wizard multiclassing and learning spells

[kingcheesepants]

So one thing that often comes up when talking about the pros and cons of multiclassing is the fact that a caster will be delayed or possibly locked out of their higher level spells known when multiclassing. A Wizard 4 Cleric 1 doesn't have access to fireball and fly like a Wizard 5 does. However wizards can copy spells into their spellbook from a scroll or other spellbook as long as he has the appropriate slots for it (which our hypothetical wizard would). If a wizard had access to a spellbook or scroll is there anything preventing him from copying the highest level spells he has slots for? If so that seems to take a lot of the sting out of multiclassing wizard. Actually if another full caster dipped wizard would they be able to just grab literally any wizard spell they wanted as long as they had the slots for it? Could a Cleric 16 Wizard 1 copy Meteor Swarm and Wish if he found a spellbook or scroll containing them? That seems like it's way against RAI but unless I'm missing something (which is very possible) it doesn't seem to be against RAW.

[OldTrees1]

Multiclassing spellcasting rules limit your highest spell level known/prepared based on just the levels in that class. So even if the Cleric 4 / Wizard 1 could scribe Fireball into their spellbook (I presume they can't), they could not prepare it.

[Galithar]

Multiclassing spellcasting rules limit your highest spell level known/prepared based on just the levels in that class. So even if the Cleric 4 / Wizard 1 could scribe Fireball into their spellbook (I presume they can't), they could not prepare it.

It's not RAW, but I've always allowed Wizards to scribe a spell of any level. As you said though I don't allow them to prepare or cast those spells until they reach the appropriate level.

RAW you have to be capable of preparing the spell in order to scribe it, and you can only prepare spells according to your single classed level of that class. So a Cleric 4/Wizard 1 can only add level 1 spells to their spellbook.

[kingcheesepants]

Okay I missed that section about needing to be able to prepare it. I was thinking if you have the spell slots it's fine. That makes a lot more sense now.

[Zhorn]

It's not RAW
I thought so at first too, but reading into the exact language, it think kingcheesepants might be onto something, just not in the way they were intending, nor in any meaningful way.

For starters we look at the language of Your Spellbook in the wizard's sections.

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Note how it does not specify Wizard levels, just of a spell slot you can prepare spells for.
However, even if you're using a multiclass to access higher level spell slots that your Wizard level is not granting, you still need
A multiclass with a spell caster class that 'prepares' spells, so that is only Artificers, Clerics, Druids and Paladins.
Even if your combined multiclass spell slots are higher, you are limited to what the individual class is able to prepare for spell levels.

This though is only for the ability to copy higher level spells into the Wizard's spellbook. Accessing them for use is a whole other roadblock.
As both OldTrees1 and you have pointed to (exact wording omitted, but end result is in the same general area), the multiclassing rules for spellcasting does stop those higher level scribed spells from being prepared.

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.
So while you can have that spell book filled with higher level Wizard spells, you cannot prepare any for use that you would not be able to do with just your Wizard levels alone.

So kingcheesepants's hypothetical Cleric 16/Wizard 1 could potentially copy into their spellbook Wizard spells up to 8th level (not 9th level spells until Cleric 17/Wizard 1), all they are getting is a head start on their scribing time as they still cannot prepare any spells for use from their Wizard spellbook that they could not prepare as a 1st level Wizard.
It's an interesting loophole, but not of the abusable kind.

[AttilatheYeon]

I thought so at first too, but reading into the exact language, it think kingcheesepants might be onto something, just not in the way they were intending, nor in any meaningful way.

For starters we look at the language of Your Spellbook in the wizard's sections.

Note how it does not specify Wizard levels, just of a spell slot you can prepare spells for.
However, even if you're using a multiclass to access higher level spell slots that your Wizard level is not granting, you still need
A multiclass with a spell caster class that 'prepares' spells, so that is only Artificers, Clerics, Druids and Paladins.
Even if your combined multiclass spell slots are higher, you are limited to what the individual class is able to prepare for spell levels.

This though is only for the ability to copy higher level spells into the Wizard's spellbook. Accessing them for use is a whole other roadblock.
As both OldTrees1 and you have pointed to (exact wording omitted, but end result is in the same general area), the multiclassing rules for spellcasting does stop those higher level scribed spells from being prepared.

So while you can have that spell book filled with higher level Wizard spells, you cannot prepare any for use that you would not be able to do with just your Wizard levels alone.

So kingcheesepants's hypothetical Cleric 16/Wizard 1 could potentially copy into their spellbook Wizard spells up to 8th level (not 9th level spells until Cleric 17/Wizard 1), all they are getting is a head start on their scribing time as they still cannot prepare any spells for use from their Wizard spellbook that they could not prepare as a 1st level Wizard.
It's an interesting loophole, but not of the abusable kind.

The first errata addresses this.

[Zhorn]

The first errata addresses this.
Would you care to elaborate for those of us unable to read your mind and fill in the blanks?
What line addresses what part?

[Rukelnikov]

It's an interesting loophole, but not of the abusable kind.

It's free Ritual Casting (Wizard) for a 1 lvl dip, nothing broken, but may be useful and thematic for a single level dip.

[Zhorn]

It's free Ritual Casting (Wizard) for a 1 lvl dip, nothing broken, but may be useful and thematic for a single level dip.
Good catch. In that regard it's essentially taking the Ritual Caster feat, only the feat would be ever so slightly ahead on what spell slot levels you could copy, where as this allows a wider array of spells to be copied (though uselessly for non-rituals without further investment into Wizard).

[Tanarii]

Would you care to elaborate for those of us unable to read your mind and fill in the blanks?
What line addresses what part?From the errata:
Your Spellbook (p. 114). Under “Copy- ing a Spell into the Book,” the first sen- tence has been changed to “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 and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.”


Since this is a rule for Wizard Spellcasting Feature, "a spell level you can prepare" means with Wizard levels. Not Clerics, Druid, or Paladin.

[Zhorn]

From the errata:
Your Spellbook (p. 114). Under “Copy- ing a Spell into the Book,” the first sen- tence has been changed to “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 and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.”

So literally the exact line I included in my post? Does make one wonder why bring up the errata in the first place?


Since this is a rule for Wizard Spellcasting Feature, "a spell level you can prepare" means with Wizard levels. Not Clerics, Druid, or Paladin.
While I respect that most likely is the intent, just for the fun of the argument I'm looking at the precise wording, for starters just to see where kingcheesepants was getting the initial idea, and secondly to see how well it holds up to loophole scrutiny.
Again, I agree with you on what it was intended to mean, but the exact wording used is not locked down tight enough.

"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 and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
is not the same as
"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 as a Wizard and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
It just specifies "of a spell level you can prepare", which under those exact words use any class levels you have that can prepare spells meets the worded requirement.

And again, there are other rules in the book blocking this loophole from achieving anything actually abusable, and at most you can only weakly replicate a feat that would do a better job of it with a lesser investment.

[Rukelnikov]

So literally the exact line I included in my post? Does make one wonder why bring up the errata in the first place?


While I respect that most likely is the intent, just for the fun of the argument I'm looking at the precise wording, for starters just to see where kingcheesepants was getting the initial idea, and secondly to see how well it holds up to loophole scrutiny.
Again, I agree with you on what it was intended to mean, but the exact wording used is not locked down tight enough.

"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 and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
is not the same as
"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 as a Wizard and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
It just specifies "of a spell level you can prepare", which under those exact words use any class levels you have that can prepare spells meets the worded requirement.

And again, there are other rules in the book blocking this loophole from achieving any actual abusable, and at most you can only weakly replicate a feat that would do a better job of it with a lesser investment.

I think whether one level or one feat is a greater investment depends highly on the build in question.

And if you wanna break it further... Well... just get one of the many magic spellbooks from Tasha's

For example, Cleric17/Wiz1 with an Atlas of the Endless Horizon (Rare) could cast Wish and a couple more Wizard conjurations.

"If you spend 1 minute studying the book, you can expend 1 charge to replace one of your prepared wizard spells with a different spell in the book. The new spell must be of the conjuration school."

The only clause the new spell must adhere to is its school (or no clause at all in case of the Crystalline Chronicle (Very Rare)). So you wake up with Mage Armor prepared, and first thing you do after preparing is using this property to switch it out for Wish.

Basically a 1 level Wizard dip gives a full caster Ritual Caster (Wizard) and their choice of a 1d3 wizard spells per day

The Protective Verses give every caster access to Counterspell

The Duplicitous Manuscript gives every full caster Simulacrum

Not good enough? Warlock 5/Wiz 1 with Alchemical Compendium (Rare MI) could be casting 2 Tiny servant spells per SR, a 4 lvl deduction on what it would normally take... (@Damon_Tor this may be useful for your TSARs :P)

at Warlock7/Wiz1 could cast 2 Polymorphs every short rest EDIT: It doesn't work with Locks since they don't prepare spells

If you are willing to go lvl 2 Wizard Order of Scribes could allow a Tempest Cleric lightning damage fireballs

LOTS of possibilities here

tl;dr: For a single wizard lvl dip poach up to 3 different wizard spells per day of any level

TBH I think its SO good on full casters, that going Caster19/Wiz1 will be better than Caster20 on almost every case (Moon druids for example would benefit more from capstone)

Rethinking it, only Clerics and Druids would truly benefit from this, since spontaneous casters don't meet the prerequisite. Artificers could also get some mileage out of this since they already would have the int for the multiclassing, and have additional attunement slots. Paladins by default wouldn't benefit from this, since it would be too much of an investment for little return, there probably could be some Paladin build that benefits from this though.

[Zhorn]

Considering you'd only be able to pull that off if a DM gave you access to both one of those books from Tasha's AND any additional high level spell scrolls, by that point they've already signed on for any shenanigans about to go down.

I agree that's pretty bonkers, but that's more to do with the magic items themselves being ridiculously strong, of which we all know magic items don't really follow any balanced set of design rules.
Pretty much any class or multiclass build is going to have one of those "this is so much better than every other option of X-type, so long as we have access to Y-specific magic item"

I wonder about those spell books on their own though. If Another wizard has one of them attuned, uses it as their spell book, writes additional spells into it (as your posts suggest our hypothetical multiclass wizard do), and then another wizard takes the book and attunes to it, do the new spells qualify for use by the new wizard? If not, what makes the initially written spells so special as they can be transferable between wizards who did not write them? If instead yes, then the ability to scribe spells themselves isn't needed as you could have another wizard put in any spell they know and use those instead.

Again, it's a valid point you raise. Just it holds the same seriousness as 'infinity+1 sword' concepts, or the wish+simulacrum loop builds that assume infinite wealth.

[bid]

"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 and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
is not the same as
"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 as a Wizard and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
It just specifies "of a spell level you can prepare", which under those exact words use any class levels you have that can prepare spells meets the worded requirement.
Are you arguing that if a wizard 1 / cleric 5 finds an animate dead wizard spell, it works because cleric 5 can prepare animate dead?
That's a neat interpretation.

It still wouldn't work for wizard 1 / cleric 4 because cleric 4 cannot prepare animate dead, though.

[Rukelnikov]

Are you arguing that if a wizard 1 / cleric 5 finds an animate dead wizard spell, it works because cleric 5 can prepare animate dead?
That's a neat interpretation.

It still wouldn't work for wizard 1 / cleric 4 because cleric 4 cannot prepare animate dead, though.

Clerics can already prepare AD by lvl 5, a druid couldn't, but a Druid5/Wiz1 fulfills the criteria for copying that spell, even if she cannot later prepare it.

[bid]

Clerics can already prepare AD by lvl 5, a druid couldn't, but a Druid5/Wiz1 fulfills the criteria for copying that spell, even if she cannot later prepare it.
Neither a druid 5 nor a wizard 1 can prepare that spell. So nope.


"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 as a wizard 1 and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
"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 as a druid 5 and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it."
I hope you don't believe a cleric 17 only need to dip wizard to learn wish, because nobody would buy that.

[Tanarii]

Neither a druid 5 nor a wizard 1 can prepare that spell. So nope.

I hope you don't believe a cleric 17 only need to dip wizard to learn wish, because nobody would buy that.
Pretty sure the logic, such as it is, is that you only need to be of any class that prepares spells (as opposed to spells known), and be able to prepare spells of the correct level. Not that the class in question have it on its list to be able to prepare.

So yes, that is an argument that to put Wish in their spell book, a Cleric 17 would merely have to dip one level of Wizard.

[Zhorn]

Are you arguing that if a wizard 1 / cleric 5 finds an animate dead wizard spell, it works because cleric 5 can prepare animate dead?
That's a neat interpretation.

It still wouldn't work for wizard 1 / cleric 4 because cleric 4 cannot prepare animate dead, though.
No, not at all what I was saying.
What I was saying is that you take wizard1/<multiclassother><X>, where <multiclassother> represents a spellcaster class that 'prepares' spells as opposed to learning spells, and <X> is the level of the specific <multiclassclass>, be it Artificer, Cleric, Druid or Paladin. Which class you use beyond that does not matter, this has nothing to do with the exact spells they can learn, only that they can 'prepare' spells (any spells) for a given spell slot level.

So in the case of a wizard 1/cleric 5, the cleric 5 is able to prepare spells of up to 3rd level, so if the character came across a spell scroll or spellbook with a wizard spell of up to 3rd level, they have met the worded requirement of "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"
Animate dead being on both the Cleric and Wizard spell list (or any other overlap) is an irrelevant detail.



Clerics can already prepare AD by lvl 5, a druid couldn't, but a Druid5/Wiz1 fulfills the criteria for copying that spell, even if she cannot later prepare it.Neither a druid 5 nor a wizard 1 can prepare that spell. So nope.
you agree with them, so 'nope' ?

Outside of magic items that miraculously allow you to skip the narrative requirement of needing to have scribed the spell yourself*, the copied spells in your spellbook cannot be prepared for casting unless they are of a level your wizard levels alone would grant access to.

*Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation

Under normal conditions, a level 1 wizard cannot prepare Animate Dead, even if it is from their own spellbook using their own notation, due to the multiclassing rules for spellcasters on PHB p164.
Under (most**) normal conditions, a level 5 druid cannot prepare Animate Dead since it is not natively on their spell list.

Anyway, you agree on the finer point being made, so the pushback is unnecessary.

(** a level 5 circle of spores druid will have it as a circle spell, and is worded as being 'always prepared', TCE p36 & GGtR p26)



I hope you don't believe a cleric 17 only need to dip wizard to learn wish, because nobody would buy that.
Pretty sure the logic, such as it is, is that you only need to be of any class that prepares spells (as opposed to spells known), and be able to prepare spells of the correct level. Not that the class in question have it on its list to be able to prepare.

So yes, that is an argument that to put Wish in their spell book, a Cleric 17 would merely have to dip one level of Wizard.
Tanarii's got this covered.

Though a pedantic point of order, outside of cantrips Wizards don't actually learn spells, they just copy them into their spellbooks. Take away their spellbook and they're back down to just their cantrips and the list of spells they last had prepared. So strange that they have a sections called 'Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher' when they don't actually learn their spells... :smalltongue:

[bid]

So in the case of a wizard 1/cleric 5, the cleric 5 is able to prepare spells of up to 3rd level,
Not any spells, only those in the cleric spell list.

[Zhorn]

So in the case of a wizard 1/cleric 5, the cleric 5 is able to prepare spells of up to 3rd level,Not any spells, only those in the cleric spell list.
Right, the wizard 1/cleric 5 can actively prepare Cleric spells of up to 3rd level or wizard spells from their spellbook up to 1st level, but as far as the wording in

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
you meet that underlined requirement as that part has not been worded in a way that is class specific.
Your wizard 1/cleric 5 can actively prepare Cleric spells of up to 3rd level
Your character can prepare spells of up to 3rd level
You don't need to be able to prepare that particular spell you are attempting to copy into your spellbook, just be able to prepare spells (any spells) of the same level.

It's a silly loophole that I'm 100% sure wasn't intended, but it conforms to the written requirements because that underlined section wasn't worded with class specific language.

[bid]

Your wizard 1/cleric 5 can actively prepare Cleric spells of up to 3rd level
Your character can prepare spells of up to 3rd level
Oh God... I see it now. The madness!

Spell level 3 is something you can prepare.

[J.C.]

Tome of the Stilled Tongue would allow a Wizard 1/ Cleric 17 to cast Wish.

[kingcheesepants]

Oh my, it seems that in my misunderstanding (or perhaps overly literal understanding) I have inadvertently opened a can of worms here. I don't think any reasonable DM would ever allow such silliness but perhaps one that strongly believes in RAW only and doesn't care about RAI or basic common sense would in fact allow for the 17/1 Cleric/Wiz to copy and cast literally any wizard spell. After all it is a level of spell which they can prepare, as is stated in the books. But for my games I'll stick to treating the as "which you can prepare" as having an implied as a wizard in there.

[SharkForce]

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

it does not matter if you can prepare 3rd level cleric spells. you determine it for each class individually.

you determine whether you can prepare or cast wizard spells as if you were a single-classed wizard, not as if you were a single-classed wizard that also has 5 levels of cleric. or 10 levels of cleric, or 17 levels of cleric. if you are a 17/1 cleric/wizard, you prepare and know cleric spells as a 17th level cleric, and you prepare and know wizard spells as a 1st level wizard, regardless of what lame justification anyone cares to come up with.

your ability to prepare or know 3rd level cleric spells is not relevant to gaining spells as a wizard, because it doesn't come from the wizard class, and you determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class INDIVIDUALLY, AS IF YOU WERE A SINGLE-CLASSED MEMBER OF THAT CLASS.

[Zhorn]

I don't think any reasonable DM would ever allow such silliness but perhaps one that strongly believes in RAW only and doesn't care about RAI or basic common sense would in fact allow for the 17/1 Cleric/Wiz to copy and cast literally any wizard spell. After all it is a level of spell which they can prepare, as is stated in the books. But for my games I'll stick to treating the as "which you can prepare" as having an implied as a wizard in there.
I agree it is ridiculous loophole, but it is also so niche I myself wouldn't even bother making a point over it in my session zero houserules doc to ban it. Outside of a legendary item in the DMG and the new books in Tasha's, it's not going to achieve any shenanigans without the DM letting it happen by giving said items to the player in question.
Class mechanics and core rules alone it is just a variant on Ritual Caster. And if a player is going with the "I'm gonna get weird with my character build" I'm more inclined to facilitate rather than come down with the "no fun allowed" attitude. I'm actually more likely to ban Wish and Luck Blades before this even becomes a blip on my radar, and I haven't banned either of those yet.

From a discussion standpoint, I like these types of questions popping up in the forums. As DMs, it's a good learning experience to dig into the precise wording of RAW and figure what is and is not feasible. Sometimes you get strange oddities which make you evaluate why you would insist on particular rulings over others, analyse the value of select mechanics and rules interactions, or just comes across things that make you think "huh... neat". Even if you don't engage with such occurrences within your own games, an awareness and understanding of such things will broaden your knowledge base and offers the potential to be a better Master of Rules by seeing where nich rules do or may interact in previously unexpected ways.

[Valmark]

Like SharkForce (and Tanarii before them, I think I recall) pointed out, spell preparation is class-separated by the multiclassing rules. This means that if you found a scroll with a wizard spell you wouldn't be able to write it into your spellbook because it's not of a level you can prepare since multiclassing rules forbid you from using your cleric levels for that.
Assuming it's indeed too high level, of course.

If it said that you need to have the spell slots for it it'd work since those are shared.

[Zhorn]

Like SharkForce (and Tanarii before them, I think I recall) pointed out, spell preparation is class-separated by the multiclassing rules. This means that if you found a scroll with a wizard spell you wouldn't be able to write it into your spellbook because it's not of a level you can prepare since multiclassing rules forbid you from using your cleric levels for that.
It means what is written. You prepare spells for classes individually means you prepare spells for classes individually.
I'm not saying this to start an argument. It's just a case of a (rightfully) assumed RAI vs a RAW with a quirky loophole in it.
Should it have been worded better as to prevent such shenanigans? Absolutely. I think this is a very stupid cheese of the mechanics. But the RAW fails to specify you need to be able to prepare strictly Wizard spells of spell slot level in question.
It SHOULD, but doesn't. We can try to cover it with an extrapolation based on what section of the book it is in and a tangentially related but separate rule, but at that point we are house ruling (a house ruling I think is rightly correcting an unfortunate oversight, but still a house ruling all the same).

[SharkForce]

It means what is written. You prepare spells for classes individually means you prepare spells for classes individually.
I'm not saying this to start an argument. It's just a case of a (rightfully) assumed RAI vs a RAW with a quirky loophole in it.
Should it have been worded better as to prevent such shenanigans? Absolutely. I think this is a very stupid cheese of the mechanics. But the RAW fails to specify you need to be able to prepare strictly Wizard spells of spell slot level in question.
It SHOULD, but doesn't. We can try to cover it with an extrapolation based on what section of the book it is in and a tangentially related but separate rule, but at that point we are house ruling (a house ruling I think is rightly correcting an unfortunate oversight, but still a house ruling all the same).

you can neither prepare it, nor can you *know* it.

given that the process of writing the spell in your spellbook involves you *practicing the spell to master it*, there really isn't much room to argue. you cannot know the spell. writing it in your spellbook involves knowing the spell. you cannot know the spell, therefore you cannot just add it to your spellbook.

you *might*, at best, be able to have someone else's copy of the spell copied into your spellbook, but since you then still have to decipher their meaning, and re-copy it in your own notation, you aren't going to get a discount. you haven't written the spell in your book, you've written a code that could allow you to write the spell later on.

[bid]

you can neither prepare it, nor can you *know* it.
Can you prepare animate dead?
Yes, but it doesn't matter.

All that matters is you can prepare a level 3 spell, any spell.


Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
That's the beauty of that mind warp.


Of course, in the real world, it actually means "you can prepare as a wizard". You should expect that since you are in the Classes chapter, all explanation only refer to the current class.

[Zhorn]

Prefacing this with clarifying my position on the matter.
I do not like this loophole, and I think is it an oversight mistake.
But I am defending in on the principle of respecting 'RAW as strictly RAW', not 'RAW is I'd prefer it to be interpreted' because in the case of the latter I agree with you on what it should be.
But that preference does not change what is actually written.
When discussing rules and rulings on the forums, it is important to maintain such distinctions between the RAW as it appears in the books, the RAI as can be revealed from the communications from the Devs or narrative flavourings, and preferred rulings that we want to run at our tables. Much confusion on the forums happens to people seeking information when those supplying answers don't distinguish between those differences (just look at the current thread on Magic Missile for an active example with opinions on the number of dice rolled to darts triggering concentrations checks).


you can neither prepare it, nor can you *know* it.
True, we've established that part. PHB p164 is very clear on that front.


given that the process of writing the spell in your spellbook involves you *practicing the spell to master it*, there really isn't much room to argue. you cannot know the spell. writing it in your spellbook involves knowing the spell. you cannot know the spell, therefore you cannot just add it to your spellbook.
Misrepresentation of RAW here. Mastering the spell is referenced in the part referencing the ability to prepare the spell, but copying makes no such requirement, and the mastering comment is made after the scribing has already occurred.
So instead of pretending to refence the book while claiming it says something else, here's what it actually says;

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
Three sections;
the first covers the permission to copy the spell
the second is the narrative of the copying process
and the third is the mastering of the spell that qualifies the spell for preparation

Note what section the 'master' comment is made within, where the scribing takes place, and which comment proceeds what.
Again, I get what you WANT it mean, and I agree it should have been written to reflect that. Doesn't change the reality of how it IS written.

For the first section, which is the crux of the matter

All that matters is you can prepare a level 3 spell, any spell.

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
That's the beauty of that mind warp.
And that's coming from someone priorly accusing me of sophistry (all good @bid, I'm just having fun :smallbiggrin:)
But in all seriousness, that section does not specify using class specific language on the requirement.
It does not matter if you cannot prepare WIZARD spells of the specified level, just that you can prepare spells (any spells) of the specified level.

The second section, the narrative f copying, does not require mastering to complete, not doe it make reference to being able to prepare the specific spell either during or as a result of this process. It narrative conclude with the spell being transcribed into your spellbook.

The third section is where the rule on PHB p164 finally comes into play, blocking the preparation of the spell in a class specific fashion, but by this point the copying has already come to pass.

[bid]

And that's coming from someone priorly accusing me of sophistry (all good @bid, I'm just having fun :smallbiggrin:)
Don't worry, I'm laughing with you. I love brainfarts.:smallbiggrin:

[SharkForce]

Misrepresentation of RAW here. Mastering the spell is referenced in the part referencing the ability to prepare the spell, but copying makes no such requirement, and the mastering comment is made after the scribing has already occurred.
So instead of pretending to refence the book while claiming it says something else, here's what it actually says;

Three sections;
the first covers the permission to copy the spell
the second is the narrative of the copying process
and the third is the mastering of the spell that qualifies the spell for preparation

Note what section the 'master' comment is made within, where the scribing takes place, and which comment proceeds what.
Again, I get what you WANT it mean, and I agree it should have been written to reflect that. Doesn't change the reality of how it IS written.

they are all sections about copying the spell into your spellbook. as part of the process, you learn about the spell. it doesn't matter if that part is first or not. all that matters is that as part of copying, you must know the spell, and you cannot know the spell with that multiclass build. the fact that there are theoretically some parts that are not explicitly excluded is irrelevant. if one part in the process of swinging a sword is to have a sword and I have no limbs with which I can manipulate that sword, that doesn't mean that I can ignore all the things I can't do and simply declare "well, I have a sword, therefore I can swing it". if I cannot do all of the required steps, I cannot do it.

the logic is very simple and straightforward.

you cannot know the spell. copying the spell requires knowing the spell. therefore, you cannot copy the spell.