So I do know that when multiclassing you determine the spells known and prepared for each class individually, but sorcerer's "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." does imply that if you have spell slots you can learn the spells of that level. And to be honest, until now I was sure it worked that way, same with wizard's spellbook - you have the spell slots, you can copy the spell. I just thought that I am bound by the class spell list, different Spell Attack, and Spell Save DC, and for sorcerer specifically - that I need to start with 2 1st level spells that I can then change later on. But now when I tried to make it work on my character sheet but it kinda . . . don't want to work. Is my fear true and you in fact cannot have better spells while multiclassing?
So I do know that when multiclassing you determine the spells known and prepared for each class individually, but sorcerer's "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." does imply that if you have spell slots you can learn the spells of that level. And to be honest, until now I was sure it worked that way, same with wizard's spellbook - you have the spell slots, you can copy the spell. I just thought that I am bound by the class spell list, different Spell Attack, and Spell Save DC, and for sorcerer specifically - that I need to start with 2 1st level spells that I can then change later on. But now when I tried to make it work on my character sheet but it kinda . . . don't want to work. Is my fear true and you in fact cannot have better spells while multiclassing?
Correct. You learn spells you know (for a sorcerer), prepare (for a cleric), or both (for a wizard) for each individual class as if you weren't multiclassed. Multiclassing multiple spellcasting classes that aren't Warlock will therefore get you slots can't know/prepare spells for and you can only use them for upcasting the spells you do know/prepare.
You can learn spells that you can cast with your level in the class. For example, if you are Wizard 3 Sorcerer 2, you would not be able to learn any level 3 spells even if you have the slot. Page 164 PHb: "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 yes, being able to do that would be game breaking. A lvl1 wizard, lvl19 cleric could learn Wish which doesn't make any sense. You are a lvl 1 wizard, you cannot master the most powerful spells of your class. You could certainly prepare True Resurrection instead, since you're a very high level cleric and it makes sense that you can access the most powerful spells in your class.
So that how it is . . . sad. Would it break the game though? Letting players learn/prepare spells if they have appropriate spell slots.
Not sure what you mean by break. This is the rules forum, so we focus on answering rules questions. I can tell you that if on level-up a Sorcerer could learn spells for slots they picked up by multiclassing you would introduce even more mechanics by which order of operations matters for multiclass builds: you'd be penalized for taking Sorcerer levels first and the other class second, because you can't change your known Sorcerer spells willy-nilly, it's only on level-up. WOTC has never deigned to explain why casters that know spells are so deeply crippled (aside from wizards, who only technically know spells - they cast like they prepare).
I can tell you that it's observably very distinct watching the rules for multiclass slot progression interact or not based on the various different ways they can:
Warlocks multiclass with other casters as if spell slots had no special interactions at all. If all spellcasters worked this way your question would be meaningless - multiclassing would just keep getting your more low-level slots, not climb you up the spell slot table towards higher-level slots. From this perspective, of course you can't know spells for a higher-level slot - there's no mechanism for gaining said slots.
Partial casters that aren't Artificers change their algorithm for calculating slot progression, whereas Artificers (and full casters) do not. The change in algorithm means that e.g. a Ranger 5/Paladin 5 is caster level 4 for slot purposes, not 5 like a half-caster should be, even though it's entirely made of half-casters, and you can make similarly weird effects happen by mixing in Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster: both classes and subclasses change from rounding their fractional levels up to down when multiclassing. Because Artificers don't (and full casters don't round at all, which means they also don't change how they round), it begs the question why the change occurs for anyone.
Of course, another possibility exists: do all rounding at the end, which is how solo-classing actually works. I'll highlight the possibilities below:
Current RAW: Ranger 5/Paladin 5 = truncate(5/2) + truncate (5/2) = 4 for slot progression; R6/P5 = 5.
If all you did was leave their original progression intact: Ranger 5/Paladin 5 = ceiling(5/2) + ceiling(5/2) = 6 for slot progression; R6/P5 = 6.
If what you did was add up all fractions and then round down, because D&D has you round down by default: Ranger 5/Paladin 5 = truncate(5/2+5/2) = 5; R6/P5 = truncate(6/2+5/2) = 5.
Add up all fractions and round up at the end: R5/P5 = 5, R6/P5 = 6.
Remember, for solo classing purposes, R10 is slot progression 5 and R11 is 6, so of the above options, only the bottom one accurately matches non-multiclass progression.
Because Artificer rounds up, Ranger 5 / Artificer 5 is RAW truncate(5/2) + ceiling(5/2), and there's no explanation at all from WOTC why they feel this is appropriate despite being deeply inconsistent.
It's also a very fine question why ASI progression is attached to every class instead of just happening at character levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, with Fighter and Rogue getting additional ASIs as class benefits.
It's also a very fine question why Extra Attack not only doesn't stack, but you're given no option for replacing it, meaning in practice multiclass builds tend to be stronger when you use classes that can choose to take EA or not, like Warlock (Bards, Wizards, and Artificers can also make the choice via their subclass) or when you duck out before hitting EA and having your hand forced.
It's also a very fine question why Channel Divinity works the opposite way of slots (there's no stacking for quantity) while working the slots way for CDs known (a Cleric 2/Paladin 8 has the slots of a level 6 caster holding the prepared spells of a Cleric 2 plus the prepared spells of a Paladin 8, but has the CD "slots" of a Cleric 2 (or Paladin 8, they're the same number, 1) only holding the CD uses of a Cleric 2 plus a Paladin 8, not e.g the CD slots of a Cleric 6.
The finest of all possible questions is why Barbarian/Monks don't get both Unarmed Defense calculations when by definition they couldn't stack even if they got both.
Only your DM can decide what their desired balance is for their table and hence which of these rules, if any, they want to homebrew.
quindraco, I see a very simple answer to all those questions. The game designers never wanted people to multiclass. They included it as an optional rule since they know it's very popular, but it's not really something they had in mind when they designed the game. 5e is not intended to multiclass, although you can do so as an optional rule. And furthermore, although we got off topic, most multiclasses don't work well. A few do work, and logically they are the most popular because they are stronger than a single class. But you have to be clear that the game is designed to be played with a single class.
quindraco, I see a very simple answer to all those questions. The game designers never wanted people to multiclass. They included it as an optional rule since they know it's very popular, but it's not really something they had in mind when they designed the game. 5e is not intended to multiclass, although you can do so as an optional rule. And furthermore, although we got off topic, most multiclasses don't work well. A few do work, and logically they are the most popular because they are stronger than a single class. But you have to be clear that the game is designed to be played with a single class.
I think you got everything backwards there.
The game designers knew people wanted to multi-class, it has been a thing since version 1.
They went out of their way to make rules to let people do it fairly and reasonably
Because those rules are fair and reasonable, it means you can't just do what you want, you have to work within the rules. When you do it the way they intended, it works very well.
A lot of the most optimized builds require multi-classing. Frankly, certain classes have really crappy level 20 stuff, so it makes a lot of sense to take a couple of levels at the end, if not the beginning.
This was not an add on, it is simply hard to do well. The problem is people think it is easy, and it is not.
That is a recurring discussion. I really think that when someone says that any multiclass is better because there are many singleclasses whose level 20 is bad, they are missing a few things:
- Hardly anyone ever reaches lvl 20. Most campaigns end between lvl 10-14. - Although a specific build is strong with a dip to another class, in reality it is usually strong statically. That is, when you do it. But in the long run that dip hampers all your progress. - Many multiclasses are strong because many people misapply the rules. A clear example is what is asked in this thread. I've seen a lot of people with a multiclass that claim to get their highest spells at the same speed as a singleclass. I've also seen people ignore the requirements for multiclassing, etc...
Honestly, the vast majority of builds work better in singleclass. For a multiclass to really work better, it has to do a lot of things that aren't common. A few do, and those are the ones that work from an optimization point of view.
quindraco, I see a very simple answer to all those questions. The game designers never wanted people to multiclass. They included it as an optional rule since they know it's very popular, but it's not really something they had in mind when they designed the game. 5e is not intended to multiclass, although you can do so as an optional rule. And furthermore, although we got off topic, most multiclasses don't work well. A few do work, and logically they are the most popular because they are stronger than a single class. But you have to be clear that the game is designed to be played with a single class.
I think you got everything backwards there.
The game designers knew people wanted to multi-class, it has been a thing since version 1.
They went out of their way to make rules to let people do it fairly and reasonably
Because those rules are fair and reasonable, it means you can't just do what you want, you have to work within the rules. When you do it the way they intended, it works very well.
A lot of the most optimized builds require multi-classing. Frankly, certain classes have really crappy level 20 stuff, so it makes a lot of sense to take a couple of levels at the end, if not the beginning.
This was not an add on, it is simply hard to do well. The problem is people think it is easy, and it is not.
I explain my point of view.
D&D is a game with almost 50 years behind it. I seem to remember that multiclasses appear in Advanced 2.0. There only demihumans could be multiclassed, and of specific combinations for each demihuman. Humans, on the other hand, were the only ones who could be dual class.
Then, in 3.0, it opened up a lot with multiclassing and, except for the barbarian and later the psions, there weren't too many restrictions. In fact practically the game was designed so that you were multiclass.
In Fourth Edition, multiclassing pretty much disappeared, and you could only do it through a feat that gave you a bit of another class. That was one of the reasons for the bitter complaints that fourth edition suffered, and the great failure of WoTC.
When D&D Next began to be designed, and the first beta tests were done, there were no multiclasses. And many people complained again. So it was added as an optional rule. WoTC had learned his lesson, and he didn't want the same thing to happen to him as in fourth edition. With good judgment, I might add.
So in 5e we have multiclassing as an optional rule. But the game was designed without them in mind. What the developers wanted is for it to play with singleclass, and include some subclasses that would give you a bit of another class. That was on paper because the reality is that, at the end of the day, people like to multiclass. So it doesn't matter if they include the bladesinger subclass to cover the Gish. There will be people who will continue to multiclass fighter/wizard to achieve that concept.
And why so much trouble with multiclasses? Well, because in 3.0 it got out of hand, and they broke the game. A game, by the way, that already had many design problems on its own. Then 3.5 came along and fixed the game a bit, but multiclassing kept breaking it. And it's normal to be like that, since it is very difficult to balance a game based on classes when people can mix them. Either you limit it a lot, or it gets out of hand. In my opinion the solution that they implemented in 5e is not bad, but it is still a patch for a game that did not intend that this could be done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I do know that when multiclassing you determine the spells known and prepared for each class individually, but sorcerer's "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." does imply that if you have spell slots you can learn the spells of that level. And to be honest, until now I was sure it worked that way, same with wizard's spellbook - you have the spell slots, you can copy the spell. I just thought that I am bound by the class spell list, different Spell Attack, and Spell Save DC, and for sorcerer specifically - that I need to start with 2 1st level spells that I can then change later on. But now when I tried to make it work on my character sheet but it kinda . . . don't want to work. Is my fear true and you in fact cannot have better spells while multiclassing?
Correct. You learn spells you know (for a sorcerer), prepare (for a cleric), or both (for a wizard) for each individual class as if you weren't multiclassed. Multiclassing multiple spellcasting classes that aren't Warlock will therefore get you slots can't know/prepare spells for and you can only use them for upcasting the spells you do know/prepare.
So that how it is . . . sad. Would it break the game though? Letting players learn/prepare spells if they have appropriate spell slots.
You can learn spells that you can cast with your level in the class. For example, if you are Wizard 3 Sorcerer 2, you would not be able to learn any level 3 spells even if you have the slot.
Page 164 PHb: "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 yes, being able to do that would be game breaking. A lvl1 wizard, lvl19 cleric could learn Wish which doesn't make any sense. You are a lvl 1 wizard, you cannot master the most powerful spells of your class. You could certainly prepare True Resurrection instead, since you're a very high level cleric and it makes sense that you can access the most powerful spells in your class.
Not sure what you mean by break. This is the rules forum, so we focus on answering rules questions. I can tell you that if on level-up a Sorcerer could learn spells for slots they picked up by multiclassing you would introduce even more mechanics by which order of operations matters for multiclass builds: you'd be penalized for taking Sorcerer levels first and the other class second, because you can't change your known Sorcerer spells willy-nilly, it's only on level-up. WOTC has never deigned to explain why casters that know spells are so deeply crippled (aside from wizards, who only technically know spells - they cast like they prepare).
I can tell you that it's observably very distinct watching the rules for multiclass slot progression interact or not based on the various different ways they can:
Only your DM can decide what their desired balance is for their table and hence which of these rules, if any, they want to homebrew.
quindraco, I see a very simple answer to all those questions. The game designers never wanted people to multiclass. They included it as an optional rule since they know it's very popular, but it's not really something they had in mind when they designed the game. 5e is not intended to multiclass, although you can do so as an optional rule. And furthermore, although we got off topic, most multiclasses don't work well. A few do work, and logically they are the most popular because they are stronger than a single class. But you have to be clear that the game is designed to be played with a single class.
ok yeah, that 1 lvl wizard 19 lvl cleric kinda speaks for itself, thank you
I think you got everything backwards there.
This was not an add on, it is simply hard to do well. The problem is people think it is easy, and it is not.
That is a recurring discussion. I really think that when someone says that any multiclass is better because there are many singleclasses whose level 20 is bad, they are missing a few things:
- Hardly anyone ever reaches lvl 20. Most campaigns end between lvl 10-14.
- Although a specific build is strong with a dip to another class, in reality it is usually strong statically. That is, when you do it. But in the long run that dip hampers all your progress.
- Many multiclasses are strong because many people misapply the rules. A clear example is what is asked in this thread. I've seen a lot of people with a multiclass that claim to get their highest spells at the same speed as a singleclass. I've also seen people ignore the requirements for multiclassing, etc...
Honestly, the vast majority of builds work better in singleclass. For a multiclass to really work better, it has to do a lot of things that aren't common. A few do, and those are the ones that work from an optimization point of view.
I explain my point of view.
D&D is a game with almost 50 years behind it. I seem to remember that multiclasses appear in Advanced 2.0. There only demihumans could be multiclassed, and of specific combinations for each demihuman. Humans, on the other hand, were the only ones who could be dual class.
Then, in 3.0, it opened up a lot with multiclassing and, except for the barbarian and later the psions, there weren't too many restrictions. In fact practically the game was designed so that you were multiclass.
In Fourth Edition, multiclassing pretty much disappeared, and you could only do it through a feat that gave you a bit of another class. That was one of the reasons for the bitter complaints that fourth edition suffered, and the great failure of WoTC.
When D&D Next began to be designed, and the first beta tests were done, there were no multiclasses. And many people complained again. So it was added as an optional rule. WoTC had learned his lesson, and he didn't want the same thing to happen to him as in fourth edition. With good judgment, I might add.
So in 5e we have multiclassing as an optional rule. But the game was designed without them in mind. What the developers wanted is for it to play with singleclass, and include some subclasses that would give you a bit of another class. That was on paper because the reality is that, at the end of the day, people like to multiclass. So it doesn't matter if they include the bladesinger subclass to cover the Gish. There will be people who will continue to multiclass fighter/wizard to achieve that concept.
And why so much trouble with multiclasses? Well, because in 3.0 it got out of hand, and they broke the game. A game, by the way, that already had many design problems on its own. Then 3.5 came along and fixed the game a bit, but multiclassing kept breaking it. And it's normal to be like that, since it is very difficult to balance a game based on classes when people can mix them. Either you limit it a lot, or it gets out of hand. In my opinion the solution that they implemented in 5e is not bad, but it is still a patch for a game that did not intend that this could be done.