Learning/preparing spells based on total caster level

[carkl3000]

Is it really that unbalanced to allow a (for instance) Druid 16/Wizard 1 to learn and prepare 9th level wizard spells? I understand that the common interpretation of the RAW for multiclassed casters doesn't allow this, and that that is probably also the designer's RAI, but I think it's hard to make the case that this particular rule is completely unambiguous.

As for balance issues, there will still be the limitation on the number of preparation slots and spell slots available so although they would have access to high level spells from both spell lists, they still have to pick and choose which spells to actually use, and they would be missing out on other class/subclass features. It doesn't ask of a sudden make the character a full wizard and a full druid. It doesn't seem particularly broken to me to allow it. Am I wrong?

[Kuulvheysoon]

That's not the common interpretation of the RAW - that's literally what the RAW states, no ifs, ands or buts.
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's completely unambiguous.

If you change that, you're removing the biggest penalty for multiclassing. Given the way that 5E handles spell slots with multiclassing, a cleric 1/druid 1/wizard 18 can effectively prepare every spell in the game with full spell slot progression.

High level spellcasters already extend a middle finger to martial characters, and this would just be the cherry on top. It would effectively homogenize spellcasters if they could unlock full access to the entire spell list with just a single level. You'd simply pick a base class for the casting stat (likely Charisma, because this is 5E), dip a single level in whatever class you wanted to access the entire spell list of, and then fully level up in whatever class had the better subclass levels.

[Ashe]

That's totally broken. Free wish and true poly are the most broken parts but it means any cleric dipper can now use res spells, regenerate etc, any fullcaster who dips numerous classes can whip out foresight, you don't need to bother learning/preparing spells on your 'main' class that are on both spell lists and so forth.
It's clearly not meant to work this way for a reason.

[PhantomSoul]

Really, I'll just echo the two above at this point! Multiclassing spellcasters already lacks bite, and this is giving them cake instead.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, that’s not a good change. Multiclassing has trade offs-and this removes the main one for casters.

[Unoriginal]

Is it really that unbalanced to allow a (for instance) Druid 16/Wizard 1 to learn and prepare 9th level wizard spells?

A non-multiclassed Wizard will normally need 17 levels to prepare and cast 9th level Wizard spells.

It is obviously not balanced to give the same perks for
1/17th of the investisment. Not to mention that the Druid/Wizard would also be able to prepare and cast 9th lvl Druid spells, with what you are proposing, making them far stronger than any non-multiclassed Druid.



As for balance issues, there will still be the limitation on the number of preparation slots and spell slots available so although they would have access to high level spells from both spell lists, they still have to pick and choose which spells to actually use, and they would be missing out on other class/subclass features. It doesn't ask of a sudden make the character a full wizard and a full druid. It doesn't seem particularly broken to me to allow it. Am I wrong?

Having your entire spell list doubled with one level of investment is stronger than a lot of class features, especially the Wizard's.

[PhantomSoul]

Having your entire spell list doubled with one level of investment is stronger than a lot of class features, especially the Wizard's.

And crucially, it is getting Wizard class features. When you compare features that classes get, it reinforces rather than refutes that the new spells are treated like main features as you level. Getting all of the spells with a single level is quite literally giving major features from the whole class at level 1.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having your entire spell list doubled with one level of investment is stronger than a lot of class features, especially the Wizard's.

Right. For most of the full-casters, most of their class power budget is their spell list[1]. So giving access to 80%[2] of a class's power budget by taking a single level is, in a word, insane. Cleric 1/druid 1/wizard 18 now has the capstone for wizard, plus almost every spell in the game at his fingertips. And is significantly stronger than any of the pure-class ones.

Casters don't need buffs. Especially not this one.

[1] which, IMO, is horrible design, but that's a rant for a different day.
[2] numbers on the internet are mostly made up. Including this one, but I'd be shocked if it's all that far off.

[PhantomSoul]

Right. For most of the full-casters, most of their class power budget is their spell list[1]. So giving access to 80%[2] of a class's power budget by taking a single level is, in a word, insane. Cleric 1/druid 1/wizard 18 now has the capstone for wizard, plus almost every spell in the game at his fingertips. And is significantly stronger than any of the pure-class ones.

Casters don't need buffs. Especially not this one.

[1] which, IMO, is horrible design, but that's a rant for a different day.
[2] numbers on the internet are mostly made up. Including this one, but I'd be shocked if it's all that far off.

To illustrate, class & subclass features by level:

https://i.imgur.com/Bk0aWvr.png

Obviously this doesn't evaluate feature strength, but spells are definitely not on the losing end of that!

[PhoenixPhyre]

To illustrate, class & subclass features by level:

Obviously this doesn't evaluate feature strength, but spells are definitely not on the losing end of that!

I'm curious as to what the last line means (SC/C), since it doesn't seem to be a simple sum of the previous two.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm curious as to what the last line means (SC/C), since it doesn't seem to be a simple sum of the previous two.

Very odd but it was from back in the thread that originally inspired me to run the numbers, but it's:

(Number of levels with subclass features / 20 levels)
--------------------------------------------------
(Number of levels with class features / 20 levels)

With the " / 20 levels" obviously being irrelevant because it cancels out (but it was there because there was another line elsewhere that ran those numbers). It gets multiplied by 100 and rounded just because that's nicer in Excel.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Very odd but it was from back in the thread that originally inspired me to run the numbers, but it's:

(Number of levels with subclass features / 20 levels)
--------------------------------------------------
(Number of levels with class features / 20 levels)

With the " / 20 levels" obviously being irrelevant because it cancels out (but it was there because there was another line elsewhere that ran those numbers). It gets multiplied by 100 and rounded just because that's nicer in Excel.

That's an odd measure...I guess it's a relative balance of subclass to class features (roughly "sub-class power concentration"). Oh well. Point taken.

And look at wizards. They have half the number of non-spell-level class features as the next lowest, or about 1/4 the number as the modal class. Without having a significantly larger number of sub-class features either (right at the mode). Seriously, wizards have a totally borked class design that doesn't fit any of the paradigms.

[PhantomSoul]

That's an odd measure...I guess it's a relative balance of subclass to class features (roughly "sub-class power concentration"). Oh well. Point taken.

And look at wizards. They have half the number of non-spell-level class features as the next lowest, or about 1/4 the number as the modal class. Without having a significantly larger number of sub-class features either (right at the mode). Seriously, wizards have a totally borked class design that doesn't fit any of the paradigms.

Yeah, that thread was about subclass vs. class features (probably relative to spellcasting? not sure anymore) -- this just happened to line up for the thread minus the relative tally at the bottom.

It really does end up being a bit shocking how few features some classes (i.e. spellcasters) get compared to others. I've played several wizards now and you feel it to some extent; you normally get a noticeable bit of subclass (and usually just one) but being a wizard largely just means spellcasting. Ritual casting could have been significant, but really, that just means you're a conventional full caster who isn't a sorcerer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, that thread was about subclass vs. class features (probably relative to spellcasting? not sure anymore) -- this just happened to line up for the thread minus the relative tally at the bottom.

It really does end up being a bit shocking how few features some classes (i.e. spellcasters) get compared to others. I've played several wizards now and you feel it to some extent; you normally get a noticeable bit of subclass (and usually just one) but being a wizard largely just means spellcasting. Ritual casting could have been significant, but really, that just means you're a conventional full caster who isn't a sorcerer.

Right. Frankly, I find wizards to be the worst-designed class in the game. Heck, they even gave fighters meaningful and thematic class features (even if we can debate the power level). Wizards? It's either "I have spells" or "I can cast more spells". Literally every base class feature is "I cast more spells than you." Arcane recovery? More spell slots. Spell mastery? Free casting of spells. Spellcasting? Duh. And their subclass features (except a couple of the newer ones)? Mostly "I cast X spells better. But only a little, because all my class's power budget is used up by having 2-3x as many spells on my list as the next guy, plus having all the powerful spells."

[Thunderous Mojo]

Is it really that unbalanced to allow a (for instance) Druid 16/Wizard 1 to learn and prepare 9th level wizard spells?

Before Xanathar's Guide to Everything was published, I DM'd a game that allowed this, and it was surprisingly balanced.

One's Character level determines how many spells you know, or can prepare.

A 1st level Wizard class dip nets you 6 free 1st level spells, and all the rest of your spells have to be discovered in game. The DM controls if you find a scroll with Animate Objects or Simulacrum on it.

In the case of a Wizard that dips into classes with Prepared Spells, (such as the Cleric or Druid classes), a 20th level character that has taken 18 levels in Wizard, 1 level in the Cleric, and 1 level in the Druid class..is still dependent upon their Wisdom score for how many spells they can Prepare.

This character with max Wisdom is able to prepare 6 spells as a Cleric, and 6 spells as a Druid. The character's number of spell slots is determined by the multi-class table in the PHB, and thus might be less than the number of spell slots a single class character of the same character level might possess.

My experience was people generally Prepared spells like Lesser Restoration, or Regenerate, things that might not be needed all the time, except when an emergency struck.

T4 means the Wizard could have Wish, so effective access to nigh any spell is a present condition, even in a RAW game.

It did help Sorlocks, feel like a more caster style Paladin. Then XGE came out and we had the Divine Soul and new spells that enabled or supported certain character themes, that the PHB did not do a good job of...and the house rule hasn't been used since.

In play it felt like any RAW game where the players have regular access to scrolls...such as a Waterdeep or Eberron game. If you are a DM that likes to give out a lot of scrolls or other one use items, it plays about the same.

Having access to all the spells in the game, doesn't mean much if one is out of spell slots. 🃏

[Man_Over_Game]

So giving access to 80%[2] of a class's power budget by taking a single level is, in a word, insane.


Sorry if this adds anything to the conversation, but I'd say that the same is already true for Barbarians and Rogues.

That's all, thanks.

[Quietus]

Finally, time for my multiclass wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid/bard to shine! Ninth level spells from five different classes!

[PhantomSoul]

Finally, time for my multiclass wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid/bard to shine! Ninth level spells from five different classes!

Psht, amateur -- gotta toss in artificer, paladin and ranger too!

[Man_Over_Game]

Thinking about it, the only reason this isn't fair is because non-casters don't get the same treatment. I can't, for instance, put 3 levels into Barbarian, 2 levels into Fighter, and come out with Extra Attack. I also can't use the duplicate Extra Attack feature, so I'd have to find a way to level around that.

Multiclassing is messed up for everyone, it isn't a problem that's unique to casters. That being said, I don't think anyone would care about this change if folks could figure out how to give martials the same treatment.

[PhantomSoul]

Thinking about it, the only reason this isn't fair is because non-casters don't get the same treatment. I can't, for instance, put 3 levels into Barbarian, 2 levels into Fighter, and come out with Extra Attack. I also can't use the duplicate Extra Attack feature, so I'd have to find a way to level around that.

Multiclassing is messed up for everyone, it isn't a problem that's unique to casters. That being said, I don't think anyone would care about this change if folks could figure out how to give martials the same treatment.

Extra Attack isn't really the best pick for feature; that would seem a better parallel to spell slots. I think it's more like getting Auras, Evasion, Diamond Soul and Indomitable because you took a one-level dip in the relevant class.

[JNAProductions]

Thinking about it, the only reason this isn't fair is because non-casters don't get the same treatment. I can't, for instance, put 3 levels into Barbarian, 2 levels into Fighter, and come out with Extra Attack. I also can't use the duplicate Extra Attack feature, so I'd have to find a way to level around that.

Multiclassing is messed up for everyone, it isn't a problem that's unique to casters. That being said, I don't think anyone would care about this change if folks could figure out how to give martials the same treatment.

A Wizard 18/Cleric 1/Druid 1 with full access to all three lists is significantly more powerful than a Wizard 20. Perhaps not in any single fight, owing to slot limitations, but has an absolutely STUPID pool of spells to draw on if they have time to prepare.

[Man_Over_Game]

Extra Attack isn't really the best pick for feature; that would seem a better parallel to spell slots. I think it's more like getting Auras, Evasion, Diamond Soul and Indomitable because you took a one-level dip in the relevant class.

What it sounds like we're really doing is creating a classless leveling system that encourages specializations at no additional cost.

For example: Each class is either a Martial or a Caster, as well as its own class level.

3 levels into Paladin and 3 levels into Barbarian gives you level 3 Paladin and level 3 Barbarian features, as well as level 6 Martial features.

That kind of stuff works really, really well, since the core mechanics are stable despite making every class and character feel unique.

The reason you make class-based systems and close off access to players is so that you can do batsh*t things within each "quarantine zone" (classes). For instance, 4e is an example of great class design. Lots of really cool, internal mechanics that don't really work outside of that class, but you have more than enough options to choose from to adjust your gameplay to what you want within those class limits. So even though multiclassing sucks, you're still able to dramatically change how you play while leveling (so no two Barbarians feel too alike and they both support different niches without being redundant).

What you don't want is a system where everything is blocked off via classes, and then you have all of the classes function almost identically anyway. Like 5e. It does have the benefit of making the transition between one class to another incredibly simple, so it feels a lot less overwhelming to new players, but it doesn't really do much for those that grow out of that "noobie" stage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO, the reason to have classes isn't mechanical at all. It's thematic. You have classes to restrict the archetypes available. Letting people mix and match them is much better done with an explicitly class-less system. Of which there are many. Level-by-level multiclassing is, in my opinion[1], a vestige of the past that should be moved away from. Either in favor of a 4e/PF2e style "feat based" system or a 2e-style Dual-classing or just removed entirely. And until it is excised properly, it should always be a variant, disfavored option.

IMO, a single-classed build should always have more power than a multi-classed build. Hands down, not even close. The multi-classed build can pick up alternate thematics or versatility, but this should come at the cost of significant power. Is this the way it is? No. And this proposal would flip the script entirely, making a one-level dip into another full casting class (or heck, even into Paladin for those juicy paladin-exclusive spells) almost mandatory for any serious optimizer.

[1] an unpopular one, to be sure, especially on these mechanics-first-and-almost-only forums.

[Hytheter]

Right. For most of the full-casters, most of their class power budget is their spell list[1]. So giving access to 80%[2] of a class's power budget by taking a single level is, in a word, insane.

I think you're overstating the matter. The spell list isn't 80% of the wizard's power budget - it's the spell slots that are doing the heavy lifting. The specific list is only a marginal power boost over the base condition of being a full caster, and giving that list to other casters is only worth talking about at all because they already share the feature (spell slots) that actually defines their power budget.

Not that I'm saying opening multiclassing like this would be at all sensible. It's a ridiculous versatility boost and it lets you do almost literally anything on one day's notice. But on a day to day basis it's not really that much more powerful than being a full caster already is because you're ultimately limited by the number of slots you have.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you're overstating the matter. The spell list isn't 80% of the wizard's power budget - it's the spell slots that are doing the heavy lifting. The specific list is only a marginal power boost over the base condition of being a full caster, and giving that list to other casters is only worth talking about at all because they already share the feature (spell slots) that actually defines their power budget.

Not that I'm saying opening multiclassing like this would be at all sensible. It's a ridiculous versatility boost and it lets you do almost literally anything on one day's notice. But on a day to day basis it's not really that much more powerful than being a full caster already is because you're ultimately limited by the number of slots you have.

Considering that wizards have 7 class/sub-class features total (the least of anyone) and those features are either "I cast more spells" or they're basically ribbons, I'd say that 80% is about right. And based on the hurricane-force whining that ensued when I dared suggest cutting down the spell list[1], I'd say that that's as expected by wizard fans. They also have the best version of ritual casting, and the most access to use of spell scrolls (due to their absurdly large, totally unthematic list).

[1] Wizards have ~2x the nearest size spell list. Every really powerful, "broken" spell is on their spell list. They have the most exclusive spells of anyone. When each new book is published, wizards get nearly as many new spells as all other lists combined.

[PhantomSoul]

I think you're overstating the matter. The spell list isn't 80% of the wizard's power budget - it's the spell slots that are doing the heavy lifting. The specific list is only a marginal power boost over the base condition of being a full caster, and giving that list to other casters is only worth talking about at all because they already share the feature (spell slots) that actually defines their power budget.

Not that I'm saying opening multiclassing like this would be at all sensible. It's a ridiculous versatility boost and it lets you do almost literally anything on one day's notice. But on a day to day basis it's not really that much more powerful than being a full caster already is because you're ultimately limited by the number of slots you have.


The spell list is (nearly) useless without the spell slots; the spell slots are useless without spells to cast in them. Multiclassing already ruins using spell slots as the gate, so what's left is the spells themselves.

[Hytheter]

Considering that wizards have 7 class/sub-class features total (the least of anyone) and those features are either "I cast more spells" or they're basically ribbons, I'd say that 80% is about right. And based on the hurricane-force whining that ensued when I dared suggest cutting down the spell list[1], I'd say that that's as expected by wizard fans. They also have the best version of ritual casting, and the most access to use of spell scrolls (due to their absurdly large, totally unthematic list).

Almost 100% of the class is spellcasting, yes. But nowhere near 80% of the class's is the wizard spell list, specifically. If you took away their list and gave them the Cleric list instead they'd still be quite strong. Not as strong, but definitely not 80% weaker.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Considering that wizards have 7 class/sub-class features total (the least of anyone) and those features are either "I cast more spells" or they're basically ribbons, I'd say that 80% is about right. And based on the hurricane-force whining that ensued when I dared suggest cutting down the spell list[1], I'd say that that's as expected by wizard fans. They also have the best version of ritual casting, and the most access to use of spell scrolls (due to their absurdly large, totally unthematic list).

[1] Wizards have ~2x the nearest size spell list. Every really powerful, "broken" spell is on their spell list. They have the most exclusive spells of anyone. When each new book is published, wizards get nearly as many new spells as all other lists combined.

Someone else who dislikes how broad the Wizard list is? My brother, I have found you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Almost 100% of the class is spellcasting, yes. But nowhere near 80% of the class's is the wizard spell list, specifically. If you took away their list and gave them the Cleric list instead they'd still be quite strong. Not as strong, but definitely not 80% weaker.

That's not what I meant by that. Substituting for another strong list is an 80% reduction (to nothing) and then adding another X% back in (the weaker list). But I'd say that the spell list (in particular) is a massive chunk of it. Is 80% the right number? See my footnote about where I sourced it.

[Hytheter]

That's not what I meant by that.

You said that adding one full caster's list to another full caster is giving the latter 80% of the former's power budget. This would imply that the new superclass has the power of (for example) 100% of a Druid + 80% of a Wizard. If that's not what you meant then I don't know how else to interpret your original comment.

[PhantomSoul]

You said that adding one full caster's list to another full caster is giving the latter 80% of the former's power budget. This would imply that the new superclass has the power of (for example) 100% of a Druid + 80% of a Wizard. If that's not what you meant then I don't know how else to interpret your original comment.

Not necessarily; it can be 80% of the Wizard's, but that still wouldn't mean it would be worth 80% on a Druid (in other words, the addition might not work like that).

[Valmark]

I think it'd be too strong depending on the class and level.

If you're gonna lose a strong class/subclass features then multiclassing could be detrimental- meanwhile if it's gonna be just a spell level then multiclassing is a no brainer. Overall, it shouldn't be allowed IMO. When you have a choice between two things if one is 100% better then the other the player may feel bad at selecting the obviously wrong option, even if that's what their character's theme calls for (even if refluffing is a thing).

Regarding the wizard's class features, cleric have the same amount. Druids have less (unless we consider Druidic knowledge a class feature) and both have access to more preparable spells (without DM help) although less usable spells at the same time. I don't think the wizard class should be treated as the worst 'offender', also given how strongly some class features shape the usable tactics.

EDIT: Forgot clerics get prepared spells from domains, so it's not true that they have less usable spells at the same time then wizards.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it'd be too strong depending on the class and level.

If you're gonna lose a strong class/subclass features then multiclassing could be detrimental- meanwhile if it's gonna be just a spell level then multiclassing is a no brainer. Overall, it shouldn't be allowed IMO. When you have a choice between two things if one is 100% better then the other the player may feel bad at selecting the obviously wrong option, even if that's what their character's theme calls for (even if refluffing is a thing).

Regarding the wizard's class features, cleric have the same amount. Druids have less (unless we consider Druidic knowledge a class feature) and both have access to more preparable spells (without DM help) although less usable spells at the same time. I don't think the wizard class should be treated as the worst 'offender', also given how strongly some class features shape the usable tactics.

EDIT: Forgot clerics get prepared spells from domains, so it's not true that they have less usable spells at the same time then wizards.

The wizard list is way bigger. And has all of the most powerful spells on it. Plus the best version of ritual casting. It's not spells prepared, it's size of list (and thus potential versatility). And wizards have 7 features, druids have 10, as do clerics.

Not only that, but wizard features other than spellcasting are generally much weaker than cleric or druid features. In fact, they get really one big subclass feature and then a bunch of ribbons, mostly.

[SharkForce]

A Wizard 18/Cleric 1/Druid 1 with full access to all three lists is significantly more powerful than a Wizard 20. Perhaps not in any single fight, owing to slot limitations, but has an absolutely STUPID pool of spells to draw on if they have time to prepare.

heh, let's not be silly here.

sorcerer 17/wizard 1/2 other spellcasting classes at 1 would give you the wizard spell list, which is the biggest reason to be a wizard in the first place, and would give you all the things that sorcerer lacks, plus the handful of really awesome things the sorcerer doesn't lack.

[Quietus]

Psht, amateur -- gotta toss in artificer, paladin and ranger too!

Absolutely fair! So that would make me...

2 wizard
1 sorcerer
1 cleric
2 druid
3 bard
2 Paladin
2 Ranger
1 Artificer

With 6 levels to put into Druid, Sorcerer, or Cleric while maintaining (at level 20) 18th caster level off of 8 different lists, at the cost of needing 13 in four stats. Might as well go basic human, and start with all mental stats at 14.

[carkl3000]

Thanks for the discussion. I agree, it wouldn't be good for the game because there's not enough of a downside to prevent every caster from taking a few dips and being just a generic everything caster.

But I still don't think it's that terrible from the standpoint of balance.

[Unoriginal]

But I still don't think it's that terrible from the standpoint of balance.

Using what you proposed in your OP, can you think of any level 17 Wizard or level 17 Druid that could match your level 16 Druid/ level 1 Wizard?

[carkl3000]

Using what you proposed in your OP, can you think of any level 17 Wizard or level 17 Druid that could match your level 16 Druid/ level 1 Wizard?

Match how?

I mean, I just want to point out that the 16 Druid/1 wizard wouldn't just start out with 9th level spells in their spellbook. They'd get a spellbook with 6, 1st level spells. They'd be able to transcribe and then subsequently prepare higher level spells if they were able to find them written down somewhere and spent the time and money to copy them (which of course they would do, but it's not automatic and it's not free.). And then they'd only be able to prepare a limited number of those. Presumably a character that spent their first 16 levels as a druid wouldn't be maxing intelligence so they'd be able to prepare two or three spells from a pretty small list... and they'd probably want to choose from the spells that don't rely on a high casting stat to be effective...

[PhantomSoul]

Using what you proposed in your OP, can you think of any level 17 Wizard or level 17 Druid that could match your level 16 Druid/ level 1 Wizard?

And crucially, how would other pure casters tend to feel about their abilities if you played the frankenmulticlass, and how appealing would it seem to play any of those classes? Worse still, a martial/martial or martial/spellcaster multiclass? Balance isn't just about the range of numbers, but also how alternatives compare and coexist.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The wizard list is way bigger. And has all of the most powerful spells on it. Plus the best version of ritual casting. It's not spells prepared, it's size of list (and thus potential versatility). And wizards have 7 features, druids have 10, as do clerics.

Not only that, but wizard features other than spellcasting are generally much weaker than cleric or druid features. In fact, they get really one big subclass feature and then a bunch of ribbons, mostly.

The size of a spell list is less important than the efficiency in which one interacts with the spell list.

Imagine this: A Cleric and Wizard characters both reach 5th level after a large battle with numerous Orcs. The Wizard selects Animate Dead and Fireball as their spell selections for achieving 5th level.

The Wizard then spends 4 days making Zombies, before the group heads out to adventure.

The now 5th level Cleric also spends 4 days making Zombies, yet when the day comes to go Adventuring the cleric prepares a different spell, than Animate Dead. A spell that is more useful whilst adventuring.

The cleric class is able to more efficiently access their spell list.

( in real life 4 days of making and drinking Zombies usually means a hangover 🃏)
The entirety of the Wizard spell list is not the actual pool of spells a PC Wizard has effective access to...the spells in the PC Wizard's spellbook is their effective spell list.

As for calling Wizard class and subclass features ribbons or weak;
Getting proficiency in a Calligrapher's Set is a ribbon.

Minor Conjuration means a Conjurer Wizard only needs to see a spell component to have effective access to it...which becomes more useful the more one advances.

I would rate Minor Conjuration as one of the weaker Wizard abilities, as it can be sometimes tricky to use, and yet this ribbon alters how the PC interacts with spellcasting requirements for the rest of their career.

[PhantomSoul]

Minor Conjuration means a Conjurer Wizard only needs to see a spell component to have effective access to it...which becomes more useful the more one advances.

I would rate Minor Conjuration as one of the weaker Wizard abilities, as it can be sometimes tricky to use, and yet this ribbon alters how the PC interacts with spellcasting requirements for the rest of their career.

Usual comment about this being a check-with-your-DM case if the component has a cost (the temporary object might be ruled not to have value for spell purposes) and when it can't you can usually just use a focus and ignore the issue like 5e apparently wants you to. (Granted, in the off chance you were stripped of everything you had and thrown into a cell, you do get a chance for that to swap for a focus.)

[Unoriginal]

Match how?

As you wish. Any task the Druid/Wizard can do that one of the other two PCs could have equal capacity at accomplishing, for example.

As a more concrete example: fighting Juiblex, Demon Prince of Oozes?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Usual comment about this being a check-with-your-DM case if the component has a cost (the temporary object might be ruled not to have value for spell purposes)

This supports my point...even under the most persnickety of rulings, (JC feels a Shadowblade meets the monetary requirements of a Booming Blade spell for example)...a weaker Wizard class 'ribbon' still means you can summon any key, one has seen.

On a quotidian basis, it is a life changing ability.

[PhantomSoul]

This supports my point...even under the most persnickety of rulings, (JC feels a Shadowblade meets the monetary requirements of a Booming Blade spell for example)...a weaker Wizard class 'ribbon' still means you can summon any key, one has seen.

On a quotidian basis, it is a life changing ability.
(Emphasis mine)

To be accurate, JC said he'd rule it that way, not that that's what is unambiguously or even strictly following the rules. (At least based on the tweet from Nov. 12th, 2020.) What he says he allows and what he states as being the rules aren't the same (he's even had cases where he explicitly distinguishes those, as I recall).

[carkl3000]

As you wish. Any task the Druid/Wizard can do that one of the other two PCs could have equal capacity at accomplishing, for example.

As a more concrete example: fighting Juiblex, Demon Prince of Oozes?

Sorry I was editing my post above as you were posting here.

Short version: the druid 16/wizard 1, has one fewer druid spell prepared and 2 or 3 extra 1st level wizard spells prepared than the druid 17... until they've had the opportunity to maybe find hardcopy of some higher level wizard spells that they can add to their book. Then they can maybe prepare 2 or 3 wizard spells of higher level. I don't see how it's that big a deal.

[JNAProductions]

Sorry I was editing my post above as you were posting here.

Short version: the druid 16/wizard 1, has one fewer druid spell prepared and 2 or 3 extra 1st level wizard spells prepared than the druid 17... until they've had the opportunity to maybe find hardcopy of some higher level wizard spells that they can add to their book. Then they can maybe prepare 2 or 3 wizard spells of higher level. I don't see how it's that big a deal.

Because one of those spells can be Wish or Foresight-incredibly powerful 9th level spells Druids don’t normally get.

[carkl3000]

Because one of those spells can be Wish or Foresight-incredibly powerful 9th level spells Druids don’t normally get.

Druids get Foresight. How often do 9th level scrolls (or a scroll of Wish specifically?) turn up in a loot pile?

[JNAProductions]

Druids get Foresight. How often do 9th level scrolls (or a scroll of Wish specifically?) turn up in a loot pile?

They do? Didn't remember that.

And Wizards can learn spells of any level they can cast-under RAW multiclassing, that'd be 1st level spells. Under your version, that's 9ths.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Banishment is a notable spell that druids would get access to under your rules (and that's off of the top of my head). Druids have a surprisingly potent spell list, surprisingly, at least by Core standards.

[carkl3000]

They do? Didn't remember that.

And Wizards can learn spells of any level they can cast-under RAW multiclassing, that'd be 1st level spells. Under your version, that's 9ths.

They'd be able to transcribe them into their book if they were able to find them written down somewhere. On their first wizard level they'd get a spellbook with 6, 1st level spells. Anything else would require additional investment (and some DM buy-in if they wanted specific spells.)

[carkl3000]

Banishment is a notable spell that druids would get access to under your rules (and that's off of the top of my head). Druids have a surprisingly potent spell list, surprisingly, at least by Core standards.

Fine, but not upon taking a single wizard level unless they subsequently find the spell somewhere and transcribe it. And I still don't think it's that big a deal. Like you said, druids have good spells, too.

[carkl3000]

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's completely unambiguous.

I'm still not convinced. The individual spellcasting features for cleric, druid, and wizard say you can prepare a spell if you have the spell slot. It's only in the wizard's "learning spells of 1st level or higher" section that it specifies that the spell slot should be from the wizard's spell slot table.

EDIT: In fact, because of this I'd say that the druid 16/wizard 1 actually can't transcribe higher level spells. BUT if they found a spellbook that already contained higher level spells that they could use in place of their original spellbook (for instance, one of the tomes from TCoE) they should be able to prepare those higher level spells as soon as they have spell slots to cast them from the multiclass caster table.


If you change that, you're removing the biggest penalty for multiclassing. Given the way that 5E handles spell slots with multiclassing, a cleric 1/druid 1/wizard 18 can effectively prepare every spell in the game with full spell slot progression.

High level spellcasters already extend a middle finger to martial characters, and this would just be the cherry on top. It would effectively homogenize spellcasters if they could unlock full access to the entire spell list with just a single level. You'd simply pick a base class for the casting stat (likely Charisma, because this is 5E), dip a single level in whatever class you wanted to access the entire spell list of, and then fully level up in whatever class had the better subclass levels.

I think it would probably be best to dip druid and cleric and then take the rest of your levels in wizard to reliably increase the size of your spell book. (Or level up in bard or sorcerer to have an adequate number of spells known from one those lists if that's the class you want) but STILL you'd have limited preparations from the druid and cleric lists and you'd have to be selective about which spells you take from each list because you can't give yourself good scores in all the casting stats.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This supports my point...even under the most persnickety of rulings, (JC feels a Shadowblade meets the monetary requirements of a Booming Blade spell for example)...a weaker Wizard class 'ribbon' still means you can summon any key, one has seen.

On a quotidian basis, it is a life changing ability.

Count me as someone who would not allow any wizard to use that to conjure any meaningful component (ie anything that has a cost). Or replace a focus or component pouch.

Edit: and I specifically said that wizards tend to have one decent subclass ability and the rest are ribbons. That's the Conjuration wizard's major feature. Something that might come up 5 times in an entire campaign. I'd love to see wizards actually get real, thematic, meaningful abilities. But to do so, the spell list (and a lot of the spells on it) will have to get...pruned. Because it's the elephant in the room, taking up all the class budget.

[Thunderous Mojo]

PhoenixPyre and PhantomSoul, I'd be happy to discuss Minor Conjuration, in another thread. In this thread, such a discussion is a distraction.

Thanks.

[PhantomSoul]

PhoenixPyre and PhantomSoul, I'd be happy to discuss Minor Conjuration, in another thread. In this thread, such a discussion is a distraction.

Thanks.

My sole interest for that was making sure a claim worthy of contest didn't go uncontested; people read the forums and won't always look at the sources (official books or tweets, as applicable) themselves before it becomes a topic at their own table because of misaligned expectations.

The ability has been discussed before aplenty (and how I'd rule it is definitely separate from what the text unambiguously says) -- but it is relevant to highlight ambiguity or uncertainty in a proposed counterexample to a claim central to the thread (the role of spells as class abilities).

Personally, though, I doubt having another thread just to say "talk to your DM" is useful! :)

[Unoriginal]

I don't see how it's that big a deal.

Well, let's examine that question by the other end, then:


If this change is as inconsequential as you argue it is, why have it at all in the first place?

[carkl3000]

Well, let's examine that question by the other end, then:


If this change is as inconsequential as you argue it is, why have it at all in the first place?

Are you saying that a feature (RAW, variant, homebrew, whatever) has to be unbalanced to be worth taking? Interesting...

[Unoriginal]

Are you saying that a feature (RAW, variant, homebrew, whatever) has to be unbalanced to be worth taking? Interesting...

No, I am asking for why you think this change which you insist is of little consequences should be made.

If you made a thread about how you wanted to replace Uncanny Dodge with a different but just as equally powerful and balanced feature, I would still ask *why* you think that change should be made.

[kazaryu]

Druids get Foresight. How often do 9th level scrolls (or a scroll of Wish specifically?) turn up in a loot pile?

ok, so instead go 15 druid 2 wizard. the 1st level of wizard you get get 6 1st level spells. 2nd level of wizard, wish and...idk, contingency? you don't lose a whole lot on the druid front. (1 extra prepared slot and 1 ASI). and you almost instantly gain access to wish.

tbh, the best way to game the system would be to go 4x5 (4 levels in all 5 full caster classes). you'll get all the basic class/subclass features from each of the classes (which are typically among the strongest anyway) and still have full spell progression in all of them. biggest downside is you need a 13 in int and wis. but thats not REALLY that much of a down side. if you focus on bard/sorc first. then you spend the first 8 levels as a full sorcerer, then a full bard. (could do the same with cleric/druid if you decide to focus wisdom primary instead). its ridiculously strong.


the only real argument against it, is that its at its strongest at high tier play, where everything's ****ed anyway.

[carkl3000]

No, I am asking for why you think this change which you insist is of little consequences should be made.

If you made a thread about how you wanted to replace Uncanny Dodge with a different but just as equally powerful and balanced feature, I would still ask *why* you think that change should be made.

First off, I never said or implied that I think that the change should be made. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was looking for a discussion of upsides and downsides if that change were to be made.

So I'm saying why not? All the feats, features and class options exist in the game for a pretty simple reason, customization. The biggest reason for not including them is balance with other options (which is certainly not saying that the entire design of the game and all the various options for customizing a character's features and abilities is exquisitely balanced, just that if a new addition is vastly out of whack, it probably shouldn't be included.) I think if I offered it as an option to a player who wanted to multiclass in a couple different caster classes, it would be a big increase in versatility, but I'm not convinced at all that it would be so vastly overpowered that it would make the game no fun anymore.

The rules lawyering part is secondary and I've changed my mind somewhat on that.

[Aimeryan]

No, I am asking for why you think this change which you insist is of little consequences should be made.

If you made a thread about how you wanted to replace Uncanny Dodge with a different but just as equally powerful and balanced feature, I would still ask *why* you think that change should be made.

It is interesting it took more than 50 posts to get to what I feel is the more important discussion, here. I'll answer for myself, since I cannot know for sure what the OP's reasons would be.

Casters, particularly Wizards, are very punishing to multiclass from. Every other level increases the spell level they can cast, and nothing else in the entire game can replicate or come close to matching this. Even after level 17, which most campaigns will never reach, the Wizard capstone features make it very difficult to find meaningful reasons to take up another option.

Multiclassing should be a competitive option. It is fine, good even, for there to be traps and for there to be reasons to think carefully about multiclassing and how you do it - however, there still should be tradeoffs which are competitively viable and interesting. Multiclassing should not be better in every way, but it should be better in some ways and worse in others, to a degree that makes it an real option to consider - not something you are forced to do, not something you are forced not to do. Real options are interesting and fun, false options are not. Multiclassing done right is interesting and fun, done wrong it is not. It is done wrong for casters, in my opinion.

Do I feel a Wizard 15, Cleric 2 should be able to cast level 9 Cleric spells? No, that is too much and would likely force multiclassing rather than just make it a viable option here, hence becoming a false option from the other side. Do I feel a Wizard 15, Cleric 2 should be able to cast level 9 Wizard spells? Maybe. The problem here is that the Wizard doesn't really offer much outside of spell levels. The capstone features being lost do eventually feel bad, but you probably wont see them anyway, and gaining the benefits of the multiclass for most of the campaign is a very good trade.


A watered-down version of the OP proposal, then; Learning/preparing spells based on total caster level for your highest class only?

I think the casters would need to offer more interesting and unique features outside of spell levels to justify allowing this, however, if this was the case then I could see it work.


What it sounds like we're really doing is creating a classless leveling system that encourages specializations at no additional cost.

For example: Each class is either a Martial or a Caster, as well as its own class level.

3 levels into Paladin and 3 levels into Barbarian gives you level 3 Paladin and level 3 Barbarian features, as well as level 6 Martial features.

That kind of stuff works really, really well, since the core mechanics are stable despite making every class and character feel unique.

I agree with this, and I think we converge on the same point here. The class features should be unique and interesting enough to make the classes different and offer real choice of how you want to play your character. However, the underlying bent to those classes - martial, caster - needs to continue to grow regardless of the class because otherwise it becomes too penalising to mix it up.

[carkl3000]

ok, so instead go 15 druid 2 wizard. the 1st level of wizard you get get 6 1st level spells. 2nd level of wizard, wish and...idk, contingency? you don't lose a whole lot on the druid front. (1 extra prepared slot and 1 ASI). and you almost instantly gain access to wish.

I was wondering when someone would bring that up. 😖😁 But after looking again, (even with my baroque, rules lawery, and almost certainly wrong reading) I don't think a wizard could do that simply because in the "learning spells of 1st level and higher" section it refers to "...spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table." BUT I think the case can be made that wizards can prepare spells based on their multiclass caster level. Then, based on the text in the Your Spellbook sidebar, you could say that since they are able to prepare higher level spells, they can copy wizard spells of higher levels into their book and "learn" them that way.


tbh, the best way to game the system would be to go 4x5 (4 levels in all 5 full caster classes). you'll get all the basic class/subclass features from each of the classes (which are typically among the strongest anyway) and still have full spell progression in all of them.

No... I wouldn't think so... For spells-known casters you would learn a number of new spells based on your level in that class, with a level based on the max spell slot level that you currently have from the multiclass table. So if you took your 4th bard level at level 4 you'd know 7 bard spells, max level 2. If you added your 4th bard level late enough to have access to 9th level spells, the 7th spell you learn could be 9th level and you could replace one of your lower level spells with another 9th level bard spell. Same would go for other spells-known classes, but then you don't get your ASIs until really late in the game...


biggest downside is you need a 13 in int and wis. but thats not REALLY that much of a down side. if you focus on bard/sorc first. then you spend the first 8 levels as a full sorcerer, then a full bard. (could do the same with cleric/druid if you decide to focus wisdom primary instead). its ridiculously strong.


the only real argument against it, is that its at its strongest at high tier play, where everything's ****ed anyway.

I agree with this. But I feel like that's an argument in favor of "why the heck not."

[carkl3000]

Consider the mizzium apparatus. With a few dips, that would also allow choice of any spell in the game and if you optimize for great arcana checks you'd be able to cast 9th level spells with a very low failure rate.

[Unoriginal]

Consider the mizzium apparatus. With a few dips, that would also allow choice of any spell in the game and if you optimize for great arcana checks you'd be able to cast 9th level spells with a very low failure rate.

Well, three things:

1) The DC to cast a 9th level spell is 28. Which means that someone with maxxed out INT, expertise in Arcana and a Luckstone has 50% chances of failure. Do you consider that a very low failure rate?

2) Do you consider the Mizzium Apparatus to be balanced?

3) Would you consider the Mizzium Apparatus as a class feature rather than an item to be balanced? If yes, at which level and for which class?

[carkl3000]

Well, three things:

1) The DC to cast a 9th level spell is 28. Which means that someone with maxxed out INT, expertise in Arcana and a Luckstone has 50% chances of failure. Do you consider that a very low failure rate?

2) Do you consider the Mizzium Apparatus to be balanced?

3) Would you consider the Mizzium Apparatus as a class feature rather than an item to be balanced? If yes, at which level and for which class?

You're right. I was thinking of a stars druid build, but it would still need one more point natively for the dragon starry form to help on that.

[Man_Over_Game]

Hmm...there's another solution that we haven't considered. A compromise.

Some folks don't want folks to easily be able to get many of the best spells from multiple different casting classes so easily, right?

And everyone else is saying that the balance isn't that bad, since everyone's casting at that level anyway, yeah?

We can compensate for both sides by adding a nerf with the buff.

For instance:

You can't cast spells of a class if the spell is of a higher level than the class who's list it's on. (you must be a level 9+ Wizard to ever cast a level 9 Wizard spell). [Rewards multiclassing over dips]
When taking fullcaster levels, pick one class to be your primary fullcasting class. All levels from other classes cannot count more than 1/2 casting levels for the sake of multiclassing. [Exchanges late-game power for versatility]
When casting a spell your character isn't normally eligible to cast, you must make a successful check against a DC of 10 + Spell Level, using your Spell Attack bonus for that class or else your spell is canceled and the spell slot is returned. [Casting spells you didn't earn might be inconvenient]
After casting a spell your character isn't normally eligible to cast, you must make a successful Constitution save against a DC of 10 + Spell Level or you suffer Exhaustion. [Casting spells you didn't earn is something you should do sparingly, also Barbarian Wizards]


You can pick a solution that works well for your table or whatever concerns you have. Point is, there's room for both parties to get what they want.

[carkl3000]

Hmm...there's another solution that we haven't considered. A compromise.

Some folks don't want folks to easily be able to get many of the best spells from multiple different casting classes so easily, right?

And everyone else is saying that the balance isn't that bad, since everyone's casting at that level anyway, yeah?

We can compensate for both sides by adding a nerf with the buff.

For instance:

You can't cast spells of a class if the spell is of a higher level than the class who's list it's on. (you must be a level 9+ Wizard to ever cast a level 9 Wizard spell). [Rewards multiclassing over dips]
When taking fullcaster levels, pick one class to be your primary fullcasting class. All levels from other classes cannot count more than 1/2 casting levels for the sake of multiclassing. [Exchanges late-game power for versatility]
When casting a spell your character isn't normally eligible to cast, you must make a successful check against a DC of 10 + Spell Level, using your Spell Attack bonus for that class or else your spell is canceled and the spell slot is returned. [Casting spells you didn't earn might be inconvenient]
After casting a spell your character isn't normally eligible to cast, you must make a successful Constitution save against a DC of 10 + Spell Level or you suffer Exhaustion. [Casting spells you didn't earn is something you should do sparingly, also Barbarian Wizards]


You can pick a solution that works well for your table or whatever concerns you have. Point is, there's room for both parties to get what they want.

I think those are good ideas. I particularly like some version of the third option.