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.
That's what I've been asking for several pages. "Written examples in rules are intended rules, not written rules." Is the only answer I've gotten.
Which as we've both said is not only not an answer, but also objectively false. Repeatedly pointing that out has only been met with variations of the same answer.
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.
SAC is indeed a good source for understanding the terms RAW and RAI.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
When talking RAW, you must look at what the Rule actually says. "The text is forced to stand on its own".
The multiclass "rule" that says "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 insufficient to understand how to prepare spells. You read that and immediately think oh my Clr3/Drd3 prepares as a Clr3. Then as a Drd3. And that is a way to do it, but that rule doesn't tell you how to do it. You could just as easily read that and say, well, I need to prepare it as a Clr6. Then a Drd6. because it says to treat myself as a single class, and I'm 6th level, so I treat myself as a 6th level cleric. That's logically consistent and sound with ONLY the RULE itself.
The Example clears up what the Intent of that rule is immediately.
When discussing RAW, I too use this perspective. If you mean something other than this definition when disusing RAW we're not on the same page.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
RAI is what people should be playing by. Yes, in a perfect world RAW and RAI are perfectly aligned. When they're not, RAI should win out. It is far more important to play as Intended than as some misprinted or badly written rule otherwise creating some bizarre or broken interaction says. Why on earth would anyone choose RAW over RAI??? RAI is almost universally sounder to go by, should there be a discrepancy between the two.
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.
Their Tweets aren't RAW...
Their tweets are clarifying Intent. That is RAI. The RAI for multiclass spellcasting is abundantly clear. The examples support it. Their tweets support it. DnDBeyond functionality itself, as Davyd showcases above, works the way it is Intended to work, perfectly fine. We all agree how it is supposed to work. The RAI here is indisputable. So, we ALL know how to PLAY it.
But in a purely academic, RAW perspective... these optional multiclass rules are incomplete. You don't have to care about that. If academic purely RAW non-gameplay discussion isn't for you, then ignore this curiosity entirely and move on with your day. This isn't the first time someone has pointed it out, and it won't be the last. Not here, or elsewhere D&D is discussed. Why? because strictly speaking, by RAW, multiclass rules aren't complete. They don't change what spell slots you have. They don't tell you to treat yourself as a lower level character at all. They're missing some instructions. Instructions everyone agrees to follow despite them being missing.
So, functionally speaking, the rules to play by state you do it exactly like we all do, and as Davyd demonstrated. If you care about a purely sterile academic discussion of RAW though? Different answer. And if you don't? Well, the title of THIS thread made it clear that is what is being discussed here.
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.
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.
That's what I've been asking for several pages. "Written examples in rules are intended rules, not written rules." Is the only answer I've gotten.
Which as we've both said is not only not an answer, but also objectively false. Repeatedly pointing that out has only been met with variations of the same answer.
It is a semantic answer. And when one cannot even agree on basic definitions of words there is not much one can do but agree to disagree.
Did you guys want me to also repeat everything the OP said? Just look at the case presented on page 1. The rules are broken/incomplete. The Intent of the rules we do have is only clear due to the examples. You can extrapolate the intent from them, and thus come to the conclusion what rules is missing and fill in the blank on your own. So RAI, thus, how to actually play, is perfectly clear.
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.
So it seems like Rav's argument has become "all rules must be written as a single sentence. If a rule isn't undeniably clear in a single sentence, all additional sentences for the same rule must be discarded, and only anything I make up is RAW."
Literally the argument is "you can't use the rules to argue with me." That level if thinking is so far removed from mine that I can't even come up with an argument. I'm sorry you don't like D&D, good luck with whatever you call what you're playing.
Only the rules in the book are RAW. No one can make up what RAW is. You cannot, I cannot. Only the text, the rules text, as written, in the rulebook... is RAW.
Rules.
As.
Written.
It isn't a complex acronym. If you aren't sure if something is RAW, just ask yourself.
Is it a Rule?
Is it As Written in the rulebook?
If the answer to either of these questions is No. Then, well, that isn't RAW.
Our agreed upon understanding of how to do multiclas spellcasting. Again, we agree how it works. Process this statement: We agree how it works. That agreed upon understanding of how it works isn't sufficiently written in the Rules, as they are written. If it was, why do these posts keep showing up from time to time when people realize the RAW doesn't actually cover this properly?? The gap in the RAW has been sufficiently covered. Yes. yes. yes. we ALL know how to fill in that gap from the examples and context clues. But just because we can fill in the blank doesn't mean there isn't a blank.
If you are upset that someone has the audacity to actually acknowledge this, while still adamantly agreeing with you and everyone how we all know we should actually play it. So upset that you're going to go well and truly out of your way to misrepresent them? Well, maybe some soul searching is in order.
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 problem is twofold, 1) you are basically saying there is only one way to communicate a rule; that is categorically untrue. If a goal of the rules is to teach the game (which it is) then multiple perspectives on communicating a rule is a good pedagogical strategy. Both examples and plain directives can convey rules, both are written in this case, so both have the force of RAW. And sure, flavor text exists, but this is not that.
2) this kind of hyper pedantic devils advocacy does nothing to help those who need help understanding the game. It does however provide ammunition for the type of person who thinks they can bully their DM into taking a course of action not written in the rules which can break gameplay, and it confuses those who legitimately need help understanding multi class rules. Given that I’m almost 100% certain that the person who started this thread is the former (at least judging from their writing in the OP and in subsequent posts) this is doubly unhelpful.
Why do we have a 5 page thread about number of spells prepared under a post whose topic is number of spell slots? This is insane even by this board's normally insane standards.
The multiclass "rule" that says "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 insufficient to understand how to prepare spells. You read that and immediately think oh my Clr3/Drd3 prepares as a Clr3. Then as a Drd3. And that is a way to do it, but that rule doesn't tell you how to do it. You could just as easily read that and say, well, I need to prepare it as a Clr6. Then a Drd6. because it says to treat myself as a single class, and I'm 6th level, so I treat myself as a 6th level cleric. That's logically consistent and sound with ONLY the RULE itself.
No that isn't logically consistent, it is an incorrect application of the rules. You might be a 6th level character but you are NOT a 6th level Druid (nor a 6th level Cleric) and the fact that you refuse to accept this very basic part of how classes work is the whole reason for your confusion about the rules.
If someone that was making his first D&D character made that mistake I could understand it but that should be easily fixed with a bit of explanation by the DM (if I where the DM I would also tell them to ignore the MC rules for now but that is a different matter).
Why do we have a 5 page thread about number of spells prepared under a post whose topic is number of spell slots? This is insane even by this board's normally insane standards.
The OP was not very good at phrasing their question (actually, I think it was just statement). But ultimately, what they said was you are supposed to use multiclass spell slots to determine what spells a multiclass character can prepare.
To which we said that was the opposite of the rule. And eventually Rav stepped in to say "actually if you ignore all the parts that clarify the rule then intentionally misinterpret 'single-class' to mean 'ignore your class level and use your total character level,' then the RAW agrees with OP."
And we have been trying to untangle that illogical disaster of an argument ever since.
The multiclass "rule" that says "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 insufficient to understand how to prepare spells. You read that and immediately think oh my Clr3/Drd3 prepares as a Clr3. Then as a Drd3. And that is a way to do it, but that rule doesn't tell you how to do it. You could just as easily read that and say, well, I need to prepare it as a Clr6. Then a Drd6. because it says to treat myself as a single class, and I'm 6th level, so I treat myself as a 6th level cleric. That's logically consistent and sound with ONLY the RULE itself.
No that isn't logically consistent, it is an incorrect application of the rules. You might be a 6th level character but you are NOT a 6th level Druid (nor a 6th level Cleric)
You only know it is an incorrect application of the RAW because of the Example that shows the RAI.
No RULE says to treat yourself as a lower level character. You're a 6th level character in that example. If a RULE says to treat yourself as a single class character, coming to the conclusion you treat yourself as a 6th level cleric for the purposes of preparing spell is entirely consistent with the RAW. Are you a 6th level cleric? No. but the rule SAYS to TREAT yourself as a single clas. It is SILENT on what level you should treat yourself. If it doesn't say to treat yourself as a lower level character than you probably shouldn't, right? The EXAMPLE makes it clear that is not the INTENT. The RAI is therefore that you do treat yourself as a lower level character for the purposes of preparing spells. This RAI is abundantly clear and is in fact so obvious people, like yourself, have a hard time not parsing the RAW with it as the desired endpoint. But no RULE actually says to treat yourself as a lower level character.
We. All. Agree. How. It. Is. Supposed. To. Be. Played. Though.
No one should APPLY the RAW here. The RAI is known, and uncontroversial. Apply the RAI. Every time, apply the RAI. You're not an unthinking computer program, you are capable of deductive reasoning and common sense. You apply the RAI. We ALL do. That's how you PLAY the game.
and the fact that you refuse to accept this very basic part of how classes work is the whole reason for your confusion about the rules.
You guys really need to stop this. Really. I'm not sure what your goal is here.
I DO accept how it works. I've said as much almost a dozen times now. How many times do I need to say that we agree how it works for you to stop throwing this unfounded accusation at me? We AGREE how the game works, dude. In practice, at play, at the table... DnDBeyond agrees, you agree, I agree. We all think it works the same way. The confusion certainly isn't on my end.
I think if you're having a hard time following this concept, you might need to simply reread the rules. But read them with your "strict RAW" lenses on. I'll help and simply delete the examples, so they don't distract you. Rules Only Mode:
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.
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.
Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. 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.
Spells Known and Prepared. This is one section.
Spell Slots. This is a different section.
You determine your Spells Known and prepared as a single class, but the Spell Slots specifically aren't determined that way. They're determined by adding up and consulting the MC table.
AGAIN I must state: The RAI here is perfectly clear. We all agree that the way you are supposed to actually play is just like the examples paint a picture of. Treat each of those classes of yours as all you have, like you're a lower level character, and even to then pretend you don't have the spell slots you do in fact have. BUT, there is no explicit rule saying to do this. None. It just isn't there. We extrapolated that INTENT from the examples. But there is no RULE that says to do it. Now that you've read it again, and can clearly and plainly see there is nothing there that says to pretend you don't have the slots you do have, nor anything there saying to treat yourself as a lower level character when preparing spells, you now understand.
RAW is broken/incomplete. But RAI is perfectly clear.
Think I'm wrong? Fine. Just quote the rule that says you treat yourself as a lower level character, and that you pretend you don't have the spell slots you do have. It would be painfully easy to prove me wrong. Just quote the rule that says this. Where is this missing rule? Did I simply overlook it? Quote. It.
I'm making the claim there is a missing piece. I'm telling you exactly what I think is not being said. That should be super easy, barely an inconvenience, to prove me wrong (if that rule was actually printed in the books). Yet no one has as of yet quoted anything saying these things. Almost like there isn't something in the Rules that say them.
WE extrapolated the INTENT to do these things from a combination of the examples and, well, TBH, power balance. It'd be super broken OP if it was a different way. Your gut tells you that. But your gut =/= printed rule text.
That is all I am or have been saying here. RAW is incomplete. RAI is crystal clear. Play it based on the undeniable RAI at your table, this is how EVERYONE does it.
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.
It isn't a complex acronym. If you aren't sure if something is RAW, just ask yourself.
Is it a Rule?
Is it As Written in the rulebook?
If the answer to either of these questions is No. Then, well, that isn't RAW.
Right, and clarifying examples are rules. Many rules have a concise form and an extended form, and the extended form often includes examples.
Examples are not rules themselves. They're written, they're official, but they give you the guidance for how the actual Rules are intended to be interpreted. You're not bound to follow Examples as if they were rules.
Just look at the example in multiclassing and you'll see why it isn't a RULE itself:
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.
This, if it is a rule, is telling you exactly how many spells you have in your wizard book.
If this is a RULE, as you claim, does this mean when a wizard hits level 3, all extra learned spells vanish from their spellbook so that they have exactly this many remaining so as to comply with this "rule"? This "rule" would be more specific, in fact, than the general wizard spellbook rules, so would trump them in precedence if it was, in fact, as you claim... a RULE.
But it isn't a rule. You know we're not obligated to follow it too. It is.. an example. ALL it provides is guidance, to understand Intent, of the actual Rules.
The Rule:
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.
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 only know it is an incorrect application of the RAW because of the Example that shows the RAI.
No RULE says to treat yourself as a lower level character. You're a 6th level character in that example. If a RULE says to treat yourself as a single class character, coming to the conclusion you treat yourself as a 6th level cleric for the purposes of preparing spell is entirely consistent with the RAW. Are you a 6th level cleric? No. but the rule SAYS to TREAT yourself as a single clas. It is SILENT on what level you should treat yourself. If it doesn't say to treat yourself as a lower level character than you probably shouldn't, right? The EXAMPLE makes it clear that is not the INTENT. The RAI is therefore that you do treat yourself as a lower level character for the purposes of preparing spells. This RAI is abundantly clear and is in fact so obvious people, like yourself, have a hard time not parsing the RAW with it as the desired endpoint. But no RULE actually says to treat yourself as a lower level character.
No I know that because the first sentence says "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." and that is ALL the information I need. The following sentences with explanations is nice to have and eliminates any possible confusion anyone new to the rules might have but they are also unnecessary because that first sentence is enough.
A 3rd level Druid is a 3rd level Druid and will only ever be a 3rd level Druid (until he chooses to add another level when levelling up). And thus when the rule says to prepare spells as a "single-classed member of that class" he prepares spells as a 3rd level Druid. The rest of your argument is just irrelevant and is you refusing to accept the fundamental fact that Class Level does not equal Character Level. When the rules refer to "class" then only your level in that class is relevant no matter whatever levels you have in other classes or whatever overall character level you are.
Why do we have a 5 page thread about number of spells prepared under a post whose topic is number of spell slots? This is insane even by this board's normally insane standards.
Actually, 4 of those pages are just people arguing about whether examples of rules should also be considered RAW or RAI.
You're a 6th level character in that example. If a RULE says to treat yourself as a single class character, coming to the conclusion you treat yourself as a 6th level cleric for the purposes of preparing spell is entirely consistent with the RAW. Are you a 6th level cleric? No. but the rule SAYS to TREAT yourself as a single clas. It is SILENT on what level you should treat yourself.
As written, there is no mention about level specifically in the sentence ''you determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class''. So you gotta ask yourself;
What's the level of a Cleric 3/Druid 3 individually as single-classed member of that class? I hardly see how you can answer 6. While you are a 6th level character, you are not a 6th level Cleric or Druid individually as a single-classed member of that class, but 3rd level instead.
You're a 6th level character in that example. If a RULE says to treat yourself as a single class character, coming to the conclusion you treat yourself as a 6th level cleric for the purposes of preparing spell is entirely consistent with the RAW. Are you a 6th level cleric? No. but the rule SAYS to TREAT yourself as a single clas. It is SILENT on what level you should treat yourself.
As written, there is no mention about level specifically in the sentence ''you determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class''.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. As written, there is no level specified. The Rule, as written, fails to mention it either way. It doesn't say to treat yourself as a single class and as a lower level character. Similarly, it doesn't say to treat yourself as a single class, and at the same level you actually are. The Rule, As Written, fails to specify this entirely.
Thus, is incomplete.
Thankfully we can safely extract this missing instruction from the Example, and thus, know the Intent of the Rule was indeed: Treat yourself as a single class and as a lower level character.
Thus, we also agree how it works in practice and in play.
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 first sentence of the spellcasting rules tells you what they are talking about when they talk about your levels in one class.
Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes.
When the rules say that "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class" after that sentence, it is clear that you use the level in that individual class and not your combined level in spellcasting classes.
The first sentence of the spellcasting rules tells you what they are talking about when they talk about your levels in one class.
Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes.
When the rules say that "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class" after that sentence, it is clear that you use the level in that individual class and not your combined level in spellcasting classes.
Yes it is perfectly clear because of the Example, I agree.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's what I've been asking for several pages. "Written examples in rules are intended rules, not written rules." Is the only answer I've gotten.
Which as we've both said is not only not an answer, but also objectively false. Repeatedly pointing that out has only been met with variations of the same answer.
SAC is indeed a good source for understanding the terms RAW and RAI.
When talking RAW, you must look at what the Rule actually says. "The text is forced to stand on its own".
The multiclass "rule" that says "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 insufficient to understand how to prepare spells. You read that and immediately think oh my Clr3/Drd3 prepares as a Clr3. Then as a Drd3. And that is a way to do it, but that rule doesn't tell you how to do it. You could just as easily read that and say, well, I need to prepare it as a Clr6. Then a Drd6. because it says to treat myself as a single class, and I'm 6th level, so I treat myself as a 6th level cleric. That's logically consistent and sound with ONLY the RULE itself.
The Example clears up what the Intent of that rule is immediately.
When discussing RAW, I too use this perspective. If you mean something other than this definition when disusing RAW we're not on the same page.
RAI is what people should be playing by. Yes, in a perfect world RAW and RAI are perfectly aligned. When they're not, RAI should win out. It is far more important to play as Intended than as some misprinted or badly written rule otherwise creating some bizarre or broken interaction says. Why on earth would anyone choose RAW over RAI??? RAI is almost universally sounder to go by, should there be a discrepancy between the two.
Their Tweets aren't RAW...
Their tweets are clarifying Intent. That is RAI. The RAI for multiclass spellcasting is abundantly clear. The examples support it. Their tweets support it. DnDBeyond functionality itself, as Davyd showcases above, works the way it is Intended to work, perfectly fine. We all agree how it is supposed to work. The RAI here is indisputable. So, we ALL know how to PLAY it.
But in a purely academic, RAW perspective... these optional multiclass rules are incomplete. You don't have to care about that. If academic purely RAW non-gameplay discussion isn't for you, then ignore this curiosity entirely and move on with your day. This isn't the first time someone has pointed it out, and it won't be the last. Not here, or elsewhere D&D is discussed. Why? because strictly speaking, by RAW, multiclass rules aren't complete. They don't change what spell slots you have. They don't tell you to treat yourself as a lower level character at all. They're missing some instructions. Instructions everyone agrees to follow despite them being missing.
So, functionally speaking, the rules to play by state you do it exactly like we all do, and as Davyd demonstrated. If you care about a purely sterile academic discussion of RAW though? Different answer. And if you don't? Well, the title of THIS thread made it clear that is what is being discussed here.
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.
Did you guys want me to also repeat everything the OP said? Just look at the case presented on page 1. The rules are broken/incomplete. The Intent of the rules we do have is only clear due to the examples. You can extrapolate the intent from them, and thus come to the conclusion what rules is missing and fill in the blank on your own. So RAI, thus, how to actually play, is perfectly clear.
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.
So it seems like Rav's argument has become "all rules must be written as a single sentence. If a rule isn't undeniably clear in a single sentence, all additional sentences for the same rule must be discarded, and only anything I make up is RAW."
Literally the argument is "you can't use the rules to argue with me." That level if thinking is so far removed from mine that I can't even come up with an argument. I'm sorry you don't like D&D, good luck with whatever you call what you're playing.
Only the rules in the book are RAW. No one can make up what RAW is. You cannot, I cannot. Only the text, the rules text, as written, in the rulebook... is RAW.
It isn't a complex acronym. If you aren't sure if something is RAW, just ask yourself.
If the answer to either of these questions is No. Then, well, that isn't RAW.
Our agreed upon understanding of how to do multiclas spellcasting. Again, we agree how it works. Process this statement: We agree how it works. That agreed upon understanding of how it works isn't sufficiently written in the Rules, as they are written. If it was, why do these posts keep showing up from time to time when people realize the RAW doesn't actually cover this properly?? The gap in the RAW has been sufficiently covered. Yes. yes. yes. we ALL know how to fill in that gap from the examples and context clues. But just because we can fill in the blank doesn't mean there isn't a blank.
If you are upset that someone has the audacity to actually acknowledge this, while still adamantly agreeing with you and everyone how we all know we should actually play it. So upset that you're going to go well and truly out of your way to misrepresent them? Well, maybe some soul searching is in order.
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 problem is twofold, 1) you are basically saying there is only one way to communicate a rule; that is categorically untrue. If a goal of the rules is to teach the game (which it is) then multiple perspectives on communicating a rule is a good pedagogical strategy. Both examples and plain directives can convey rules, both are written in this case, so both have the force of RAW. And sure, flavor text exists, but this is not that.
2) this kind of hyper pedantic devils advocacy does nothing to help those who need help understanding the game. It does however provide ammunition for the type of person who thinks they can bully their DM into taking a course of action not written in the rules which can break gameplay, and it confuses those who legitimately need help understanding multi class rules. Given that I’m almost 100% certain that the person who started this thread is the former (at least judging from their writing in the OP and in subsequent posts) this is doubly unhelpful.
Why do we have a 5 page thread about number of spells prepared under a post whose topic is number of spell slots? This is insane even by this board's normally insane standards.
Right, and clarifying examples are rules. Many rules have a concise form and an extended form, and the extended form often includes examples.
No that isn't logically consistent, it is an incorrect application of the rules. You might be a 6th level character but you are NOT a 6th level Druid (nor a 6th level Cleric) and the fact that you refuse to accept this very basic part of how classes work is the whole reason for your confusion about the rules.
If someone that was making his first D&D character made that mistake I could understand it but that should be easily fixed with a bit of explanation by the DM (if I where the DM I would also tell them to ignore the MC rules for now but that is a different matter).
“Is it a rule?” As long as it describes how the game works and appears in a rule book, yes it is.
If you are using some other definition of rule, then to be clear it isn’t an obvious one (and certainly isn’t required by the game).
The OP was not very good at phrasing their question (actually, I think it was just statement). But ultimately, what they said was you are supposed to use multiclass spell slots to determine what spells a multiclass character can prepare.
To which we said that was the opposite of the rule. And eventually Rav stepped in to say "actually if you ignore all the parts that clarify the rule then intentionally misinterpret 'single-class' to mean 'ignore your class level and use your total character level,' then the RAW agrees with OP."
And we have been trying to untangle that illogical disaster of an argument ever since.
You only know it is an incorrect application of the RAW because of the Example that shows the RAI.
No RULE says to treat yourself as a lower level character. You're a 6th level character in that example. If a RULE says to treat yourself as a single class character, coming to the conclusion you treat yourself as a 6th level cleric for the purposes of preparing spell is entirely consistent with the RAW. Are you a 6th level cleric? No. but the rule SAYS to TREAT yourself as a single clas. It is SILENT on what level you should treat yourself. If it doesn't say to treat yourself as a lower level character than you probably shouldn't, right? The EXAMPLE makes it clear that is not the INTENT. The RAI is therefore that you do treat yourself as a lower level character for the purposes of preparing spells. This RAI is abundantly clear and is in fact so obvious people, like yourself, have a hard time not parsing the RAW with it as the desired endpoint. But no RULE actually says to treat yourself as a lower level character.
We. All. Agree. How. It. Is. Supposed. To. Be. Played. Though.
No one should APPLY the RAW here. The RAI is known, and uncontroversial. Apply the RAI. Every time, apply the RAI. You're not an unthinking computer program, you are capable of deductive reasoning and common sense. You apply the RAI. We ALL do. That's how you PLAY the game.
You guys really need to stop this. Really. I'm not sure what your goal is here.
I DO accept how it works. I've said as much almost a dozen times now. How many times do I need to say that we agree how it works for you to stop throwing this unfounded accusation at me? We AGREE how the game works, dude. In practice, at play, at the table... DnDBeyond agrees, you agree, I agree. We all think it works the same way. The confusion certainly isn't on my end.
I think if you're having a hard time following this concept, you might need to simply reread the rules. But read them with your "strict RAW" lenses on. I'll help and simply delete the examples, so they don't distract you. Rules Only Mode:
You determine your Spells Known and prepared as a single class, but the Spell Slots specifically aren't determined that way. They're determined by adding up and consulting the MC table.
AGAIN I must state: The RAI here is perfectly clear. We all agree that the way you are supposed to actually play is just like the examples paint a picture of. Treat each of those classes of yours as all you have, like you're a lower level character, and even to then pretend you don't have the spell slots you do in fact have. BUT, there is no explicit rule saying to do this. None. It just isn't there. We extrapolated that INTENT from the examples. But there is no RULE that says to do it. Now that you've read it again, and can clearly and plainly see there is nothing there that says to pretend you don't have the slots you do have, nor anything there saying to treat yourself as a lower level character when preparing spells, you now understand.
RAW is broken/incomplete. But RAI is perfectly clear.
Think I'm wrong? Fine. Just quote the rule that says you treat yourself as a lower level character, and that you pretend you don't have the spell slots you do have. It would be painfully easy to prove me wrong. Just quote the rule that says this. Where is this missing rule? Did I simply overlook it? Quote. It.
I'm making the claim there is a missing piece. I'm telling you exactly what I think is not being said. That should be super easy, barely an inconvenience, to prove me wrong (if that rule was actually printed in the books). Yet no one has as of yet quoted anything saying these things. Almost like there isn't something in the Rules that say them.
WE extrapolated the INTENT to do these things from a combination of the examples and, well, TBH, power balance. It'd be super broken OP if it was a different way. Your gut tells you that. But your gut =/= printed rule text.
That is all I am or have been saying here. RAW is incomplete. RAI is crystal clear. Play it based on the undeniable RAI at your table, this is how EVERYONE does it.
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.
Examples are not rules themselves. They're written, they're official, but they give you the guidance for how the actual Rules are intended to be interpreted. You're not bound to follow Examples as if they were rules.
Just look at the example in multiclassing and you'll see why it isn't a RULE itself:
This, if it is a rule, is telling you exactly how many spells you have in your wizard book.
If this is a RULE, as you claim, does this mean when a wizard hits level 3, all extra learned spells vanish from their spellbook so that they have exactly this many remaining so as to comply with this "rule"? This "rule" would be more specific, in fact, than the general wizard spellbook rules, so would trump them in precedence if it was, in fact, as you claim... a RULE.
But it isn't a rule. You know we're not obligated to follow it too. It is.. an example. ALL it provides is guidance, to understand Intent, of the actual Rules.
The Rule:
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 rule has been established and everyone agrees how it works, including D&D Beyond.
If people want to debate the philosophical meanings of Rules as Written vs Rules as Intended, please start a different thread in General Discussion
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
No I know that because the first sentence says "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." and that is ALL the information I need. The following sentences with explanations is nice to have and eliminates any possible confusion anyone new to the rules might have but they are also unnecessary because that first sentence is enough.
A 3rd level Druid is a 3rd level Druid and will only ever be a 3rd level Druid (until he chooses to add another level when levelling up). And thus when the rule says to prepare spells as a "single-classed member of that class" he prepares spells as a 3rd level Druid. The rest of your argument is just irrelevant and is you refusing to accept the fundamental fact that Class Level does not equal Character Level. When the rules refer to "class" then only your level in that class is relevant no matter whatever levels you have in other classes or whatever overall character level you are.
Actually, 4 of those pages are just people arguing about whether examples of rules should also be considered RAW or RAI.
As written, there is no mention about level specifically in the sentence ''you determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class''. So you gotta ask yourself;
What's the level of a Cleric 3/Druid 3 individually as single-classed member of that class? I hardly see how you can answer 6. While you are a 6th level character, you are not a 6th level Cleric or Druid individually as a single-classed member of that class, but 3rd level instead.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. As written, there is no level specified. The Rule, as written, fails to mention it either way. It doesn't say to treat yourself as a single class and as a lower level character. Similarly, it doesn't say to treat yourself as a single class, and at the same level you actually are. The Rule, As Written, fails to specify this entirely.
Thus, is incomplete.
Thankfully we can safely extract this missing instruction from the Example, and thus, know the Intent of the Rule was indeed: Treat yourself as a single class and as a lower level character.
Thus, we also agree how it works in practice and in play.
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 first sentence of the spellcasting rules tells you what they are talking about when they talk about your levels in one class.
When the rules say that "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class" after that sentence, it is clear that you use the level in that individual class and not your combined level in spellcasting classes.
Yes it is perfectly clear because of the Example, I agree.
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.