You missapplied the rule that says that a multiclassed caster prepares spells as if they were a single classed member of a class. A druid 3 doesn't have MC spell slots.
Having spell slots isn't a function of preparing spells. Preparing spells as a single classed member of a class isn't the same as having spell slots like a single classed member of the class.
A single classed member of a class only has spellslots as shown in their class table. Anything that you say relying on the multiclass rules does not impact the number or way a single classed character selects spells. The Multiclass spell selection rules tell you that those are the same rules that you use for selecting your spells for each class that your multiclassed character has. I know it is difficult, it has come up on these very forms numerous times.
The rules for selecting spells are not the rules that give you spell slots.
I understand what you are saying and it is not the best worded, but they mean that you can only prepare spells based on the spell slots you would have as if you were a single class character of each specific class you have of the level you have in that class (i.e. not on the spell slots you have via multiclassing).
They make this clear in the examples.
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. If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.
Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.
If a cantrip of yours increases in power at higher levels, the increase is based on your character level, not your level in a particular class.
Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lower-level spell that you cast, like burning hands, has an enhanced effect when cast using a higher-level slot, you can use the enhanced effect, even though you don't have any spells of that higher level.
For example, if you are the aforementioned ranger 4/wizard 3, you count as a 5th-level character when determining your spell slots: you have four 1st-level slots, three 2nd-level slots, and two 3rd-level slots. However, you don't know any 3rd-level spells, nor do you know any 2nd-level ranger spells. You can use the spell slots of those levels to cast the spells you do know — and potentially enhance their effects.
If there was any ambiguity in the rules text, the examples sort that out, as Kotath has so nicely referenced here. Examples included in the text are part of RAW. Sorry OP, you are dead wrong here. Your fundamental error is in your OP, where you said that Druids and Clerics know all their class spells. That is not true. They only know the spells appropriate for their level in that class. If you are a level 2 cleric, you will only know the 1st level cleric spells, regardless of how many levels you have in other classes
RAW druid and cleric can prepare any spell that they have a slot for. The appeal to consequences will be disregarded as having nothing to do with RAW
This response is your sign right here, folks.
Don't boo him, he's right.
lol
No seriously. RAW vs the inevitable consequences of following RAW strictly... are two different conversations. One just talks about what is printed on the page, the other is advice for how to run a good game. Totally different conversations.
Should you let Wizards have unfettered access to all spells if they take a few level dips? No. Obviously. For most games that'd be a disaster.
But is it RAW? yes, technically, it is. Does anyone follow it? Naw. Clearly not RAI, just poorly interwoven/worded optional rules in that there Multiclass entry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You missapplied the rule that says that a multiclassed caster prepares spells as if they were a single classed member of a class. A druid 3 doesn't have MC spell slots.
Having spell slots isn't a function of preparing spells. Preparing spells as a single classed member of a class isn't the same as having spell slots like a single classed member of the class.
A single classed member of a class only has spellslots as shown in their class table. Anything that you say relying on the multiclass rules does not impact the number or way a single classed character selects spells. The Multiclass spell selection rules tell you that those are the same rules that you use for selecting your spells for each class that your multiclassed character has. I know it is difficult, it has come up on these very forms numerous times.
The rules for selecting spells are not the rules that give you spell slots.
I understand what you are saying and it is not the best worded, but they mean that you can only prepare spells based on the spell slots you would have as if you were a single class character of each specific class you have of the level you have in that class (i.e. not on the spell slots you have via multiclassing).
They make this clear in the examples.
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. If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.
Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.
If a cantrip of yours increases in power at higher levels, the increase is based on your character level, not your level in a particular class.
Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lower-level spell that you cast, like burning hands, has an enhanced effect when cast using a higher-level slot, you can use the enhanced effect, even though you don't have any spells of that higher level.
For example, if you are the aforementioned ranger 4/wizard 3, you count as a 5th-level character when determining your spell slots: you have four 1st-level slots, three 2nd-level slots, and two 3rd-level slots. However, you don't know any 3rd-level spells, nor do you know any 2nd-level ranger spells. You can use the spell slots of those levels to cast the spells you do know — and potentially enhance their effects.
If there was any ambiguity in the rules text, the examples sort that out, as Kotath has so nicely referenced here. Examples included in the text are part of RAW. Sorry OP, you are dead wrong here. Your fundamental error is in your OP, where you said that Druids and Clerics know all their class spells. That is not true. They only know the spells appropriate for their level in that class. If you are a level 2 cleric, you will only know the 1st level cleric spells, regardless of how many levels you have in other classes
Well, no. The OP is totally correct about the RAW. it is just so obviously not RAI that no one plays that way. The examples make that perfectly clear. They show the RAI. Which we all abide by. But strict RAW? OP is crrect. There is a misaligned interaction with the optional Multiclass rules, as printed, with how spells known/prepared work for some classes.
But no one should ever try to incorporate this as some secret functionality into their games or whatever. It is a purely an academic curiosity in rules text phrasing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I reject the idea that it is appropriate to make a thread on a public forum, present a game-breakingly absurd hypothesis as accurate, and then attempt to narrow the scope of discussion to arbitrarily disqualify all evidence to the contrary that one doesn't feel like considering. It is not beneficial to the DDB community nor to the discussion of rules and game mechanics, and I don't think people should indulge the exercise.
Well, no. The OP is totally correct about the RAW. it is just so obviously not RAI that no one plays that way. The examples make that perfectly clear. They show the RAI. Which we all abide by. But strict RAW? OP is crrect. There is a misaligned interaction with the optional Multiclass rules, as printed, with how spells known/prepared work for some classes.
But no one should ever try to incorporate this as some secret functionality into their games or whatever. It is a purely an academic curiosity in rules text phrasing.
Again, the examples are part of RAW. The Multiclassing rules are written badly, but the examples clarify them. They are written, thus RAW.
You do not get to ignore them in favour of the interpretations you prefer, even of the language used may suggest the OP has a point otherwise.
Okay, but they don't provide INSTRUCTIONS. So they're not even precisely written in the format of a RULE.
You can do X. You can't do Y. Sometimes Z happens. <--- Rules.
The examples aren't written in that way. So, they're for sure As Written. But not so much Rules. They're completely irrefutable, and they are designed to show the Intent of the Rules. So RAI is entirely and abundantly clear.
Edit: I don't really have any preferences. I mean, maybe the preference that the book have been written better? But, they got a good chunk of it done really well, a few mistakes here or there is not only understandable but expected.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Well, no. The OP is totally correct about the RAW. it is just so obviously not RAI that no one plays that way. The examples make that perfectly clear. They show the RAI. Which we all abide by. But strict RAW? OP is crrect. There is a misaligned interaction with the optional Multiclass rules, as printed, with how spells known/prepared work for some classes.
But no one should ever try to incorporate this as some secret functionality into their games or whatever. It is a purely an academic curiosity in rules text phrasing.
Again, the examples are part of RAW. The Multiclassing rules are written badly, but the examples clarify them. They are written, thus RAW.
You do not get to ignore them in favour of the interpretations you prefer, even of the language used may suggest the OP has a point otherwise.
Okay, but they don't provide INSTRUCTIONS. So they're not even precisely written in the format of a RULE.
You can do X. You can't do Y. Sometimes Z happens. <--- Rules.
The examples aren't written in that way. So, they're for sure As Written. But not so much Rules. They're completely irrefutable, and they are designed to show the Intent of the Rules. So RAI is entirely and abundantly clear.
Edit: I don't really have any preferences. I mean, maybe the preference that the book have been written better? But, they got a good chunk of it done really well, a few mistakes here or there is not only understandable but expected.
There is ambiguity in the rule. The example provides clarity. Both are RAW text. I wish they did this more often really, but a lot of the examples got relegated to the SAC. ignoring one part of the rule to take advantage of unclear writing in another is entirely the wrong way to play and to interpret rules
Well, no. The OP is totally correct about the RAW. it is just so obviously not RAI that no one plays that way. The examples make that perfectly clear. They show the RAI. Which we all abide by. But strict RAW? OP is crrect. There is a misaligned interaction with the optional Multiclass rules, as printed, with how spells known/prepared work for some classes.
But no one should ever try to incorporate this as some secret functionality into their games or whatever. It is a purely an academic curiosity in rules text phrasing.
Again, the examples are part of RAW. The Multiclassing rules are written badly, but the examples clarify them. They are written, thus RAW.
You do not get to ignore them in favour of the interpretations you prefer, even of the language used may suggest the OP has a point otherwise.
Okay, but they don't provide INSTRUCTIONS. So they're not even precisely written in the format of a RULE.
You can do X. You can't do Y. Sometimes Z happens. <--- Rules.
The examples aren't written in that way. So, they're for sure As Written. But not so much Rules. They're completely irrefutable, and they are designed to show the Intent of the Rules. So RAI is entirely and abundantly clear.
Edit: I don't really have any preferences. I mean, maybe the preference that the book have been written better? But, they got a good chunk of it done really well, a few mistakes here or there is not only understandable but expected.
This is why examples are part of rules and textbooks though. Sometimes it is easier to show how things work than to explain how they work without such examples. You are articulate enough that you would have had plenty of chances to notice this in school.
To the extent the description is unclear or misleading, the examples clarify. They are written, not left for you to figure out independently nor through Sage Advice or some other side source.
And that is precisely why the RAI are exceptionally clear. No one comes to a different conclusion about what the intent is, nor how they are supposed to play it.
But the actual RAW doesn't cover it. Yet, the Examples give abundantly clear RAI.
We all know how it is supposed to work. How the rules are intended to be interpreted aren't in question here. They're super clear. The RAW tho? That's certainly in question. But, again, only in a sort of sterile academic way. Even if you prove to 100% of the people reading this forum that the RAW says a Wiz17/Cleric/Druid/Bard1 could learn every spell... no one will actually play it that way because the RAI is irrefutably obvious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Great, now someone who agrees what the rule is is arguing that just because it is written in the rules doesn't mean it is rules as written. And I don't know how to address that level of antilogic.
But the actual RAW doesn't cover it. Yet, the Examples give abundantly clear RAI.
The RAW covers it. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." means the multiclassing rules do not apply to what spells you can know and prepare. Which means wizard-2/druid-3 knows and prepares spells as a druid-3. Once they are done preparing spells, they use the multiclass rules to determine the spell slots they have, but for purposes of preparing spells they are treated as single-classed.
But the actual RAW doesn't cover it. Yet, the Examples give abundantly clear RAI.
The RAW covers it. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." means the multiclassing rules do not apply to what spells you can know and prepare. Which means wizard-2/druid-3 knows and prepares spells as a druid-3. Once they are done preparing spells, they use the multiclass rules to determine the spell slots they have, but for purposes of preparing spells they are treated as single-classed.
That's all sorts of incorrect. And why it is incorrect has been detailed in this topic several times. The RAW doesn't cover it. The RAI does.
Rules, as written. Rule, as intended.
Rules, as written, are what is actually written in the rulebook. When a rule says do X, then Y, but not Z. This is a rule. Now, sometimes there needs some clarity on how that rule should be interpreted. Often, they then provide an Example to show the Intent of those Rules.
If a Rule is written sloppily or doesn't cover things entirely, but then the written example clarifies what the authors were trying to get at... then the RAW is incomplete, but the RAI is clear.
I don't know why this is controversial that is what RAW vs RAI means.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The exact written rule is "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence.
In other words the rule for a multiclassed druid 3/wizard 2 is: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for a druid as if you were a level 3 druid that isn't multiclassed."
Single-classed members of a class don't use the multiclass spell slot rules. It isn't complicated. 1≠≥2. 1 is not greater than or equal to 2.
The exact written rule is "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence.
In other words the rule for a multiclassed druid 3/wizard 2 is: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for a druid as if you were a level 3 druid that isn't multiclassed."
Single-classed members of a class don't use the multiclass spell slot rules. It isn't complicated. 1≠≥2. 1 is not greater than or equal to 2.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But the actual RAW doesn't cover it. Yet, the Examples give abundantly clear RAI.
The RAW covers it. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." means the multiclassing rules do not apply to what spells you can know and prepare. Which means wizard-2/druid-3 knows and prepares spells as a druid-3. Once they are done preparing spells, they use the multiclass rules to determine the spell slots they have, but for purposes of preparing spells they are treated as single-classed.
That's all sorts of incorrect. And why it is incorrect has been detailed in this topic several times. The RAW doesn't cover it. The RAI does.
That's a direct quote and in no way ambigious. All the claims otherwise rely on pretending that sentence doesn't say what it says.
The exact written rule is "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence.
In other words the rule for a multiclassed druid 3/wizard 2 is: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for a druid as if you were a level 3 druid that isn't multiclassed."
Single-classed members of a class don't use the multiclass spell slot rules. It isn't complicated. 1≠≥2. 1 is not greater than or equal to 2.
That is, for sure, the intent. RAI.
A direct quote from the rules is RAW. 1 being less than 2 may not be RAW if that is what you meant, but the opposite definitely isn't...
The exact written rule is "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence.
In other words the rule for a multiclassed druid 3/wizard 2 is: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for a druid as if you were a level 3 druid that isn't multiclassed."
Single-classed members of a class don't use the multiclass spell slot rules. It isn't complicated. 1≠≥2. 1 is not greater than or equal to 2.
That is, for sure, the intent. RAI.
A direct quote from the rules is RAW. 1 being less than 2 may not be RAW if that is what you meant, but the opposite definitely isn't...
Sure.
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." is RAW.
"The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence." is RAI.
Why? because something that clarifies the intention of a rule is Rule as Intended.
The Rule, as Written, needed an example, to explain the Intent.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My understanding is a druid 3 / cleric 2 has 3rd-level spell slots, but knows at most level 2 druid spells and at most level 1 cleric spells. However, they can upcast either druid or cleric spells to level 3.
But the actual RAW doesn't cover it. Yet, the Examples give abundantly clear RAI.
The RAW covers it. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." means the multiclassing rules do not apply to what spells you can know and prepare. Which means wizard-2/druid-3 knows and prepares spells as a druid-3. Once they are done preparing spells, they use the multiclass rules to determine the spell slots they have, but for purposes of preparing spells they are treated as single-classed.
That's all sorts of incorrect. And why it is incorrect has been detailed in this topic several times. The RAW doesn't cover it. The RAI does.
That's a direct quote and in no way ambigious. All the claims otherwise rely on pretending that sentence doesn't say what it says.
Sure. But it isn't ambiguous because the example clarifies the intent. The rule itself? HARDLY sufficient to figure anything out. Without the clarifying examples that rule is next to useless.
Take the example of a 6th level character, a Cleric 3/Druid 3. Then blindly apply the RAW: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."
Ok. Well, guess I'll prepare spells as a 6th level cleric. Then spells again as a 6th level druid. I'm 6th level and it says to prepare spells as if I was a single class.
Obviously that's not how it works. Why do we know that? The INTENT is made clear via the examples provided.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." is RAW.
"The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence." is RAI.
No it isn't. An example isn't RAI, it's an aid to understanding in case people failed to understand the RAW. In any case, it doesn't matter, since "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." is sufficient all by itself.
The exact written rule is "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence.
In other words the rule for a multiclassed druid 3/wizard 2 is: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for a druid as if you were a level 3 druid that isn't multiclassed."
Single-classed members of a class don't use the multiclass spell slot rules. It isn't complicated. 1≠≥2. 1 is not greater than or equal to 2.
That is, for sure, the intent. RAI.
A direct quote from the rules is RAW. 1 being less than 2 may not be RAW if that is what you meant, but the opposite definitely isn't...
Sure.
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." is RAW.
"The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence." is RAI.
Why? because something that clarifies the intention of a rule is Rule as Intended.
The Rule, as Written, needed an example, to explain the Intent.
So a rule written in the rule book to describe what you can and can't do in the game isn't RAW because it is an example? We call rules written in the books: rules as written. Intentions not written in books are RAI.
And single classed characters use multiclass rules because that is ambiguous? I still maintain that 1<2 is not ambiguous.
These are the 2 main points of your argument.
And bonus, if an example of how a rule applies is clearer than the rule in 1 person's opinion, it is no longer an example of how that rule applies? That's just the opposite of the definition of example.
If there was any ambiguity in the rules text, the examples sort that out, as Kotath has so nicely referenced here. Examples included in the text are part of RAW. Sorry OP, you are dead wrong here. Your fundamental error is in your OP, where you said that Druids and Clerics know all their class spells. That is not true. They only know the spells appropriate for their level in that class. If you are a level 2 cleric, you will only know the 1st level cleric spells, regardless of how many levels you have in other classes
Don't boo him, he's right.
lol
No seriously. RAW vs the inevitable consequences of following RAW strictly... are two different conversations. One just talks about what is printed on the page, the other is advice for how to run a good game. Totally different conversations.
Should you let Wizards have unfettered access to all spells if they take a few level dips? No. Obviously. For most games that'd be a disaster.
But is it RAW? yes, technically, it is. Does anyone follow it? Naw. Clearly not RAI, just poorly interwoven/worded optional rules in that there Multiclass entry.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Well, no. The OP is totally correct about the RAW. it is just so obviously not RAI that no one plays that way. The examples make that perfectly clear. They show the RAI. Which we all abide by. But strict RAW? OP is crrect. There is a misaligned interaction with the optional Multiclass rules, as printed, with how spells known/prepared work for some classes.
But no one should ever try to incorporate this as some secret functionality into their games or whatever. It is a purely an academic curiosity in rules text phrasing.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I reject the idea that it is appropriate to make a thread on a public forum, present a game-breakingly absurd hypothesis as accurate, and then attempt to narrow the scope of discussion to arbitrarily disqualify all evidence to the contrary that one doesn't feel like considering. It is not beneficial to the DDB community nor to the discussion of rules and game mechanics, and I don't think people should indulge the exercise.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Okay, but they don't provide INSTRUCTIONS. So they're not even precisely written in the format of a RULE.
You can do X. You can't do Y. Sometimes Z happens. <--- Rules.
The examples aren't written in that way. So, they're for sure As Written. But not so much Rules. They're completely irrefutable, and they are designed to show the Intent of the Rules. So RAI is entirely and abundantly clear.
Edit: I don't really have any preferences. I mean, maybe the preference that the book have been written better? But, they got a good chunk of it done really well, a few mistakes here or there is not only understandable but expected.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is ambiguity in the rule. The example provides clarity. Both are RAW text. I wish they did this more often really, but a lot of the examples got relegated to the SAC.
ignoring one part of the rule to take advantage of unclear writing in another is entirely the wrong way to play and to interpret rules
And that is precisely why the RAI are exceptionally clear. No one comes to a different conclusion about what the intent is, nor how they are supposed to play it.
But the actual RAW doesn't cover it. Yet, the Examples give abundantly clear RAI.
We all know how it is supposed to work. How the rules are intended to be interpreted aren't in question here. They're super clear. The RAW tho? That's certainly in question. But, again, only in a sort of sterile academic way. Even if you prove to 100% of the people reading this forum that the RAW says a Wiz17/Cleric/Druid/Bard1 could learn every spell... no one will actually play it that way because the RAI is irrefutably obvious.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Great, now someone who agrees what the rule is is arguing that just because it is written in the rules doesn't mean it is rules as written. And I don't know how to address that level of antilogic.
The RAW covers it. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." means the multiclassing rules do not apply to what spells you can know and prepare. Which means wizard-2/druid-3 knows and prepares spells as a druid-3. Once they are done preparing spells, they use the multiclass rules to determine the spell slots they have, but for purposes of preparing spells they are treated as single-classed.
That's all sorts of incorrect. And why it is incorrect has been detailed in this topic several times. The RAW doesn't cover it. The RAI does.
Rules, as written. Rule, as intended.
Rules, as written, are what is actually written in the rulebook. When a rule says do X, then Y, but not Z. This is a rule. Now, sometimes there needs some clarity on how that rule should be interpreted. Often, they then provide an Example to show the Intent of those Rules.
If a Rule is written sloppily or doesn't cover things entirely, but then the written example clarifies what the authors were trying to get at... then the RAW is incomplete, but the RAI is clear.
I don't know why this is controversial that is what RAW vs RAI means.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The exact written rule is "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence.
In other words the rule for a multiclassed druid 3/wizard 2 is: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for a druid as if you were a level 3 druid that isn't multiclassed."
Single-classed members of a class don't use the multiclass spell slot rules. It isn't complicated. 1≠≥2. 1 is not greater than or equal to 2.
That is, for sure, the intent. RAI.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's a direct quote and in no way ambigious. All the claims otherwise rely on pretending that sentence doesn't say what it says.
A direct quote from the rules is RAW. 1 being less than 2 may not be RAW if that is what you meant, but the opposite definitely isn't...
Sure.
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." is RAW.
"The rest of the writing for this rule is an example to clarify the application of this sentence." is RAI.
Why? because something that clarifies the intention of a rule is Rule as Intended.
The Rule, as Written, needed an example, to explain the Intent.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My understanding is a druid 3 / cleric 2 has 3rd-level spell slots, but knows at most level 2 druid spells and at most level 1 cleric spells. However, they can upcast either druid or cleric spells to level 3.
Sure. But it isn't ambiguous because the example clarifies the intent. The rule itself? HARDLY sufficient to figure anything out. Without the clarifying examples that rule is next to useless.
Take the example of a 6th level character, a Cleric 3/Druid 3. Then blindly apply the RAW: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."
Ok. Well, guess I'll prepare spells as a 6th level cleric. Then spells again as a 6th level druid. I'm 6th level and it says to prepare spells as if I was a single class.
Obviously that's not how it works. Why do we know that? The INTENT is made clear via the examples provided.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No it isn't. An example isn't RAI, it's an aid to understanding in case people failed to understand the RAW. In any case, it doesn't matter, since "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." is sufficient all by itself.
Why does the flow of this conversation seem so familiar…? 🤔💭
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/49286-spellcasting-focus-prevents-somatic-components
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So a rule written in the rule book to describe what you can and can't do in the game isn't RAW because it is an example? We call rules written in the books: rules as written. Intentions not written in books are RAI.
And single classed characters use multiclass rules because that is ambiguous? I still maintain that 1<2 is not ambiguous.
These are the 2 main points of your argument.
And bonus, if an example of how a rule applies is clearer than the rule in 1 person's opinion, it is no longer an example of how that rule applies? That's just the opposite of the definition of example.