetical lvl 9 ranger, with 3 1st level, 2 2nd level, and 1 3rd level spell known. On level up, you take a level of paladin. you gain all the benefits of a first level paladin, and lose your 1 3rd level spell slot. you now know a 3rd level spell of which you have 0 spell slots, meaning you cannot know the 3rd level spell. as the paladin does not contribute any spellcasting at this point, you cannot have this third level spell known, as according to the strict rules of the Spells Known clause of ranger, you can only know spells of which you have spell slots, Which are not defined as determined by the ranger casting table.

You are talking ****. You don't lose a spell slot, because you don't have the spellcasting class feature with paladin, so it doesn't follow multiclassing spellcasting rules.

[thoroughlyS]

You are talking ****.
Vaz, you don't need to be so hostile. You can simply quote the rules text you are referring to (which has not yet been posted in this thread).


Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.

[krugaan]

I wasn't explicitly asked, but because I was pointed to as "the best summation" and because I've tried to explain this twice now, I figure another attempt can't hurt.

The "basic fact" SpamCreateWater alludes to is that the Spells Known and Prepared section does not mention levels (character OR class levels) in the rules text. Yes, it does mention class levels in the example text which follows, but people can often skip example text; I admitted to as much in an earlier post. This is the "incorrect assumption" Tanarii mentions.
In addition, "as if you were a single-classed member of that class" can be taken to mean "in the same manner as a single-classed member of that class" (i.e. follow the rules for preparing spells in each class's description), and this is not a stretch to accomplish.
When discussing learning or preparing spells, the class descriptions refer to the spell slots a character has and not the levels a character has. If you miss the example text, it would be logical to use the Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots by Level table, because the section on multiclassing explicitly says to "determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table".

I'd like to take a moment to reiterate that the discussion in this thread so far is not between "use character level" and "use class level". This discussion is between "it can be read as character level" and "no it can't". For transparency, I am in camp "it can be read as character level", specifically because I used to read it as "use character level".

Yes, but it is eminently more correct to finish the instruction clause "as if you a singleclassed member of that class" in it's entirety, rather than going to the referenced area, then referring to a different area outside the calling clause, wouldn't it?

If I instructed you to that you had just completed a long rest, and to prepare spells as if you were a level 1 cleric, would you ask if you had levels in anything else?

[toapat]

You are talking ****. You don't lose a spell slot, because you don't have the spellcasting class feature with paladin, so it doesn't follow multiclassing spellcasting rules.

read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

[LeonBH]

Vaz, you don't need to be so hostile. You can simply quote the rules text you are referring to (which has not yet been posted in this thread).

Thanks for the quote. Also, most people here are hostile in arguments. It's sad but true.


read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

Please refer to the quoted rule by JSketchy.


[...] Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.

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

In other words, the rule on Spells Known and Prepared doesn't apply until the MC'ed character is Paladin 2. Therefore, a Ranger 9/Paladin 2 is a 5th level caster, having two 3rd level spell slots. While a Ranger 9 still also has 3rd level slots.

[Seafarer]

read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

No, you are wrong.

In the Multiclass section, under Spellcasting: "Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below."

Ranger 9/paladin 1 doesn't have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class. You therefore don't use the multiclass Spellcasting rules.

EDIT: Oh, and I already quoted this rule earlier in the thread. Well done for not reading that.

[thoroughlyS]

Yes, but it is eminently more correct to finish the instruction clause "as if you a singleclassed member of that class" in it's entirety, rather than going to the referenced area, then referring to a different area outside the calling clause, wouldn't it?

If I instructed you to that you had just completed a long rest, and to prepare spells as if you were a level 1 cleric, would you ask if you had levels in anything else?
I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what your asking in your first question. As is my understanding, you think that I'm trying to parse the rules text in some awkward way to arrive at the "character level" conclusion. As I explained in the post you quoted:

The rule (in its entirety) "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." can be read as "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, using the same method that a single-classed member of that class would." And this interpretation - without the added context found in the example text - gives no indication to use your class level for determining spell slots. Using this interpretation:

If you instructed me to prepare spells as a 1st level cleric, I would ask where you are getting 1st level from when the rules text doesn't mention a level.

No, you are wrong.

...

EDIT: Oh, and I already quoted this rule earlier in the thread. Well done for not reading that.

Bold = wrong. A ranger 1 doesn't have the Spellcasting class feature, so the multiclass Spellcasting rules don't apply. A paladin 9/ranger 1 has the same spell slots as a paladin 9.
You did not quote the rule. You make a statement (yes, one that aligns with the rules), but you do not reference the rules in anyway. This could easily just be seen as your interpretation, which could be just as unfounded as toapat's.

[Vaz]

I'm not being hostile, I'm saying he's talking ****. I'm not being aggressive, volatile, or anything like that. I'm calling out nonsense where I see it. Perhaps if people weren't talking nonsense so much, you wouldn't experience so much perceived hostility, whether it's there or not.

My friends and I call each other out on chatting utter ****, and saying 'nonsense' is no better because it means the same thing. Here is also an example of where you sidetrack from the pertinent question to address my percieved tone. Sort yourself out, and get on topic.


read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

You mean the bit that tells you to only follow if they both have spellcasting. Sure. Did you mean to torpedo your own argument, or is there something we're all clearly missing?

[Tanarii]

I'd like to zoom in on this statement, because I feel that it misrepresents the text. It doesn't "inherently mean" to use your class level, it can be inferred to mean that. Utter nonsense. As is your red text.

[thoroughlyS]

I'd like to zoom in on this statement, because I feel that it misrepresents the text. It doesn't "inherently mean" to use your class level, it can be inferred to mean that.
Utter nonsense. As is your red text.
Why exactly is that nonsensical?

A cleric 2/sorcerer 3 could be treated "as if [they] were a single-classed" cleric of level 2, but they could just as easily be treated "as if [they] were a single-classed" cleric of level 5, because if you don't read the example text it could go both ways. Yes, given that the example text clearly treats the example character as a 3rd level wizard, it is easy to see the designers intent. That is why I agree that you prepare based on your class levels. However, the purpose of this thread was to determine how people are misinterpreting the rules. All I have done is laid forth the logic that I operated under before realizing that the example text contradicted my initial understanding.

[krugaan]

Thank you SO much, mghamster, for this thread.

WHAT IS DEAD CAN NEVER DIE!

[LeonBH]

The rule (in its entirety) "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." can be read as "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, using the same method that a single-classed member of that class would." And this interpretation - without the added context found in the example text - gives no indication to use your class level for determining spell slots

I like how you reason, particularly because you're taking the flames directed at you in stride.

When you said "it can be read", do you mean "it can mistakenly be read" or "it can be correctly read"? Because if your stand is that someone can read the rule incorrectly, I don't think there is debate there. But if you're saying it is a correct interpretation that multi classed characters prepare spells using their total character level, that is an issue.

[thoroughlyS]

I like how you reason, particularly because you're taking the flames directed at you in stride.
I just sent my response as a private message, because Vaz is right, we shouldn't be derailing the thread.

When you said "it can be read", do you mean "it can mistakenly be read" or "it can be correctly read"? Because if your stand is that someone can read the rule incorrectly, I don't think there is debate there. But if you're saying it is a correct interpretation that multi classed characters prepare spells using their total character level, that is an issue.
I'm saying "it can be mistakenly read". I'm clarifying exactly the way in which it can be misinterpreted (from experience), because the first post asks:


How does this all work, and what's actually going on here. Are the spell Multiclass really nonsensical, as some claim? Or do they make perfect sense and these people just misunderstanding how the rules work?
And I'm just answering that the rules make sense, but are easily misinterpreted (especially if you don't read the example text).

[Tanarii]

Why exactly is that nonsensical?
Your attempt at semantics that doesn't materially affect the meaning of what I said in the case of what I quoted.

And in the case of the red text, it's a lack of understanding that that's not how English works.

Now, if you're saying that's the problem, that the red text is in fact the nonsense being exhibited, then sure, it's a good example of the nonsense being exhibited.

[toapat]

In other words, the rule on Spells Known and Prepared doesn't apply until the MC'ed character is Paladin 2. Therefore, a Ranger 9/Paladin 2 is a 5th level caster, having two 3rd level spell slots. While a Ranger 9 still also has 3rd level slots.

you literally have to ignore the golden rule's existence for your argument to work at all.


You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.

this rule calls out explicitly when it is effect in explicit detail including when these classes count for the function of multiclassing.


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

The general section header is overridden by the spell slots consideration of the rule set because spell slots determine an exception to the general rule by its own precision. Paladins/Rangers are not spellcasters before lvl 2 but are still always considered while calculating caster level.

[Vaz]

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class

Jesus wept. You wear velcro don't you?

[Seafarer]

The general section header is overridden by the spell slots consideration of the rule set because spell slots determine an exception to the general rule by its own precision. Paladins/Rangers are not spellcasters before lvl 2 but are still always considered while calculating caster level.

...you what?

The section header calls out the specific circumstance in which you use the rules under the "Spells Known and Prepared" and "Spell Slots" headings, and then reiterates that, if that specific condition does not apply, you use the general rules.

To make an analogy, you are arguing that my fighter should be able to teleport 30 feet because misty step is an exception to the general rules of movement - you're citing a specific rule that doesn't apply to trump a general rule that does.

[krugaan]

I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what your asking in your first question. As is my understanding, you think that I'm trying to parse the rules text in some awkward way to arrive at the "character level" conclusion. As I explained in the post you quoted:

The rule (in its entirety) "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." can be read as "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, using the same method that a single-classed member of that class would." And this interpretation - without the added context found in the example text - gives no indication to use your class level for determining spell slots.


The point is, even red text included, if you do the rule in it's entirety, execute the rule without going back to consult an entirely different section of the book (i.e. the multiclassing rules for slots, which is a separate subsection...), then the Spams / Toalots language change is irrelevant.

The PHB is instructing you to prepare spells for your class as a class with a certain level (the individual level of each class). You pretend you're a single level class, and prepare spell accordingly. For cleric, the only limits are maximum spell slot (determined by level), and your wis modifier (which, along with level, determine how many spells you may prepare).

As an aside, I'm surprised this isn't brought up either, since there is no explicit source for these "temporary" stats. The obvious reason is that it's blindingly obvious that the stats for this theoretical single classed character are based on the character it's derived from.

Your character someDude is a sorc 19 / cleric 1.

someDude.prepareSpells(list, 13, cleric, 1); // fills the cleric list
someDude.prepareSpells(list2, 20, sorc, 19);

function prepareSpells takes (a list of known spells, a caster stat, a class, and a level) and returns (a list of prepared spells). The function DOES NOT REFERENCE THE SUPEROBJECT someDude, only the temporary object created by the barebones description given. Getting the "max level spell slot" for someDude simply does not happen, because the function completes in it's entirety with the object provided.

The instant argument against this is "well, humans aren't computers". The rejoinder is "then, why are you insisting on the ridiculous level of interpretation that you are suggesting?"



If you instructed me to prepare spells as a 1st level cleric, I would ask where you are getting 1st level from when the rules text doesn't mention a level.


I'm just instructing you to do it.

I understand that you think that the level you pass the function is not clear. That's ... somewhat debatable.

What toalot is arguing is different (actually, I'm not even sure who's arguing what, at this point). They're arguing that, when you go to prepare spells as a cleric, your slots are determined by the multiclass spellslots section (for a variety of reasons).

[toapat]

you're citing a specific rule that doesn't apply to trump a general rule that does.

how about you go read the very first codified rule of 5E dnd and read what you just said.

Multiclassing: Spellcasting: defines a general parameter for its usage, Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell Slots defines exact parameters of its usage

[Vaz]

how about you go read the very first codified rule of 5E dnd and read what you just said.

Multiclassing: Spellcasting: defines a general parameter for its usage, Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell Slots defines exact parameters of its usage

No, because then that ignores the specifically applicable rule that you don't have multiple spellcasting characters.

Does a Fighter or rogue multiclass lose access to spells until it takes a none spell advancing Archetype? Does your carer know you're using a keyboard without their supervision? You've got to be that monumentally stunted to even consider what your insinuating is any where near what the words say, and it is only by ignoring the entirety of the rule.

That is like me picking up this quote 'the Fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action' and saying 'sweet, look guys I have a way to play infinite attacks, there's no maximum limit for the fighter'.

Arrested development indeed.

[toapat]

Does a Fighter or rogue multiclass lose access to spells until it takes a none spell advancing Archetype?

Paladins and Rangers do not have an exception to the calculation, Fighters and Rogues are explicitly exempt from the calculation by requiring that they first be Eldrich Knights Or Arcane Tricksters.

Because that exception exists, and such an exception is not defined for Paladins and Rangers despite first level paladins and rangers lacking spellcasting, the rule is by its own definition is in effect regardless of what the general rule says.

[Vaz]

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below

Do you need it trepanning into you?

[toapat]

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below

Do you need it trepanning into you?

do you understand the meaning, intent, definition, and function of "Specific Trumps General"

do you understand how an enumerated list of defined application parameters is more specific than "If 2+ Spellcasting classes, use these rules" (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division)

Because you are not providing discussion or counterargument, (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter) you are ignoring how the natural priority of specificity defines them. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question)

[Tikkun]

Very intriguing, yet somehow, totally unconvincing.

Let me know when this thread manages to conclude how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Tanarii]

Let me know when this thread manages to conclude how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I thought everyone knows its five?

[Vaz]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrested_development

I can provide links too, but they're not as pretty as yours.

Look babe, you have this rule which cause that rule to exist. Without the first rule, the second rule doesn't exist. A Paladin until a particular level, doesn't have the first rule, thus meaning that the second one is irrelevant.

A Paladin is also less specific than Paladin 1, so [insert gif too lazy to url]

[krugaan]

Very intriguing, yet somehow, totally unconvincing.

Let me know when this thread manages to conclude how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

You might be waiting a while. We haven't even gone through:

- alignment
- hiding and vision
- minor illusion
- minor conjuration
- fabricate
- Hitler


I thought everyone knows its five?

[citation missing]

[Aett_Thorn]

Speaking of which, would a Fighter who takes Magic Initiate at level 4 count as a spellcasting class...?

/ducks and runs

[Vaz]

Speaking of which, would a Fighter who takes Magic Initiate at level 4 count as a spellcasting class...?

/ducks and runs

Going by towpaths reasoning yep, although it doesn't actually need to be a spellcaster yet, only have the potential to do so, so any multiclass character could theoretically be under the auspices of this wierd asf ruling.

[toapat]

Speaking of which, would a Fighter who takes Magic Initiate at level 4 count as a spellcasting class...?

/ducks and runs

no, because it doesnt give you the spellcasting feature by definition of either the feat or the multiclassing rules

[Aett_Thorn]

no, because it doesnt give you the spellcasting feature by definition of either the feat or the multiclassing rules

So you need to have the spell casting feature before it is taken into account. Interesting...interesting.

[Vaz]

no, because it doesnt give you the spellcasting feature by definition of either the feat or the multiclassing rules

Like a Paladin 1. Glad you agree.

[toapat]

So you need to have the spell casting feature before it is taken into account. Interesting...interesting.

no, you need the defined parameters of rules engagement for it to matter. Magic Initiate doesnt interact with rules that dont have any defined interaction with them. Paladins and Rangers interact with rules that they dont qualify For at the time because it is by defintion, in specificity, called out by those rules/

[Tanarii]

Speaking of which, would a Fighter who takes Magic Initiate at level 4 count as a spellcasting class...?

/ducks and runsEvil. :smallamused:

Seriously though, they never define "a spellcaster" in the DMG in regards to attuning. If you limit it to "Spellcasting feature" classes then it rules out Pact Magic. If you include Pact magic ... why that and not a 4e Monk?

[krugaan]

do you understand the meaning, intent, definition, and function of "Specific Trumps General"

do you understand how an enumerated list of defined application parameters is more specific than "If 2+ Spellcasting classes, use these rules" (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division)

Because you are not providing discussion or counterargument, (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter) you are ignoring how the natural priority of specificity defines them. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question)

Again, it would help if you defined your "specific trumps general" rule. Your last attempt was unsatisfactory, vague, and arguably unrelated. ("covers all edge cases")

[toapat]

Evil. :smallamused:

Seriously though, they never define "a spellcaster" in the DMG in regards to attuning. If you limit it to "Spellcasting feature" classes then it rules out Pact Magic. If you include Pact magic ... why that and not a 4e Monk?

So i opened my DMG, found the attunement entry, and reviewed what you said, it honestly looks like whoever was editing that section of the book got frustrated and decided that they just DONT CARE anymore, deleted what was necessary to fit from the examples and reminder text, and pushed it through.

the reminder text that did survive, (Monsters qualify as a specific spellcasting class if they have spell slots and cast from that spell's list) seems to paint the picture that Spellcaster for Attunement purposes is just "Has Spell Slots". So a Barbarian with Magic Initiate for Conjure Sandwich is, at least extrapolated from that rule, supposed to be able to use spellcaster magic items.

but thats jumping down the slippery slope of assuming RAI is RAW, and juryrigging a definition of "Spellcaster" from evidence at hand rather than Facts at hand


Again, it would help if you defined your "specific trumps general" rule. Your last attempt was unsatisfactory, vague, and arguably unrelated. ("covers all edge cases")

General rules state the default assumption.

Specific rules define how they contradict the default assumption.

General rules can specify which rules they override, either in general (Characters do not have Ki < Monks have Ki), or the specific by defining how they do so (Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots defines how it replaces specific class's spell slots)

[Vaz]

Does a Paladin without Spellcasting (1 level of) trump the general expectation that Paladin has spellcasting (19 levels?)

[krugaan]

General rules state the default assumption.

Specific rules define how they contradict the default assumption.


We're on the same page so far.



General rules can specify which rules they override, either in general (Characters do not have Ki < Monks have Ki), or the specific by defining how they do so (Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots defines how it replaces specific class's spell slots)

Wait, you mean specific rules can specify which rules they override? General rules don't override anything, they are overridden by specific rules, right?

Also, the bolded part is important, in a way. By "defining how they do so", do you also mean "when they so do?" It is sufficiently necessary that a specific rule states both effect and circumstance?

I'm going to speed this up a bit and go ahead and repeat where you said specific rules may override other specific rules, that makes sense also.

[Tanarii]

I'm going to speed this up a bit and go ahead and repeat where you said specific rules may override other specific rules, that makes sense also.
That's not something the PHB calls out though.

In fact, let's just put what the PHB has to say on it here, shall we?

Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

[krugaan]

That's not something the PHB calls out though.

In fact, let's just put what the PHB has to say on it here, shall we?

Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

That's a very good start. The part I quoted is something toalot said earlier in the thread when I was trying to get him to explain "specific over general".

Largely, though, this issue is either a question of parsing ("how linearly do I follow the rule / in what scope") or degrees of specificity ("when does one specific rule take precedence over another").

The infamous "individually, as if you were a single classed caster" line is obviously at the root of this.

Sidenote: If this were a drinking game, we'd all be hammered.

Or dead.

[Aett_Thorn]

Sidenote: If this were a drinking game, we'd all be hammered.

Or dead.

Wait wait wait. You mean this wasn't all just a drinking game? What have I been taking all of these shots for? (hiccup!)

[krugaan]

Wait wait wait. You mean this wasn't all just a drinking game? What have I been taking all of these shots for? (hiccup!)

Lol.

"Why are you dead drunk at 9 AM?!?"

"*hic* errrrrr you askin, like, shpeshificcally why... aw crap."

/drink

[toapat]

Does a Paladin without Spellcasting (1 level of) trump the general expectation that Paladin has spellcasting (19 levels?)

no. because that would require an additional defined exception because of the same exception which EK Fighter and AT Rogue received.

[krugaan]

no. because that would require an additional defined exception because of the same exception which EK Fighter and AT Rogue received.

Hrmnh... it occurs to me they don't be able to add any more casting full classes into the game, at least without breaking the multiclassing caster slots thing.

Well, not like they need more classes.

[Vaz]

no. because that would require an additional defined exception because of the same exception which EK Fighter and AT Rogue received.

No it doesnt. Because it's more specific that it is a class with the spellcasting class feature that somehow doesn't have it.

Babe be consistent with your own arguments.

[Aett_Thorn]

I really don't get what the argument even is here.


PHB 164: Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.

If you are only Paladin/Ranger 1, then you don't have the Spellcasting feature from that class yet. So a Cleric 19/Ranger 1 doesn't only have the spell slots as if they were a level 10 spellcaster.

[Tanarii]

The infamous "individually, as if you were a single classed caster" line is obviously at the root of this.Which is pretty clear in regards to specific vs general. It specifically says you treat each part as the general rule: as if you were single classed for that individual part. Not-actual-english attempts at interpreting it to mean "except for your level in the single class, instead using combined total levels" aside.

[krugaan]

Which is pretty clear in regards to specific vs general. It specifically says you treat each part as the general rule: as if you were single classed for that individual part. Not-actual-english attempts at interpreting it to mean "except for your level in the single class, instead using combined total levels" aside.

I agree. So, the real question that will solve this: is there somewhere in PHB that says the rules are in "plain English" and not legal jargon?

[thoroughlyS]

Alright, let me address this again. I do not think the rules say to use your multiclass spell slots. I am, in fact, outlining the flawed reasoning that leads people to this conclusion.

Now, if you're saying that's the problem, that the red text is in fact the nonsense being exhibited, then sure, it's a good example of the nonsense being exhibited.
I think you and I are treating the word "nonsense" differently. When you write nonsense, I think you mean that it is faulty logic. When I read nonsense, I think you mean it is unfounded. Yes, I agree - and have been leading with - the above ruling is faulty logic. I disagree that it is unfounded. Hopefully I am understanding you correctly?

I understand that you think that the level you pass the function is not clear. That's ... somewhat debatable.
Yes, that's all I've been debating. The actual rules text should be the place where this is addressed; not the example text.




Your attempt at semantics that doesn't materially affect the meaning of what I said in the case of what I quoted.
I'm sorry, I honestly don't know what you are referring to here. Could you please explain your position in full. I really just don't know what this disagreement is about.

And in the case of the red text, it's a lack of understanding that that's not how English works.
Again, I agree that the red text is a lack of understanding. I disagree that the sentence absolutely cannot be understood in that way. This is specifically because I originally read the sentence in that way. I am living proof that it can be read that way. I don't even play (full)casters, so it's not like I was willfully misinterpreting it for my benefit. I just did not have the added context from the example text.




The point is, even red text included, if you do the rule in it's entirety, execute the rule without going back to consult an entirely different section of the book (i.e. the multiclassing rules for slots, which is a separate subsection...), then the Spams / Toalots language change is irrelevant.
People have made mention of the rule "in it's entirety" a few times in this thread. For the sake of understanding, could you please quote the entirety of the rule you are referring to. I just want to get on the same page here.

I'll address the rest of your post, but I want to make absolutely certain that we understand each other when I do.

[Tanarii]

I think you and I are treating the word "nonsense" differently. When you write nonsense, I think you mean that it is faulty logic. When I read nonsense, I think you mean it is unfounded. Yes, I agree - and have been leading with - the above ruling is faulty logic. I disagree that it is unfounded. Hopefully I am understanding you correctly?I mean it's not a valid reading in English. Call that faulty or unfounded or whatever you like.


I disagree that the sentence absolutely cannot be understood in that way.Yes. People can understand things incorrectly. That doesn't make them valid in any way. That just makes them mistaken.

That's not some kind of crime. But it doesn't make attempts to say "but it could be read that way" actually valid.

[krugaan]

Alright, let me address this again. I do not think the rules say to use your multiclass spell slots. I am, in fact, outlining the flawed reasoning that leads people to this conclusion.

Yes, that's all I've been debating. The actual rules text should be the place where this is addressed; not the example text.


Yes, I know that, I was just disagreeing with your interpretation of it ... politely.



People have made mention of the rule "in it's entirety" a few times in this thread. For the sake of understanding, could you please quote the entirety of the rule you are referring to. I just want to get on the same page here.

I'll address the rest of your post, but I want to make absolutely certain that we understand each other when I do.

The rule (in its entirety) "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

By "in it's entirety" we mean you do entire ruling as if you were a single-classed member of that class, from spells known to spell slots to number of spells prepared. Only when you have a full list of prepared spells for that class does the "as if you were a single-classed member of that class" become invalid. Any multiclassed spellslots ruling does not apply when you are considering yourself a single class.

Again, if this can't be said enough, there are no unique spell slots. There are only spell slots and pact slots.

[LeonBH]

do you understand the meaning, intent, definition, and function of "Specific Trumps General"

do you understand how an enumerated list of defined application parameters is more specific than "If 2+ Spellcasting classes, use these rules" (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division)

Because you are not providing discussion or counterargument, (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter) you are ignoring how the natural priority of specificity defines them. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question)

If you have the spellcasting feature, then use spells known and prepared rule. Else, don't use it.

If you use the spells known and prepared rule anyway, then you are ignoring the conditional that makes the rule valid in the first place.


Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.

As an aside, they had to specifically say "Arcane Trickster" and "Eldritch Knight" because if they said "Fighter" and "Rogue", then that means gaining three levels in Fighter or Rogue adds to your caster level in general, regardless of subclass.

Meanwhile, saying "Paladin" or "Ranger" makes sense because any Paladin or Ranger subclass you take will have the spellcasting feature at level 2.

[Seafarer]

how about you go read the very first codified rule of 5E dnd and read what you just said.

Multiclassing: Spellcasting: defines a general parameter for its usage, Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell Slots defines exact parameters of its usage

...

I don't even anymore.

The general rule for having the Spellcasting feature as a multiclass character is "you follow the [Spellcasting] rules as defined in that class." The specific rule for having the Spellcasting class feature from more than one class is "use the rules below." The specific rule only trumps the general rule when the specific rule's circumstance comes up. A ranger 9/paladin 1 is a multiclass character with the Spellcasting class feature but does not have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class. Therefore, a ranger 9/paladin 1 uses the general rule for being multiclass and having the Spellcasting class feature: viz, "you follow the [Spellcasting] rules as defined in that class."

Question: does anyone other than toapat disagree with the above?

EDIT: Or think of it like a computer program. The program determines that you're multiclass, so it calls the multiclass rules. In there is a function called ClassFeatures that checks your class feature list for Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmoured Defence, and Spellcasting. Then Multiclassing.ClassFeatures.Spellcasting() first of all checks how many classes you have the Spellcasting class feature from. If the result is 2 or more, it calls Multiclassing.ClassFeatures.Spellcasting.SpellsKno wnAndPrepared() and Multiclassing.ClassFeatures.Spellcasting.SpellSlot s(). If the result is only one, on the other hand, it calls ThatClass.Spellcasting() to determine how to calculate spell slots and spells known and prepared, ignoring the subheading functions completely.

Like I said, it only applies the specific rules when the specific rules are meant to be applied, whereas your code would apparently call the subheading functions instead of ThatClass.Spellcasting.

[krugaan]

...

I don't even anymore.

/snip

Like I said, it only applies the specific rules when the specific rules are meant to be applied, whereas your code would apparently call the subheading functions instead of ThatClass.Spellcasting.

I was going to make a point like that, but i was afraid noone would understand.

PC.prepareSpells(new caster(cleric, level 1, 13 wis, array spellList)) does not reference the maxSlot of PC, it references the maxSlot of the new caster.

Toalot is arguing that that code does not apply, and jsketcher is arguing that the "level 1" arg we're passing is an ambiguous value. That's this whole thread in a nutshell.

[LeonBH]

Toalot is arguing that that code does not apply, and jsketcher is arguing that the "level 1" arg we're passing is an ambiguous value. That's this whole thread in a nutshell.

I think JSketch is saying you could read it ambiguously but there's still only one correct reading. People are liable to read the rule that way, but they'd be wrong.

Also, I'd like to add that it's impossible to abide by "If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class" as well as the Spells Known and Prepared/Multiclass Spell Slot rules simultaneously if you have a Ranger 9/Paladin 1 who prepares spells like a 4th level caster. You would be breaking the former rule in doing so.

And I would like to further add that you add all your Ranger and Paladin levels together and then divide by 2 and round down, instead of dividing each class's level by 2 and rounding down individually. Therefore, a Ranger 9/Paladin 1 would be a 5th level caster anyway even if you considered the multiclass rules for it (which you shouldn't - but still, it gives no contradictions).

[bid]

EDIT: Or think of it like a computer program.
You know, if you follow that approach... a computer program has no knowledge of what comes after the block it is currently evaluating. Anything after "Spells Known and Prepared" is outside its evaluation context.

That also how a well done natural language rule set should work. You should never have to look ahead to understand what you are reading.


Yet another nail in the coffin. Or another stake through the heart.

[LeonBH]

You know, if you follow that approach... a computer program has no knowledge of what comes after the block it is currently evaluating. Anything after "Spells Known and Prepared" is outside its evaluation context.

Incorrect. Some programming languages know what happens after its current line of execution, but before actually executing it.

Moreover, the conditional on Spells Known and Prepared comes before it, not after it.


That also how a well done natural language rule set should work. You should never have to look ahead to understand what you are reading.

This doesn't apply if the text warns you to look ahead first, because it isn't done yet.

"Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below" calls out to read the rules below so you can understand the full meaning of the text.

[Tanarii]

That also how a well done natural language rule set should work. You should never have to look ahead to understand what you are reading.
Hi. I'd like to introduce you English, a natural language that is anything but well done. 😂

[Aett_Thorn]

Hi. I'd like to introduce you English, a natural language that is anything but well done. 😂

I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, it's not like English allows you to come up with grammatically correct sentences like:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

or

I'm fast to a fast fast fast fast.

[opaopajr]

That's language, period. English is no exception. And as for logic w/o hiccups, might I point out the joy of power cycling down (restarting electronics) to reset accrued errors from usage over time?
:smalltongue:

Just because I can see how someone can misinterpret something wrong doesn't stop it from being wrong or a stretch of interpretation.

[krugaan]

I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, it's not like English allows you to come up with grammatically correct sentences like:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

or

I'm fast to a fast fast fast fast.

Wait, how are those grammatically correct again?

I'm not doubting they are, just ... I can't puzzle it out.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Wait, how are those grammatically correct again?

I'm not doubting they are, just ... I can't puzzle it out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Bu ffalo_buffalo

[Aett_Thorn]

Wait, how are those grammatically correct again?

I'm not doubting they are, just ... I can't puzzle it out.

The first one:

buffalo, the animal
buffalo, a verb meaning to intimidate
Buffalo, the city

So, we get - buffalo from Buffalo that are intimidated by Buffalo buffalo, intimidate other Buffalo buffalo. Or: Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


For the second,

1) Fast - resistant
2) Fast - indicating a time in advance of the correct time, as of a clock.
3) Fast - quick
4) Fast - characterized by hectic activity
5) Fast - abstaining from food

I'm resistant to an early, quick, hectic period of hunger. I'm fast to a fast fast fast fast.

[krugaan]

The first one:

buffalo, the animal
buffalo, a verb meaning to intimidate
Buffalo, the city

So, we get - buffalo from Buffalo that are intimidated by Buffalo buffalo, intimidate other Buffalo buffalo. Or: Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


For the second,

1) Fast - resistant
2) Fast - indicating a time in advance of the correct time, as of a clock.
3) Fast - quick
4) Fast - characterized by hectic activity
5) Fast - abstaining from food

I'm resistant to an early, quick, hectic period of hunger. I'm fast to a fast fast fast fast.

It's no wonder English is a cat 5 language on the CIA difficulty scale :smallannoyed:

Just tried to look up a citation for this and can't find any. HMmmmm...

[bid]

Incorrect. Some programming languages know what happens after its current line of execution, but before actually executing it.
Right, you can certainly name one. How is that important?

Nevertheless, most AST parsing will fail on top-level calls to later functions. If it wasn't for include files and interpreted function body, it would happen all the time.



Moreover, the conditional on Spells Known and Prepared comes before it, not after it.
You completely missed the point.
The first thing you'll find in Anything after "Spells Known and Prepared" is the Spell Slots block of p164.

At the moment when you evaluate which spells you know "as a single-classed member", you don't even know that "multiclass" have a different way to count spell slots.

[opaopajr]

It's no wonder English is a cat 5 language on the CIA difficulty scale :smallannoyed:

Just tried to look up a citation for this and can't find any. HMmmmm...

I think I know what you are talking about. It's from the US military language school (Monterey, CA, IIRC) categorization of language learning difficulty for English speakers. I'm sure other nations with different language intelligence schools might have a different categorized scale from their language perspective.

[krugaan]

I think I know what you are talking about. It's from the US military language school (Monterey, CA, IIRC) categorization of language learning difficulty for English speakers. I'm sure other nations with different language intelligence schools might have a different categorized scale from their language perspective.

That might have been it. Wonder why I thought it was CIA? Anyway, English is so idiosyncratic and egalitarian that it's very hard to pick up.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Even if it could be 100% proven that multiclass spells would work only one way if the PHB was read with the methodology of a programming language, it would not matter. D&D was not written by programmers for programmers.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the main reason people get hung up in rules arguments like this is not due to an inherent problem with the written text. Instead, it is from people reading the text through the lense of their specific profession, education, personal preference, or other bias.

If we were playing Codes & Compilers, programming terminology and methods would matter.

If we were playing Business & Bureaucrats, then legal contract terminology and methods would matter.

We aren’t. Programming and Legal Contracts both use specialized languages created for specific purposes that require training to understand and use. D&D - even the rule heavy 3.5 version - has always been written to be read by everyone without requiring any education or training beyond basic reading comprehension and simple math skills.

Yes, some parts of the PHB could have been written better to be more clear. Nothing is ever perfect. Sometimes though, what would seem more clear to one person would create confusion for another. And if you are going to complain about the rules not being clear enough, perhaps it would be a good idea to pay attention to the fact that people have commented how difficult it is to follow the arguments in this thread.

[LeonBH]

Right, you can certainly name one. How is that important?

Yes, I certainly can. And it's not actually important, but you said programming languages aren't aware of the lines executed after the current line of execution as a rebuttal of parsing the RAW like a computer program. Your rebuttal is not correct in the general sense.

IMO, we don't really have to go into parsing things like computer code because RAW isn't supposed to be interpreted that way, but a wrong rebuttal is still a wrong rebuttal.


You completely missed the point.
The first thing you'll find in Anything after "Spells Known and Prepared" is the Spell Slots block of p164.

At the moment when you evaluate which spells you know "as a single-classed member", you don't even know that "multiclass" have a different way to count spell slots.

I was talking in line with the current line of discussion. Not my fault you pulled it off to a tangent. We were discussing how the conditional comes before the Spells Known and Prepared rule.

And to your point, that doesn't invalidate the RAW. The two rules for multiclassed spellcasters are referenced by the prior condition of "use the rules below" implying you're supposed to read the list of rules that come below it.

Could it have been written some other way? Sure. But the way it's written doesn't allow for a twisting of the meaning of RAW.

[bid]

EDIT: Or think of it like a computer program.

a computer program

you said programming languages aren't aware

Not my fault you pulled it off to a tangent.
Right.

I haven't got anything nice to say about that. I think the facts speak for themselves.

[LeonBH]

Right.

I haven't got anything nice to say about that. I think the facts speak for themselves.

The tangent was not interpreting RAW as a computer program. It was the look-ahead aspect you mentioned, when at that time we were talking about the conditionals before the Spells Known and Prepared Rule.

[krugaan]

I am increasingly of the opinion that the main reason people get hung up in rules arguments like this is not due to an inherent problem with the written text.


Yep.



Instead, it is from people reading the text through the lense of their specific profession, education, personal preference, or other bias.


Nope. This reason is secondary, at best. The main reason is hubris, obviously, but there's also the fun of having a (relatively) polite argument with genuinely intelligent people.

With a few exceptions, almost everyone in this thread has been civil. No hostility, really. Exasperation, sure, but not outright hostility.


Right.

I haven't got anything nice to say about that. I think the facts speak for themselves.

I think your FACE speaks for itself!

/dropmic

[BoringInfoGuy]

Very wise, BoringInfoGuy. Out of curiosity, since you hopped in the discussion, and without the need to convince anyone of your stance, do you think a Cleric 1/Sorc 19 can prepare 9th level cleric spells by RAW?

I ask because your post sounds like you're implying toapat is guilty of confirmation bias, but then turn around and imply he is not.
I am very sorry, I missed your response until just now.

I was deliberately vague on who was guilty of confirmation bias because it is something that everyone falls victim to. It is a trap that snares the smart, the stupid and those in between in equal measure. So while it is useful to realize that there is a point where further attempts to point out the mistakes of others is fruitless, it is much more important to consider the possibility that your own confirmation bias may be the problem.

Which is what prompted to to read through the thread again. As much as possible, I want to put aside my own inclination to go, “Here is a stance I disagree with, how do I disprove it?” Instead, I am looking to understand where people are coming from, and what merits I can find in their viewpoints.

Incidentally, that is how I found your unanswered question.

Since you asked, I believe the Rules, As they are Written, only allow a character with one level of Cleric to only have access to 1st level cleric spells. The higher level slots from multiclassing Sorcerer 19 can be used to upcast those 1st cleric spells.

I have not yet found anything to dissuade me from that stance yet.