Wild Magic MC Sorcerers

[Tanarii]

I'm running a one shot, with a PC that's a Sorlock with the Wild Magic Origin.

The Wild Magic Surge and Tides of Chaos ability both say "immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher."

Do you think this means Spells Known as a Sorcerer, or Spell Slots from the Sorcerer?

My initial interpretation was the latter (slots), but on reflection I'm thinking it must mean spells known as a sorcerer. Otherwise it wouldn't play nice with multiclassing with Spellcasting classes, who get a generic pool of slots.

[Aett_Thorn]

I believe it’s Spells Known as a Sorc. Those are the spells you know as “Sorcerer spells”. Just like when an Arcana cleric gets the two Wizard spells but the rules spell out that those count as Cleric spells for the Cleric.

[Quoxis]

Here ya go:
Overlord JC says it won’t work in a condescending and easy to misinterpret way (https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/wizard-sorcerer-multiclass-spells/amp/)

[Vogie]

Do you think this means Spells Known as a Sorcerer, or Spell Slots from the Sorcerer?

My initial interpretation was the latter (slots), but on reflection I'm thinking it must mean spells known as a sorcerer. Otherwise it wouldn't play nice with multiclassing with Spellcasting classes, who get a generic pool of slots.

It's spells known according to the 2016 posted rules answered on the wizards' site
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-june-2016

"This rule means only the spells gained from levels in sorcerer trigger wild magic surge"

However, I'd probably rule that it is any spells cast with sorcerer slots, which you could reform with sorc points made from your MC'd class' spell slots. I haven't had to run into it yet, because the wild magic sorc in my game LOVES her random effects, and if she were to MC into something like Bard for more spell slots, it'd be basically ONLY for more potential Wild surges.

[Tanarii]

Thanks for the links guys.

The more I think about it, known spells is the only answer that makes sense. There is no such thing as "sorcerer slots" for a Paladin/Sorcerer, for example.

[Eragon123]

Here ya go:
Overlord JC says it won’t work in a condescending and easy to misinterpret way (https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/wizard-sorcerer-multiclass-spells/amp/)

Is it just me or has JC gotten more and more jaded?

In my experience, I used to be excited to look up JC rulings and thought it was awesome we had a direct line to the creators.

Like I used to disagree with him but see where he was coming from.

Nowadays I barely listen to him and roll my eyes whenever someone points to his rulings in trying to decide an argument.

But then again I guess I'm just a phantom.

[Tanarii]

Wow. He answers in the most direct possible fashion, with a rules quote that directly applies to and answers the question, and he's condescending, easy to misinterpret, and jaded?

The anti-Crawford tone on these boards is reaching a whole new level recently.

[Cybren]

Wow. He answers in the most direct possible fashion, with a rules quote that directly applies to and answers the question, and he's condescending, easy to misinterpret, and jaded?

The anti-Crawford tone on these boards is reaching a whole new level recently.

I do think people are very overly critical of the wotc staff in general here, and calling that condescending is kind of a stretch, but I do find JCs tendency to just quote rules text to people that want a clear answer annoying, because presumably a significant fraction of the people asking him the question are asking because they found the text ambiguous and he doesn't always provide clarifying context.

[Segev]

Here ya go:
Overlord JC says it won’t work in a condescending and easy to misinterpret way (https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/wizard-sorcerer-multiclass-spells/amp/)

I'm not sure how that's condescending, nor easy to misinterpret. It refers to a rule that spells out that it is spells known/prepared that are associated with particular classes.

[MaxWilson]

Is it just me or has JC gotten more and more jaded?

It think it's just you and Quoxis. I do agree that it could be misinterpreted--ideally there'd be a direct answer in there somewhere, like, "No, you can't, because [rules citation]," but JC's answer on that one was not rude or condescending at all. He just answered the question by pointing to sources. I wish he'd do that all the time instead of just spouting off with off-the-cuff opinions...

[Eragon123]

It think it's just you and Quoxis. JC's answer on that one seemed straightforward and not rude at all. He just answered the question by pointing to sources. I wish he'd do that all the time instead of just spouting off with off-the-cuff opinions...

I'll admit my friction with JC has less to do with this particular ruling and more his general attitude. Though I still like his interviews on DnD Beyond. When he's excited and creating stuff I like him. When he's clarifying rules he tends to be much less passionate and it's starting to show. at least IMO.

[RSP]

Interestingly, this tweet by Crawford seems to counter that other one:

“What ultimately makes something a [class] (wiz/sorc/etc) spell? Is having it on your spell list enough, even if you're not high enough to cast/don't know it/don't cast via Spellcasting? I.E., can a level 1 Sorc Wild Magic Surge off of Luck Blade's wish despite not knowing it yet?”

“Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
A class's spell list is the list of that class's spells.”

So a Sorcerer Spell is any spell on the Sorcerer list, not just their spells known.

[Quoxis]

It think it's just you and Quoxis. I do agree that it could be misinterpreted--ideally there'd be a direct answer in there somewhere, like, "No, you can't, because [rules citation]," but JC's answer on that one was not rude or condescending at all. He just answered the question by pointing to sources. I wish he'd do that all the time instead of just spouting off with off-the-cuff opinions...

It’s WOTC‘s job to write rules in a way that basic questions like this one shouldn’t arise in the first place, that’s what players pay fifty bucks for the phb for. People in this thread, people at game tables, people on the internet years ago have all been puzzled over this question.
Him answering in this way feels condescending to me personally, as in „well if you read the rules you wouldn’t have to ask such questions“, while - as you agree - the wording is flimsy and could be interpreted both ways.

I‘m not a fan of some of his sage advice rulings, and the wording of this particular one seemed off to me, but that doesn’t mean i hate the man himself. If i offended anyone around here: that was certainly not my intention, maybe it was the same thing i complained about: an imperfect phrasing.

[Segev]

See, I didn't read it as a condescending, "Geeze, read the rules, noob," post, but as an answer that assumed the questioner just didn't know where in the rules to find the answer. I do agree, a direct answer on top of that would have been helpful, but... Twitter has limited character count, right? (I loathe Twitter.)