Well, between the fact that they've introduced "individual level in a class," "combined levels in spellcasting classes" and "character level" then ask you to do a task as a single-classed member of a class without more instruction, it is obvious which of those options they mean.
Well, between the fact that they've introduced "individual level in a class," "combined levels in spellcasting classes" and "character level" then ask you to do a task as a single-classed member of a class without more instruction, it is obvious which of those options they mean.
Yes, I agree, the Intent is 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.
Well, between the fact that they've introduced "individual level in a class," "combined levels in spellcasting classes" and "character level" then ask you to do a task as a single-classed member of a class without more instruction, it is obvious which of those options they mean.
Yes, I agree, the Intent is obvious.
How is that different from any other rule? Is something a rule only if the intent is not obvious? If the intent is obvious, congratulations, writers, you have written clear rules.
So why are you arguing as if it is otherwise?
I am not and never have argued otherwise. From my first post and up to now I have repeatedly argued that the Intent is obvious. Even if there is missing rule text that actually says to treat yourself as lower level, even if there is missing rule text that says to pretend you don't have the slots you do in fact have, the Intent is still crystal clear and obvious. Thanks to the examples, and a good ol' dose of common sense. I have not argued otherwise, nor will I argue otherwise.
If the goal is to convince me otherwise, and it seems that is the case... only a citation of rules text will suffice to illustrate what the raw is. Since we are talking raw, only quotes win out in this argument. A rule saying "treat yourself as a lower level character for spell prep" and a rule saying "pretend you don't have the spell slots you do in fact have". Those are the two rules I've identified as missing from the text, but rules that can be safely extrapolated by the Intent of the examples plus common sense about character power levels.
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.
Please remember - the thread offers the opportunity to share one's thoughts and opinions. If the conversation is being dragged out in attempts to "convince" others by repeatedly stating the same idea, the thread has reached its end.
State your piece and move forward. Everyone plays in their own manner and interprets text differently.
If the goal is to convince me otherwise, and it seems that is the case... only a citation of rules text will suffice to illustrate what the raw is. Since we are talking raw, only quotes win out in this argument.
The goal isn't to convince you, not main goal at least, but more to make sure no one else get stuck in the same faulty logic loop.
A rule saying "treat yourself as a lower level character for spell prep" and a rule saying "pretend you don't have the spell slots you do in fact have". Those are the two rules I've identified as missing from the text, but rules that can be safely extrapolated by the Intent of the examples plus common sense about character power levels.
You won't find such wording. Because it isn't needed.
The problem remains the fact that you keep going on about Character level when the MC rule for preparing spells only care about Class level, and Character level IS NOT the same as Class level. The MC rules for spell slots also doesn't care about your Character level, it just uses your Class level from some specified classes (and even then just 1/2 or 1/3 from some of them) to determine what spell slots you have.This means that you can easily be a lower level of Multiclass Spellcaster than what your total Character level is without there being any problems with either RAW or RAI.
In fact most of the rules of this game doesn't concern themselves with your Character level (most class features don't, your hit dice don't and so on and so on). Your proficiency bonus though is directly tied to your Character level (and this is thus called out in the MC rules).
Well, between the fact that they've introduced "individual level in a class," "combined levels in spellcasting classes" and "character level" then ask you to do a task as a single-classed member of a class without more instruction, it is obvious which of those options they mean.
Yes, I agree, the Intent is 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.
I am not and never have argued otherwise. From my first post and up to now I have repeatedly argued that the Intent is obvious. Even if there is missing rule text that actually says to treat yourself as lower level, even if there is missing rule text that says to pretend you don't have the slots you do in fact have, the Intent is still crystal clear and obvious. Thanks to the examples, and a good ol' dose of common sense. I have not argued otherwise, nor will I argue otherwise.
If the goal is to convince me otherwise, and it seems that is the case... only a citation of rules text will suffice to illustrate what the raw is. Since we are talking raw, only quotes win out in this argument. A rule saying "treat yourself as a lower level character for spell prep" and a rule saying "pretend you don't have the spell slots you do in fact have". Those are the two rules I've identified as missing from the text, but rules that can be safely extrapolated by the Intent of the examples plus common sense about character power levels.
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.
Please remember - the thread offers the opportunity to share one's thoughts and opinions. If the conversation is being dragged out in attempts to "convince" others by repeatedly stating the same idea, the thread has reached its end.
State your piece and move forward. Everyone plays in their own manner and interprets text differently.
The goal isn't to convince you, not main goal at least, but more to make sure no one else get stuck in the same faulty logic loop.
But sure, I'll give it one last go.
You won't find such wording. Because it isn't needed.
The problem remains the fact that you keep going on about Character level when the MC rule for preparing spells only care about Class level, and Character level IS NOT the same as Class level. The MC rules for spell slots also doesn't care about your Character level, it just uses your Class level from some specified classes (and even then just 1/2 or 1/3 from some of them) to determine what spell slots you have.This means that you can easily be a lower level of Multiclass Spellcaster than what your total Character level is without there being any problems with either RAW or RAI.
In fact most of the rules of this game doesn't concern themselves with your Character level (most class features don't, your hit dice don't and so on and so on). Your proficiency bonus though is directly tied to your Character level (and this is thus called out in the MC rules).