"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.
...sigh.
An example isn't RAI. An example helps clarify what the RAI is. What is the intent, of the rule. The example shows this.
"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 not insufficient by itself. Why? The part you cut out of my above quote is why.
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.
The RAW, itself, without the clarifying example, is Insufficient to parse how it should work. It could lead to multiple interpretations. The example shows the Intent. Thus, the RAW is incomplete/insufficient. But the RAI is perfectly clear and everyone knows how this is supposed to function.
What is the intent of the rules? That you prepare your spells as if you had the slots of a single class character of the same level as you have in that specific class, ignoring the normal multi-class slots that you do have. But does the RAW actually say that in black and white on the pages.
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.
Are we really arguing whether text that is in the rulebooks that describes how the game works is rules or not?
There is definitely text in the rulebooks that isn't rules. The little flavor narratives at the beginning of the description for each race and class don't mean it's a rule that if you play a gnome druid your name has to be Burgell and you have to wield a gnarled staff wreathed with holly.
Are we really arguing whether text that is in the rulebooks that describes how the game works is rules or not?
There is definitely text in the rulebooks that isn't rules. The little flavor narratives at the beginning of the description for each race and class don't mean it's a rule that if you play a gnome druid your name has to be Burgell and you have to wield a gnarled staff wreathed with holly.
But we are discussing text that tells you how to play the game, aren’t we?
The fact that people indulge these types of thread is hilarious and troubling.
When I see something obviously incorrect, I want to try to correct it. I will go to far too great of lengths and it is a failing of mine. Fortunately, I have found a hidden feature on these forums that has removed the vast majority of obviously incorrect posts from my direct reading pleasure. That removes a lot of the temptation.
I know what a rule is. Judging by most of the posts in this thread, most people do. I just hope that the OP and people like them don’t confuse any new players. Otherwise we’ll be seeing a lot of discussion on cleric1/druid2/wizard2/bard3/sorc12 (I think that gets you all the first subclass features from those classes)multiclass builds.
Are we really arguing whether text that is in the rulebooks that describes how the game works is rules or not?
There is definitely text in the rulebooks that isn't rules. The little flavor narratives at the beginning of the description for each race and class don't mean it's a rule that if you play a gnome druid your name has to be Burgell and you have to wield a gnarled staff wreathed with holly.
But we are discussing text that tells you how to play the game, aren’t we?
Some of it does. Where it does provide instruction, those parts are rules. Where it doesn't provide instruction and instead offers an example, that is... an example.
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.
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.
Are those examples written in the rule book? Yes. Therefore they are 'written,' not merely 'intended.'
Written examples that tell us the intent of the written rules.
And even though they use specific levels and numbers, they do, actually say 'If this, then this.'
Sure, you can have a rule buried into a paragraph that's header is calling itself an example.
The fact that they are not worded in a way you consider to be rules does not make them any less so.
If something isn't a rule, it isn't a rule. You're welcome to disagree but that's an odd hill to die on imo.
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.
Doesn't really matter if the example counts as "a rule" or not. It's all one big explanation and the paragraph as a whole is crystal clear. WotC didn't screw up the math twice in a row and then somehow forget to errata that for 7 years.
Doesn't really matter if the example counts as "a rule" or not. It's all one big explanation and the paragraph as a whole is crystal clear. WotC didn't screw up the math twice in a row and then somehow forget to errata that for 7 years.
This should end the thread. Please for the sake of all that is holy…
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.
But that character is not a 6th level Druid, it is a 3rd level Druid. And thus prepares spell as a 3rd level Druid. The only way your argument that the RAW is broken holds any water is if you also argue that the RAW for that character is that it would have gotten 2 ASI's on its way to being 6th level.
Doesn't really matter if the example counts as "a rule" or not. It's all one big explanation and the paragraph as a whole is crystal clear. WotC didn't screw up the math twice in a row and then somehow forget to errata that for 7 years.
I'm not really sure how many times a guy need to repeat that they 100% agree that the RAI on this is perfectly and abundantly clear and is precisely and exactly how every should and is intended to play the game.
That doesn't change what the RAW is, though. And, the RAW is incomplete/inaccurate. Only the examples keep it in the realm of understandable, clarifying the multi-class optional rule's intent.
But again, I am AGREEING that these rules are clear. The intent behind them is clear. Only the RAW is incomplete. The RAI is perfectly serviceable.
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.
If something isn't a rule, it isn't a rule. You're welcome to disagree but that's an odd hill to die on imo.
Claiming that stuff that's written in the rulebook isn't RAW is an odd hill to die on. Examples in the rulebook should be understood as correct uses of the rules, and therefore any interpretation that causes the examples to be wrong is in violation of RAW (in your gnome druid example, an interpretation that said you cannot play a gnome druid named Burgell would be a violation of RAW, but allowing someone to play a gnome druid named Puddlebeard doesn't invalidate the example).
Doesn't really matter if the example counts as "a rule" or not. It's all one big explanation and the paragraph as a whole is crystal clear. WotC didn't screw up the math twice in a row and then somehow forget to errata that for 7 years.
I'm not really sure how many times a guy need to repeat that they 100% agree that the RAI on this is perfectly and abundantly clear and is precisely and exactly how every should and is intended to play the game.
That doesn't change what the RAW is, though. And, the RAW is incomplete/inaccurate. Only the examples keep it in the realm of understandable, clarifying the multi-class optional rule's intent.
But again, I am AGREEING that these rules are clear. The intent behind them is clear. Only the RAW is incomplete. The RAI is perfectly serviceable.
Ok, fine. So we all agree that the way it is written in the rules is the way it is suppose to be played. Good lets just end it at that and stop arguing whether "text written in context of how to play that is written in the rule books" are "rules as written" or not. Who cares whether or not it is both the exact definition of RAW and also happens to be RAI (as all rules should be).
I really just want to stop arguing whether "single-classed" characters use "multiclass" rules. It is like arguing whether rocks are made of clouds, plainly obvious and not the least bit ambiguous. And I can't think of any way to explain how 1 is not 2.
If something isn't a rule, it isn't a rule. You're welcome to disagree but that's an odd hill to die on imo.
Claiming that stuff that's written in the rulebook isn't RAW is an odd hill to die on. Examples in the rulebook should be understood as correct uses of the rules, and therefore any interpretation that causes the examples to be wrong is in violation of RAW (in your gnome druid example, an interpretation that said you cannot play a gnome druid named Burgell would be a violation of RAW, but allowing someone to play a gnome druid named Puddlebeard doesn't invalidate the example).
The rules, written in the books... are RAW.
Everything else written in the book isn't Rules. So, not RAW. There are a TON of things written in the books that are not "Rules". Fluff, examples, suggestions. None of them are "Rules" and you're not bound to them.
For the record, I didn't say anything about a Gnome's name, but that guy did have a good point. You're not breaking RAW if you name your Dwarf "Greg" even though that isn't one of the "Written" Male Dwarf names in the Dwarf entry.
Oh no no. RAW MUST BE all things in the book?? Well, better rename Greg the dwarf to Gardain or you're violating RAW??
Please.
You know perfectly well that a bunch of the book isn't rules text. We ALL know this.
Anyway. The RAW is the rules, as they are written. That is what the acronym is short for. Rules. As. Written. Whatever they say, in black and white, on the page... is what RAW is.
RAI? Rules. As. Intended. This is how the game is intended to be played.
You should be trying to play the game how it is intended to be played. RAI.
And, I can't stress this enough apparently. The RAI on multiclass spell preparation is PERFECTLY CLEAR. We ALL agree on what it is. The examples clarify it for us perfectly well.
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.
Doesn't really matter if the example counts as "a rule" or not. It's all one big explanation and the paragraph as a whole is crystal clear. WotC didn't screw up the math twice in a row and then somehow forget to errata that for 7 years.
I'm not really sure how many times a guy need to repeat that they 100% agree that the RAI on this is perfectly and abundantly clear and is precisely and exactly how every should and is intended to play the game.
That doesn't change what the RAW is, though. And, the RAW is incomplete/inaccurate. Only the examples keep it in the realm of understandable, clarifying the multi-class optional rule's intent.
But again, I am AGREEING that these rules are clear. The intent behind them is clear. Only the RAW is incomplete. The RAI is perfectly serviceable.
Ok, fine. So we all agree that the way it is written in the rules is the way it is suppose to be played. Good lets just end it at that and stop arguing whether "text written in context of how to play that is written in the rule books" are "rules as written" or not. Who cares whether or not it is both the exact definition of RAW and also happens to be RAI (as all rules should be).
I really just want to stop arguing whether "single-classed" characters use "multiclass" rules. It is like arguing whether rocks are made of clouds, plainly obvious and not the least bit ambiguous. And I can't think of any way to explain how 1 is not 2.
The way it is clarified by the example is the way it is supposed to be played. The way it is written in the rules text is: incomplete. The examples clarifies it for us, and so the RAI is perfectly serviceable. As for who cares? Obviously I do, as does anyone arguing about it. The title of this entire thread made it perfectly clear the OP was asking (telling) about RAW specifically... not necessarily how it "should" be played in practice. And, he is entirely correct. By strict RAW the multiclass rules are broken. Thankfully we're not morally, legally, or otherwise bound to execute the rules like a computer program would, huh? RAI is clear so everyone uses it without any issues whatsoever.
RAI is SO clear half yall have a hard time seeing the RAW for what it is. Incomplete. Because you keep backfilling the Intent into your reading of the RAW. Anyway, RAI is clear and is what everyone SHOULD be playing with. For a lot of reasons but game balance would go super crazy if you didn't, for starters.
But, the RAW? The actual Titled reason for this thread? Yeah, Multiclass optional rules have a few bits which are poorly written and don't do what you'd expect them to do. Should that impact anyone's actual game? No. That'd be a huge mistake.
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.
Right... Still have never actually explained how "single-classed" is ambiguous. Seems pretty straight forward that it means "not multiclassed". I don't need to back log any other written rule to understand that.
Also, if it is written then it is written. That is the definition of RAW according to the only official mention of it: SAC. "Written in the books." Examples are RAW. "Single-classed" is RAW. It is also RAI, because what is intended was written. There are so many vague rules where RAW and RAI are subtly (or completely) different and this is not one of them. The only thing not RAW is the usage of the term: RAW. RAI, RAW means anything written about how to play. An example is how to play, and it is written in the book, so it is a rule as written.
And that is what I've been saying for over 3 pages and you have never addressed. You just keep asserting that 1=2 and when I ask why it is just "it's ambiguous" or "it's incomplete." Why?! In what way is this rule not clear? How does a level 3 class prepare higher than level 2 spells? And why is written not written?
This is so frustrating for everyone because you are very clearly wrong. You have even admitted it without realizing by saying that the written example is clear. The WRITTEN example of the RULE is clear.
Right... Still have never actually explained how "single-classed" is ambiguous. Seems pretty straight forward that it means "not multiclassed". I don't need to back log any other written rule to understand that.
Also, if it is written then it is written. That is the definition of RAW according to the only official mention of it: SAC. "Written in the books." Examples are RAW. "Single-classed" is RAW. It is also RAI, because what is intended was written. There are so many vague rules where RAW and RAI are subtly (or completely) different and this is not one of them. The only thing not RAW is the usage of the term: RAW. RAI, RAW means anything written about how to play. An example is how to play, and it is written in the book, so it is a rule as written.
And that is what I've been saying for over 3 pages and you have never addressed. You just keep asserting that 1=2 and when I ask why it is just "it's ambiguous" or "it's incomplete." Why?! In what way is this rule not clear? How does a level 3 class prepare higher than level 2 spells? And why is written not written?
This is so frustrating for everyone because you are very clearly wrong. You have even admitted it without realizing by saying that the written example is clear. The WRITTEN example of the RULE is clear.
Yeah… what this guy said. Also, the whole point of examples is to clarify explanations. If you want to play the game without any illustrations, examples, or clarifications, then you have no reason to even bother complaining about anything being broken.
Anything can be interpreted in many ways when not providing context. The context is the example. There’s nothing “broken” in the rules - it’s actually written well and the context is explicitly described. If you want to read one sentence and ignore all context, that’s clearly wilful ignorance.
In order to settle this, I have made Elroy. As you can see, through multiclassing they are able to access 3rd level spell slots. This lines up with the multiclassing rules.
They can prepare 6 druid spells, which lines up with druid level plus spellcasting ability modifier (level 3 + wisdom 3). These spells can be of up to 2nd level, which lines up with being a 3rd level druid, following the rules that state you determine your known and prepared spells as if you were just that class.
They can also prepare 5 cleric spells (level 2 + wisdom 3) of up to 1st level which lines up with being a 2nd level cleric.
This categorically settles how the rules work; unless anyone wishes to insist that D&D Beyond has got the multiclassing rules wrong for the last four years and no one has pointed that out until now (including Wizards of the Coast). If anyone does believe that to be the case, feel free to make a post in the Bugs & Support forum. However, it seems evident that this discussion has run its course.
There seems to be this alien notion that the intent of the rule is what is shown in the example with no meaningful explanation (that I've seen in any of the replies) of how that "intent" differs from the other text explaining the rule. The intent of the rule is that a multiclass character (for example, a wizard/ranger) chooses spells based only on their individual class levels (i.e. wizard and ranger levels). The rule is clear on that, and we even have an example for the particular wizard/ranger case that is irrefutable. How is the "intent" different from the "rule"? This is a case of WAI: Written As Intended.
There is also the problem that RAW and RAI carry no meaning in and of themselves; they are not part of the game. There is no such thing as RAI that is part of the game text. It is literally only a concept because sometimes the devs tell us what they thought they already said in the game books. In fact, if you are confused on this, you can go see what the intent about RAI is in SAC.
There is what the books say, what the devs wish they said, and what we think they said. Those things all only do one thing: inform how to play the game. If you are letting your ranger4/wizard3 take 3rd level ranger spells, you aren't informed properly; there's been a failure somewhere. If you can't use the text on the page to extrapolate that example to the other combinations you might come up with, then you still aren't playing an informed game; but that failure isn't in the text which tells you how it expects the game to work and not a failure of the devs who have only offered tweets supporting the RAW.
Are we really arguing whether text that is in the rulebooks that describes how the game works is rules or not?
...sigh.
An example isn't RAI. An example helps clarify what the RAI is. What is the intent, of the rule. The example shows this.
"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 not insufficient by itself. Why? The part you cut out of my above quote is why.
The RAW, itself, without the clarifying example, is Insufficient to parse how it should work. It could lead to multiple interpretations. The example shows the Intent. Thus, the RAW is incomplete/insufficient. But the RAI is perfectly clear and everyone knows how this is supposed to function.
What is the intent of the rules? That you prepare your spells as if you had the slots of a single class character of the same level as you have in that specific class, ignoring the normal multi-class slots that you do have. But does the RAW actually say that in black and white on the pages.
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 definitely text in the rulebooks that isn't rules. The little flavor narratives at the beginning of the description for each race and class don't mean it's a rule that if you play a gnome druid your name has to be Burgell and you have to wield a gnarled staff wreathed with holly.
But we are discussing text that tells you how to play the game, aren’t we?
When I see something obviously incorrect, I want to try to correct it. I will go to far too great of lengths and it is a failing of mine. Fortunately, I have found a hidden feature on these forums that has removed the vast majority of obviously incorrect posts from my direct reading pleasure. That removes a lot of the temptation.
I know what a rule is. Judging by most of the posts in this thread, most people do. I just hope that the OP and people like them don’t confuse any new players. Otherwise we’ll be seeing a lot of discussion on cleric1/druid2/wizard2/bard3/sorc12 (I think that gets you all the first subclass features from those classes)multiclass builds.
Some of it does. Where it does provide instruction, those parts are rules. Where it doesn't provide instruction and instead offers an example, that is... an example.
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.
Written examples that tell us the intent of the written rules.
Sure, you can have a rule buried into a paragraph that's header is calling itself an example.
If something isn't a rule, it isn't a rule. You're welcome to disagree but that's an odd hill to die on imo.
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.
Doesn't really matter if the example counts as "a rule" or not. It's all one big explanation and the paragraph as a whole is crystal clear. WotC didn't screw up the math twice in a row and then somehow forget to errata that for 7 years.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This should end the thread. Please for the sake of all that is holy…
But that character is not a 6th level Druid, it is a 3rd level Druid. And thus prepares spell as a 3rd level Druid. The only way your argument that the RAW is broken holds any water is if you also argue that the RAW for that character is that it would have gotten 2 ASI's on its way to being 6th level.
I'm not really sure how many times a guy need to repeat that they 100% agree that the RAI on this is perfectly and abundantly clear and is precisely and exactly how every should and is intended to play the game.
That doesn't change what the RAW is, though. And, the RAW is incomplete/inaccurate. Only the examples keep it in the realm of understandable, clarifying the multi-class optional rule's intent.
But again, I am AGREEING that these rules are clear. The intent behind them is clear. Only the RAW is incomplete. The RAI is perfectly serviceable.
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.
Claiming that stuff that's written in the rulebook isn't RAW is an odd hill to die on. Examples in the rulebook should be understood as correct uses of the rules, and therefore any interpretation that causes the examples to be wrong is in violation of RAW (in your gnome druid example, an interpretation that said you cannot play a gnome druid named Burgell would be a violation of RAW, but allowing someone to play a gnome druid named Puddlebeard doesn't invalidate the example).
Ok, fine. So we all agree that the way it is written in the rules is the way it is suppose to be played. Good lets just end it at that and stop arguing whether "text written in context of how to play that is written in the rule books" are "rules as written" or not. Who cares whether or not it is both the exact definition of RAW and also happens to be RAI (as all rules should be).
I really just want to stop arguing whether "single-classed" characters use "multiclass" rules. It is like arguing whether rocks are made of clouds, plainly obvious and not the least bit ambiguous. And I can't think of any way to explain how 1 is not 2.
The rules, written in the books... are RAW.
Everything else written in the book isn't Rules. So, not RAW. There are a TON of things written in the books that are not "Rules". Fluff, examples, suggestions. None of them are "Rules" and you're not bound to them.
For the record, I didn't say anything about a Gnome's name, but that guy did have a good point. You're not breaking RAW if you name your Dwarf "Greg" even though that isn't one of the "Written" Male Dwarf names in the Dwarf entry.
Oh no no. RAW MUST BE all things in the book?? Well, better rename Greg the dwarf to Gardain or you're violating RAW??
Please.
You know perfectly well that a bunch of the book isn't rules text. We ALL know this.
Anyway. The RAW is the rules, as they are written. That is what the acronym is short for. Rules. As. Written. Whatever they say, in black and white, on the page... is what RAW is.
RAI? Rules. As. Intended. This is how the game is intended to be played.
You should be trying to play the game how it is intended to be played. RAI.
And, I can't stress this enough apparently. The RAI on multiclass spell preparation is PERFECTLY CLEAR. We ALL agree on what it is. The examples clarify it for us perfectly well.
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 way it is clarified by the example is the way it is supposed to be played. The way it is written in the rules text is: incomplete. The examples clarifies it for us, and so the RAI is perfectly serviceable. As for who cares? Obviously I do, as does anyone arguing about it. The title of this entire thread made it perfectly clear the OP was asking (telling) about RAW specifically... not necessarily how it "should" be played in practice. And, he is entirely correct. By strict RAW the multiclass rules are broken. Thankfully we're not morally, legally, or otherwise bound to execute the rules like a computer program would, huh? RAI is clear so everyone uses it without any issues whatsoever.
RAI is SO clear half yall have a hard time seeing the RAW for what it is. Incomplete. Because you keep backfilling the Intent into your reading of the RAW. Anyway, RAI is clear and is what everyone SHOULD be playing with. For a lot of reasons but game balance would go super crazy if you didn't, for starters.
But, the RAW? The actual Titled reason for this thread? Yeah, Multiclass optional rules have a few bits which are poorly written and don't do what you'd expect them to do. Should that impact anyone's actual game? No. That'd be a huge mistake.
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.
Right... Still have never actually explained how "single-classed" is ambiguous. Seems pretty straight forward that it means "not multiclassed". I don't need to back log any other written rule to understand that.
Also, if it is written then it is written. That is the definition of RAW according to the only official mention of it: SAC. "Written in the books." Examples are RAW. "Single-classed" is RAW. It is also RAI, because what is intended was written. There are so many vague rules where RAW and RAI are subtly (or completely) different and this is not one of them. The only thing not RAW is the usage of the term: RAW. RAI, RAW means anything written about how to play. An example is how to play, and it is written in the book, so it is a rule as written.
And that is what I've been saying for over 3 pages and you have never addressed. You just keep asserting that 1=2 and when I ask why it is just "it's ambiguous" or "it's incomplete." Why?! In what way is this rule not clear? How does a level 3 class prepare higher than level 2 spells? And why is written not written?
This is so frustrating for everyone because you are very clearly wrong. You have even admitted it without realizing by saying that the written example is clear. The WRITTEN example of the RULE is clear.
Yeah… what this guy said. Also, the whole point of examples is to clarify explanations. If you want to play the game without any illustrations, examples, or clarifications, then you have no reason to even bother complaining about anything being broken.
Anything can be interpreted in many ways when not providing context. The context is the example. There’s nothing “broken” in the rules - it’s actually written well and the context is explicitly described. If you want to read one sentence and ignore all context, that’s clearly wilful ignorance.
Yeah, it can get pretty petty. But it can be a perverse sort of fun for us contrarians.
In order to settle this, I have made Elroy. As you can see, through multiclassing they are able to access 3rd level spell slots. This lines up with the multiclassing rules.
They can prepare 6 druid spells, which lines up with druid level plus spellcasting ability modifier (level 3 + wisdom 3).
These spells can be of up to 2nd level, which lines up with being a 3rd level druid, following the rules that state you determine your known and prepared spells as if you were just that class.
They can also prepare 5 cleric spells (level 2 + wisdom 3) of up to 1st level which lines up with being a 2nd level cleric.
This categorically settles how the rules work; unless anyone wishes to insist that D&D Beyond has got the multiclassing rules wrong for the last four years and no one has pointed that out until now (including Wizards of the Coast). If anyone does believe that to be the case, feel free to make a post in the Bugs & Support forum. However, it seems evident that this discussion has run its course.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
There seems to be this alien notion that the intent of the rule is what is shown in the example with no meaningful explanation (that I've seen in any of the replies) of how that "intent" differs from the other text explaining the rule. The intent of the rule is that a multiclass character (for example, a wizard/ranger) chooses spells based only on their individual class levels (i.e. wizard and ranger levels). The rule is clear on that, and we even have an example for the particular wizard/ranger case that is irrefutable. How is the "intent" different from the "rule"? This is a case of WAI: Written As Intended.
There is also the problem that RAW and RAI carry no meaning in and of themselves; they are not part of the game. There is no such thing as RAI that is part of the game text. It is literally only a concept because sometimes the devs tell us what they thought they already said in the game books. In fact, if you are confused on this, you can go see what the intent about RAI is in SAC.
There is what the books say, what the devs wish they said, and what we think they said. Those things all only do one thing: inform how to play the game. If you are letting your ranger4/wizard3 take 3rd level ranger spells, you aren't informed properly; there's been a failure somewhere. If you can't use the text on the page to extrapolate that example to the other combinations you might come up with, then you still aren't playing an informed game; but that failure isn't in the text which tells you how it expects the game to work and not a failure of the devs who have only offered tweets supporting the RAW.