Well here's a straightforward way that is pretty hard to argue against: Fulminating Treatise
It even has our Fireball spell in it.
See, this is a less clear rule.
If you spend 1 minute studying the book, you can expend 1 charge to replace one of your prepared wizard spells with a different spell in the book. The new spell must be of the evocation school.
The way I see it, this has 2 ways to be interpreted:
Because the new evocation spell becomes prepared, it must follow the rules for preparing spells normally, which puts us right back at the multiclass rules preventing it (probably RAI).
The prepared spell is replaced by the evocation spell without any other checks, theoretically allowing a level 1 wizard with no multiclass to "prepare" fireball, but not have slots to cast it with.
With that very jank rulling, a wizard 1/sorc 4 could get fireball "prepared".
Personally, I would go with ruling 1 since it makes sense.
If you're applying a restriction that the rules don't tell you to apply, you're crossing into homebrew territory with that answer.
Claiming it to be RAI here is tricky because this is supposed to be a magic item that allows you to cast these spells. That is clearly the intent. So arguing it doesn't let you cast them if we add an extra restriction not listed here goes against the spirit of what the item does. If it had any such restriction is would say as much.
Even still, if we apply this item to our multiclass character it is very clear he can prepare them if he has the spell slots to do it, they're in his spellbook.
You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Well multiclassing rules apply to multiclassed characters, but a level 4 or lower single classed wizard can't prepare level 3 spells normally either, so in either case there is a rule preventing preparing fireball with 100% RAW / 0% homebrew.
Claiming RAI isn't that tricky. Either it follows normal spell preparation rules or it lets character prepare spells they don't have slots for. I don't think so lowly of the writers as to think that nonsense is intended. But enough with the irrelevant and sloppy attempts to discredit me and on to the only part that is rules relevant (and somehow not even remotely about the book, way to change the topic again instead of address the actual argument).
You've quoted that piece if the wizard spellcasting rule before, but it is separate from the multiclass rules. Wasn't the multiclass spellcasting rules for preparing spells and spell slots being separate rules (even though they aren't, but that doesn't matter) your defense for why the restriction of "as if you were single classed" somehow didn't apply? So shouldn't the actually very different not even in the same chapter wizard preparation rules not get affected by the multiclass spell slot rules, by your own argument?
But you know what rule 100% isn't a different rule from the spell preparation rule you quoted?:
The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
So which is it? Do separate rules not apply and therefore a multiclassed wizard doesn't benefit from multiclass slots, or do separate (paragraphs of a single) rule apply and therefore a multiclass wizard has to ignore multiclass spell slots only when preparing spells?
Well here's a straightforward way that is pretty hard to argue against: Fulminating Treatise
It even has our Fireball spell in it.
See, this is a less clear rule.
If you spend 1 minute studying the book, you can expend 1 charge to replace one of your prepared wizard spells with a different spell in the book. The new spell must be of the evocation school.
The way I see it, this has 2 ways to be interpreted:
Because the new evocation spell becomes prepared, it must follow the rules for preparing spells normally, which puts us right back at the multiclass rules preventing it (probably RAI).
The prepared spell is replaced by the evocation spell without any other checks, theoretically allowing a level 1 wizard with no multiclass to "prepare" fireball, but not have slots to cast it with.
With that very jank rulling, a wizard 1/sorc 4 could get fireball "prepared".
Personally, I would go with ruling 1 since it makes sense.
If you're applying a restriction that the rules don't tell you to apply, you're crossing into homebrew territory with that answer.
Claiming it to be RAI here is tricky because this is supposed to be a magic item that allows you to cast these spells. That is clearly the intent. So arguing it doesn't let you cast them if we add an extra restriction not listed here goes against the spirit of what the item does. If it had any such restriction is would say as much.
Even still, if we apply this item to our multiclass character it is very clear he can prepare them if he has the spell slots to do it, they're in his spellbook.
You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Well multiclassing rules apply to multiclassed characters, but a level 4 or lower single classed wizard can't prepare level 3 spells normally either, so in either case there is a rule preventing preparing fireball with 100% RAW / 0% homebrew.
I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. If you're a level 1 wizard you could attune to that book and swap your prepared magic missile spell with fireball. That wouldn't benefit you in any way, so no one would ever do it. But you could.
Claiming RAI isn't that tricky. Either it follows normal spell preparation rules or it lets character prepare spells they don't have slots for.
Yeah it just lets you swap them. It doesn't ask you to verify you have the slots, or even to verify they're a level you can normally prepare. It just says to swap a prepared out and replace it with one of the listed spells. Features that care about the spell level for something like this tell us they do. If you want an example of one that does something similar we can look at how sorcerers replace spells known. This phrasing dates all the way back to the PHB so we know they can phrase it like this if they Intended to: "Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots." If the spellbook had a similar restriction they'd have said so, like they do here.
I don't think so lowly of the writers as to think that nonsense is intended.
I don't think lowly of the writers either. They're people doing a job. People make mistakes. Writing is hard work, and finding the perfect phrasing can be tricky. If the game was perfect the first time we'd all still be playing the first edition.
But enough with the irrelevant and sloppy attempts to discredit me and on to the only part that is rules relevant (and somehow not even remotely about the book, way to change the topic again instead of address the actual argument).
I mean no offense, somehow I upset you so you have my apology. But I'm a little uncertain where this is even coming from. Are you one of the authors? How does me implying something is missing from RAW have anything to do with you? I've taken pains to remain civil even when people have been throwing insults, direct insults at me, even cursing at me in this thread. This topic isn't that serious. If anyone is getting upset about this topic we should all take a moment to remember this is some academic discussion on rules phrasing, and that we all agree how to actually play it. Like, we all agree how to play this. There is no beef here. I'm just responding to people's ongoing questions and challenges. Trying to help explain my point of view because enough people seem to want to understand it. We have no beef.
You've quoted that piece if the wizard spellcasting rule before, but it is separate from the multiclass rules.
Yes, the Wizard spellcasting rules are separate from the optional Multiclass rules, even found in different chapters!
Wasn't the multiclass spellcasting rules for preparing spells and spell slots being separate rules (even though they aren't, but that doesn't matter) your defense for why the restriction of "as if you were single classed" somehow didn't apply?
They are two different rules. They have their own subheaders and everything. One is called Spells Known and Prepared. the other is called Spell Slots.
The instruction to prepare spells as a single class if found in the Spells Known and Prepared rule, and applies to preparing spells, not to Spell Slots. You don't have the spell slots of a single class, you have the slots that the Spell Slots rule here says that you do. It too is part of the Multiclassing optional rule and you cannot ignore it, and it isn't changed or modified by the single class prepare clause.
So shouldn't the actually very different not even in the same chapter wizard preparation rules not get affected by the multiclass spell slot rules, by your own argument?
I think I know what you mean here. And, you're correct. The multiclass slots rules don't change that rule at all. All it does is change how many slots you as a character have. These are class agnostic spell slots, they do not care from where you gained them. You have these slots whether you're a preparing spells as a 1st level wizard or as a 5th level wizard it doesn't matter how you're preparing spells you have the slots you have based on the spell slots rule. "Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table." It changes nothing about the wizard spellcasting rules other than your character has these spell slots now and doesn't have wizard slots.
The only issue we have is that the wizard entry says "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." This, without changing it in any way, is telling us to reference the spell slots our character has. Not our wizard spell slots... just the slots the character has.
If it had been written like how some of the other classes were written, and if they said "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the table." then we'd be in business. Because then this would be pointing us not at the character's spell slots, but instead to the class spell slot chart.
But you know what rule 100% isn't a different rule from the spell preparation rule you quoted?:
The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
So which is it?
Cast. You're quoting a rule about casting, not about preparing. This rule gets essentially overwritten by the Multiclass rules on spell slots.
Do separate rules not apply and therefore a multiclassed wizard doesn't benefit from multiclass slots, or do separate (paragraphs of a single) rule apply and therefore a multiclass wizard has to ignore multiclass spell slots only when preparing spells?
Neither of those. Instead you apply both multiclassing rules. Both of these multiclass rules change the way the base Spellcasting rules function, and you apply them both. Thus you end up with a character with more and higher level spell slots than they would from either of their spellcasting classes. This character then prepares his spells for each of those classes separately, as if he were single classed. Ie he doesn't just lump them all together. He cannot just prepare cleric level + wizard level + int + wis number of whichever spells he wants. These are to be kept separate.
Because your own argument defeats itself...
It really doesn't. The wizard spellcasting rule doesn't reference his wizard spell slots as the restriction, they simply reference his character spell slots. Super minor oversight. No insults. Just a minor hole in the RAW. And one that the Example plugs up really well, I might add.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I still think the easy answer is by demonstration. Just follow this experiment here on DnDBeyond and you have your answer.
You started with a 16 Int as a wizard. You're now a Cleric 4 / Wizard 1. And, when you hit that 4th level in Cleric you took the ASI and added 2 to your intelligence, bringing it up to 18 Int.
Do you prepare 4 or 5 wizard spells?
If 5, then I am correct. You do not get rid of everything you gained from your other classes.
If 4, then I concede fully and unequivocally. And you have my apology for wasting anyone's time.
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.
What do you think it means when a rule says to prepare spells "as if you were a single-classed member of that class?"
Anything that is based on your level is treated as just your wizard level alone. Like how many spells you can prepare.
I think where you are going wrong is in "as if." As if means you pretend something is different for the purposes of a specific thing. It does not mean... well, whatever the hell you seem to think it means. I have genuinely no idea what you think it means, but it certainly isn't right.
Okay riddle me this. You started with a 16 Int. And, when you hit 4th level in Cleric you took the ASI and added 2 to your intelligence. You're a Cleric 4 / Wizard 1.
Do you prepare 4 or 5 wizard spells?
I mean, if you're supposed to unwind time and disregard anything and everything other than your one level of wizard, you would have an Int of 16 still. That is the result of your argument. But, I urge you to try it here in DnDBeyond. You'll find your 18 Int Cleric4/Wiz1 can indeed prepare 5 spells. It isn't me who is confused on how this works. If it were, this character would prepare 4.
Technically, yes, I suppose I am arguing for only 4 Wizard spells. In fact, I already said that that was what I was arguing for; I said that a feat gained from a 4th level Wizard shouldn't affect a 1st level Cleric's spell preparing abilities. That is the literal interpretation of the text of the rules, and you've yet to actually give any logical reasoning against it, besides saying that DnDBeyond doesn't work like that. Saying that DnDBeyond doesn't support my claim is, of course, absolutely ridiculous, since DnDBeyond doesn't support what you're saying either. In fact, it supports what you are saying much less than what I am saying, since what I am saying could pretty easily be chalked up to a bug regarding how ability scores work and is a much more minor difference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That is the literal interpretation of the text of the rules, and you've yet to actually give any logical reasoning against it,
It isn't. And I have.
You prepare them as a single class, but the single class wizard spellcasting rule points you back to your character slots not to the class chart. And nowhere does it say to pretend you don't have those slots. Just like you don't pretend your int is still 16. Because nothing told you to do that. Thus, we prepare 5 spells.
There is no issues with something like the Bard, because the bard single class rules DO point you to your class chart for spell slots. It doesn't point to your total slots. If wizard had been phrased the same way, no issues. And the Intent is super obvious, wizard was supposed to have meant to reference back to the single class chart for slots the same way as bard does. It was a tiny oversight in the RAW. But the RAI is super clear.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That is the literal interpretation of the text of the rules, and you've yet to actually give any logical reasoning against it,
It isn't. And I have.
You prepare them as a single class, but the single class wizard spellcasting rule points you back to your character slots not to the class chart. And nowhere does it say to pretend you don't have those slots. Just like you don't pretend your int is still 16. Because nothing told you to do that. Thus, we prepare 5 spells.
There is no issues with something like the Bard, because the bard single class rules DO point you to your class chart for spell slots. It doesn't point to your total slots. If wizard had been phrased the same way, no issues. And the Intent is super obvious, wizard was supposed to have meant to reference back to the single class chart for slots the same way as bard does. It was a tiny oversight in the RAW. But the RAI is super clear.
This is so frustrating. You keep saying that, but you don't provide reasoning. The thing that told you to do that is the same thing that told you to pretend you don't have any other classes. If you don't have any other classes, you don't have the multiclass
If there were a Cleric subclass that, say, let you prepare 2nd-level spells at level 1 for some reason (not giving you spell slots, just letting you prepare them), then you wouldn't take that into account if you were preparing wizard spells for a Wizard 1/Cleric 1. This is because you are explicitly told that you should ignore said feature, as per the rules on preparing spells (that is, "as if you were a single-classed member of that class"). Are you with me? Likewise, you wouldn't take the +1 to your Intelligence modifier into account from a fourth level Cleric ASI, since that is a feature gained from a class that is being completely ignored for the purposes of preparing Wizard spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That is the literal interpretation of the text of the rules, and you've yet to actually give any logical reasoning against it,
It isn't. And I have.
You prepare them as a single class, but the single class wizard spellcasting rule points you back to your character slots not to the class chart. And nowhere does it say to pretend you don't have those slots. Just like you don't pretend your int is still 16. Because nothing told you to do that. Thus, we prepare 5 spells.
There is no issues with something like the Bard, because the bard single class rules DO point you to your class chart for spell slots. It doesn't point to your total slots. If wizard had been phrased the same way, no issues. And the Intent is super obvious, wizard was supposed to have meant to reference back to the single class chart for slots the same way as bard does. It was a tiny oversight in the RAW. But the RAI is super clear.
This is so frustrating. You keep saying that, but you don't provide reasoning.
That is the reasoning you're replying to. What do you mean?
The thing that told you to do that is the same thing that told you to pretend you don't have any other classes. If you don't have any other classes, you don't have the multiclass
Nothing tells you to pretend you don't have any other classes. That's my whole point. That's why the experiment. So you can see that we don't do this.
The reasoning we don't do this? The rules never say to.
If there were a Cleric subclass that, say, let you prepare 2nd-level spells at level 1 for some reason (not giving you spell slots, just letting you prepare them), then you wouldn't take that into account if you were preparing wizard spells for a Wizard 1/Cleric 1. This is because you are explicitly told that you should ignore said feature, as per the rules on preparing spells (that is, "as if you were a single-classed member of that class"). Are you with me?
No. I'm not with you. If you have a cleric feature that you get at level 1 that says you can prepare 2nd level spells, then you can prepare 2nd level spells. Either with just the cleric spells, or both the cleric and the wizard spells, depending on exactly how it was worded. This would be a case where a specific feature was modifying a more general rule.
Likewise, you wouldn't take the +1 to your Intelligence modifier into account from a fourth level Cleric ASI, since that is a feature gained from a class that is being completely ignored for the purposes of preparing Wizard spells.
Yeah nothing says to do this in the 5e rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I am going to ask you. What do you think the words "as if" mean? Because you and I certainly have very different definitions. I interpret them as "pretend this is different for the purposes of a specific thing." How do you interpret them?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I am going to ask you. What do you think the words "as if" mean? Because you and I certainly have very different definitions. I interpret them as "pretend this is different for the purposes of a specific thing." How do you interpret them?
You wanna know what this quote means?
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 means you prepare your spells for your wizard class. Then you prepare your spells for your cleric class. Once for each spellcasting class. And when you do, you prepare them the same way a single class spellcaster would prepare them.
What that means for a Bard, and what that means for a Wizard are two different things though. Lets look at just what 2 single classed characters do. These are not even multiclassed. Lets compare a L1 Bard dude and a L1 Wizard buddy of his. Why is the process different for one from the other?
The Bard picks his spells known. He is limited to spells of a level he has slots as shown on the table. This single classed Bard is told to reference his table to see if his slot level is correct when learning spell.
vs
The wizard prepares spells every day, and he is limited to spells that he has slots too. But instead of being told to reference his class table for the level of those slots, we're just referencing the slots directly, whatever he actually has. (This is the small oversight)
Normally, this little difference in how the single classed characters go about their business doesn't even matter. If you're single classed why does it matter if you reference your class table slots or if you reference the actual slots you really have? This is always going to be identical while you're single class.
But. When we add in multiclass rules into the mix it does become a minor issue. Because while you're preparing spells as a single classed wizard you still go about it the same way that single classed wizard does. You reference the slots you actually have, not the table. The multiclassed bard doesn't have this problem because his process as a single class was to always reference his table anyway. Wizard? Not so.
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 didn't answer my question. You, once again, gave your interpretation without any reasoning. What do the words "as if" mean to you? Because the way I define those words and the way you are reading the rules are separate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You didn't answer my question. You, once again, gave your interpretation without any reasoning. What do the words "as if" mean to you? Because the way I define those words and the way you are reading the rules are separate.
We gotta answer that in context of the phrase in which we find 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." In this context "as if" means you prepare spells "the same way" a single-classed character would. You prepare them as 'would be the case' if you were single classed.
The act of preparation (and knowing) is handled the same way a single class would do it.
But it is important to note here that the only thing that is "as if" is how we prepare or know spells. Not how many slots we have. Nor ASI or other features. The only thing we treat as if we were single classed is the way in which we know and prepare spells.
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 poll on this thread currently reads 92.1 percent no, 7.9 percent yes. The RAW answer is no. The RAI answer is also no
I look forward to the thread somehow reaching double-digit pages anyway due to the incite argument cantrip being spammed
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the table.
Adding that bit in red would be required to make it fully RAW. Without it your single classed Spells Prepared rules do not reference back to your class chart, they reference back to your actual spell slots. And those you have quite a few of, and at higher level.
The only reason we know the correct reference back target is because of the Intent that the examples give us. RAI is super clear. RAW has a hole.
Is it settled rules? Yes. Everyone knows to reference back to their class chart even if not all the classes actually say to. That's just how it is done.
Sometimes I feel sorry for designers. It must be hard to write a rule that is well worded, and have players grab at every little loophole, real or imagined, to make it say what it doesn't say.
The rule, as it is written, does not give rise to confusion. You have to actively misread it to claim that a lvl 19 cleric/lvl 1 wizard can cast Wish. And as the poll above shows, where only 3 out of 40 people have voted that such a thing is possible. It is not a problem of how the rule is written, but of those who insist on breaking the game.
Spell slots are like muscles. Classes are like sports. You use the same muscles to do most sports, but your skill in one sport is separate from your skill in another. Just because you have the physical strength to do a 3-point throw in basketball doesn’t mean you have the skill to do so. If a basketball player starts playing baseball, their physical strength will increase, but their ability to throw a 3-pointer won't.
A wizard-4/cleric-1 multiclass DOES have access to 3rd level spell slots, since they have the "spell-strength" of a 5th level spellcaster. But they CANNOT cast Fireball (or any 3rd level spell without using a spell scroll), since they sacrificed some specialization to dabble in cleric.
(Edited to elaborate further. Also, if you can't tell, I don't play sports. I just like the analogy.)
You didn't answer my question. You, once again, gave your interpretation without any reasoning. What do the words "as if" mean to you? Because the way I define those words and the way you are reading the rules are separate.
We gotta answer that in context of the phrase in which we find 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." In this context "as if" means you prepare spells "the same way" a single-classed character would. You prepare them as 'would be the case' if you were single classed.
The act of preparation (and knowing) is handled the same way a single class would do it.
But it is important to note here that the only thing that is "as if" is how we prepare or know spells. Not how many slots we have. Nor ASI or other features. The only thing we treat as if we were single classed is the way in which we know and prepare spells.
For the millionth goddamn time, I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT GET SPELL SLOTS FROM THE MULTICLASSING TABLE. I am saying that you do not get them for the purposes of preparing spells. I've made it as clear as possible.
How should the context even affect the meaning of the words "as if?" Stop dodging my question by putting your own interpretation without any logic behind it. What do the words "as if" mean to you? And don't give the dumb "in the context they mean whatever I want them to" for the third time. What do they mean. Answer that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You didn't answer my question. You, once again, gave your interpretation without any reasoning. What do the words "as if" mean to you? Because the way I define those words and the way you are reading the rules are separate.
We gotta answer that in context of the phrase in which we find 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." In this context "as if" means you prepare spells "the same way" a single-classed character would. You prepare them as 'would be the case' if you were single classed.
The act of preparation (and knowing) is handled the same way a single class would do it.
But it is important to note here that the only thing that is "as if" is how we prepare or know spells. Not how many slots we have. Nor ASI or other features. The only thing we treat as if we were single classed is the way in which we know and prepare spells.
For the millionth goddamn time, I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT GET SPELL SLOTS FROM THE MULTICLASSING TABLE. I am saying that you do not get them for the purposes of preparing spells. I've made it as clear as possible.
How should the context even affect the meaning of the words "as if?" Stop dodging my question by putting your own interpretation without any logic behind it. What do the words "as if" mean to you? And don't give the dumb "in the context they mean whatever I want them to" for the third time. What do they mean. Answer that.
Ok. Here's the deal. I really don't wanna just answer the question you're actually asking. Because the only answer to what you're asking comes off as sarcastic, and I am not trying to be sarcastic. But the words "as if" with "no context" is: an informal expression that means "I doubt that".
Example. Player1 says"My DM lets me cast fireball as a cleric4/wizard1" Player2 replies "As if".
But there is no way that's what you want to know. Which is why I answer it in context of the sentence in which it is found. I've answered it several times now. Words mean different things in different context, that's just a fundamental aspect of language. In the context of that particular rule, my answer has been given. I haven't dodged your question, I have directly answered it. it is:
In this context "as if" means you prepare spells "the same way" a single-classed character would. You prepare them as 'would be the case' if you were single classed.
If this answer isn't the answer to your question, then I do not know what you're asking me.
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.
For the millionth goddamn time, I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT GET SPELL SLOTS FROM THE MULTICLASSING TABLE. I am saying that you do not get them for the purposes of preparing spells. I've made it as clear as possible.
How should the context even affect the meaning of the words "as if?" Stop dodging my question by putting your own interpretation without any logic behind it. What do the words "as if" mean to you? And don't give the dumb "in the context they mean whatever I want them to" for the third time. What do they mean. Answer that.
My previous post was deleted, so I'll add and rephrase:
I agree that the rules as written are clear about how multiclassing spellslots and preparation work and believe that it does not need revision. The embedded example should be considered part of RAW, and not merely inform RAI. However, many things would benefit from a visual representation.
([Revised] controversial part to follow)
Since frustration seems to be building, using the site feature "Ignore User" may make it easier to disengage when beneficial. You can find this feature by hovering over the desired user's name. This feature is easier to access in either landscape mode for phone users, or via the desktop GUI. I have done so with one user, and it has made my experience with DNDBeyond much more pleasant.
If you point out a problem, some people will make you out to be the problem, because they were content ignoring the problem you're drawing attention to. I feel that applies here for some reason. Because we all agree that a Wiz4/Clr1 cannot cast fireball normally. There shouldn't be any animosity. We agree on what actually matters. How to play.
The only disagreement is in the how the rule is formatted. A strict reading would allow it to cast fireball, but only if you ignored the clear and present RAI-setting examples. So no one does. And no one should. I certainly am not advocating for that. Play it how everyone plays it, how it is clearly supposed to be played. RAI? Clear. Play it this way. RAW? Small gap. Would be great if they errata it some day or clear it up in 6e.
I think it is important to note, though, that this rule does cause confusion. Throughout the entirety of 5e this topic pops up from time to time because people do get confused by it. And I don't think it is prudent to assume anyone who notices this gap are necessarily trying to 'game the system' for some untoward advantage. Seeing a problem doesn't mean you want it to be there. And it is there, there is a hole there in the RAW. Easily plugged, but there nonetheless. Daring to notice it shouldn't be heresy.
The answer for OP is just:
"The examples written in the multiclass rule makes it clear that what you're supposed to do is reference your class table for slots of that individual level, and so the wizard4/cleric1 as a 4th level wizard doesn't have 3rd level spells according to the wizard table. This is how it is supposed to work."
Then, if he tries to argue that he knows the Fireball spell because he owns that found spellbook clarify that:
"He actually doesn't know it until he copies it into his own book, which he cannot do until it is a level which he can prepare, and refer back to answer one for why he isn't supposed to be able to prepare 3rd level spells."
The only real exception is something like that Fulminating Treatise magic item. But, absent a magic item or other complication, these answers should suffice.
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.
If you point out a problem, some people will make you out to be the problem, because they were content ignoring the problem you're drawing attention to. I feel that applies here for some reason. Because we all agree that a Wiz4/Clr1 cannot cast fireball normally. There shouldn't be any animosity. We agree on what actually matters. How to play.
The only disagreement is in the how the rule is formatted. A strict reading would allow it to cast fireball, but only if you ignored the clear and present RAI-setting examples. So no one does. And no one should. I certainly am not advocating for that. Play it how everyone plays it, how it is clearly supposed to be played. RAI? Clear. Play it this way. RAW? Small gap. Would be great if they errata it some day or clear it up in 6e.
I think it is important to note, though, that this rule does cause confusion. Throughout the entirety of 5e this topic pops up from time to time because people do get confused by it. And I don't think it is prudent to assume anyone who notices this gap are necessarily trying to 'game the system' for some untoward advantage. Seeing a problem doesn't mean you want it to be there. And it is there, there is a hole there in the RAW. Easily plugged, but there nonetheless. Daring to notice it shouldn't be heresy.
The answer for OP is just:
"The examples written in the multiclass rule makes it clear that what you're supposed to do is reference your class table for slots of that individual level, and so the wizard4/cleric1 as a 4th level wizard doesn't have 3rd level spells according to the wizard table. This is how it is supposed to work."
Then, if he tries to argue that he knows the Fireball spell because he owns that found spellbook clarify that:
"He actually doesn't know it until he copies it into his own book, which he cannot do until it is a level which he can prepare, and refer back to answer one for why he isn't supposed to be able to prepare 3rd level spells."
The only real exception is something like that Fulminating Treatise magic item. But, absent a magic item or other complication, these answers should suffice.
What Gap are you referring to? The Rules As Written are quite clear as to how a Multiclassing Wizard handles Knowing and preparing their spells. The Rules As Written within the Wizards Class section clearly states how a wizard at any level has to know and prepare spells for casting.
There is no problem to speak of unless one wishes to disregard the exact wording of the Rules As Written to obtain what was stated "to 'game the system' for some untoward advantage."
So with that let all look at the verbatim [ Rules As Written ] pulled from the Basic Rules Wizard Class spellcasting section: Wizard Knowing and Preparing Spells
As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power. See chapter 10 for the general rules of spellcasting and chapter 11 for the wizard spell list.
Cantrips
At 1st level, you know three cantrips of your choice from the wizard spell list. You learn additional wizard cantrips of your choice at higher levels, as shown in the Cantrips Known column of the Wizard table.
Spellbook
At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice. Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.
Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).
Preparing and Casting Spells
The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Bolded and underlined text point to the actual RAW for how a wizard Prepares the spells for which they want to cast, the wizards spellbook contains the list of spells that can be prepared. The wizards spellbook list, not what spell slots a wizard might have to cast spells with, is what determines what spells the wizard can prepare. A wizards spellbook is limited by RAW in its ability to hold leveled spells the wizard can KNOW AND PREPARE for casting by way of the Wizard Table within the Wizard Class.
[ please note that the section Learning Spells of 1-st level and Higher is located at the end of the wizards spellcasting section, moving this relevant set of rules to the proper place as shown above would ease any confusion, gap, and ambiguity with regards to RAW]
Well multiclassing rules apply to multiclassed characters, but a level 4 or lower single classed wizard can't prepare level 3 spells normally either, so in either case there is a rule preventing preparing fireball with 100% RAW / 0% homebrew.
Claiming RAI isn't that tricky. Either it follows normal spell preparation rules or it lets character prepare spells they don't have slots for. I don't think so lowly of the writers as to think that nonsense is intended. But enough with the irrelevant and sloppy attempts to discredit me and on to the only part that is rules relevant (and somehow not even remotely about the book, way to change the topic again instead of address the actual argument).
You've quoted that piece if the wizard spellcasting rule before, but it is separate from the multiclass rules. Wasn't the multiclass spellcasting rules for preparing spells and spell slots being separate rules (even though they aren't, but that doesn't matter) your defense for why the restriction of "as if you were single classed" somehow didn't apply? So shouldn't the actually very different not even in the same chapter wizard preparation rules not get affected by the multiclass spell slot rules, by your own argument?
But you know what rule 100% isn't a different rule from the spell preparation rule you quoted?:
So which is it? Do separate rules not apply and therefore a multiclassed wizard doesn't benefit from multiclass slots, or do separate (paragraphs of a single) rule apply and therefore a multiclass wizard has to ignore multiclass spell slots only when preparing spells?
Because your own argument defeats itself...
I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. If you're a level 1 wizard you could attune to that book and swap your prepared magic missile spell with fireball. That wouldn't benefit you in any way, so no one would ever do it. But you could.
Yeah it just lets you swap them. It doesn't ask you to verify you have the slots, or even to verify they're a level you can normally prepare. It just says to swap a prepared out and replace it with one of the listed spells. Features that care about the spell level for something like this tell us they do. If you want an example of one that does something similar we can look at how sorcerers replace spells known. This phrasing dates all the way back to the PHB so we know they can phrase it like this if they Intended to: "Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots." If the spellbook had a similar restriction they'd have said so, like they do here.
I don't think lowly of the writers either. They're people doing a job. People make mistakes. Writing is hard work, and finding the perfect phrasing can be tricky. If the game was perfect the first time we'd all still be playing the first edition.
I mean no offense, somehow I upset you so you have my apology. But I'm a little uncertain where this is even coming from. Are you one of the authors? How does me implying something is missing from RAW have anything to do with you? I've taken pains to remain civil even when people have been throwing insults, direct insults at me, even cursing at me in this thread. This topic isn't that serious. If anyone is getting upset about this topic we should all take a moment to remember this is some academic discussion on rules phrasing, and that we all agree how to actually play it. Like, we all agree how to play this. There is no beef here. I'm just responding to people's ongoing questions and challenges. Trying to help explain my point of view because enough people seem to want to understand it. We have no beef.
Yes, the Wizard spellcasting rules are separate from the optional Multiclass rules, even found in different chapters!
They are two different rules. They have their own subheaders and everything. One is called Spells Known and Prepared. the other is called Spell Slots.
The instruction to prepare spells as a single class if found in the Spells Known and Prepared rule, and applies to preparing spells, not to Spell Slots. You don't have the spell slots of a single class, you have the slots that the Spell Slots rule here says that you do. It too is part of the Multiclassing optional rule and you cannot ignore it, and it isn't changed or modified by the single class prepare clause.
I think I know what you mean here. And, you're correct. The multiclass slots rules don't change that rule at all. All it does is change how many slots you as a character have. These are class agnostic spell slots, they do not care from where you gained them. You have these slots whether you're a preparing spells as a 1st level wizard or as a 5th level wizard it doesn't matter how you're preparing spells you have the slots you have based on the spell slots rule. "Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table." It changes nothing about the wizard spellcasting rules other than your character has these spell slots now and doesn't have wizard slots.
The only issue we have is that the wizard entry says "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." This, without changing it in any way, is telling us to reference the spell slots our character has. Not our wizard spell slots... just the slots the character has.
If it had been written like how some of the other classes were written, and if they said "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the table." then we'd be in business. Because then this would be pointing us not at the character's spell slots, but instead to the class spell slot chart.
Cast. You're quoting a rule about casting, not about preparing. This rule gets essentially overwritten by the Multiclass rules on spell slots.
Neither of those. Instead you apply both multiclassing rules. Both of these multiclass rules change the way the base Spellcasting rules function, and you apply them both. Thus you end up with a character with more and higher level spell slots than they would from either of their spellcasting classes. This character then prepares his spells for each of those classes separately, as if he were single classed. Ie he doesn't just lump them all together. He cannot just prepare cleric level + wizard level + int + wis number of whichever spells he wants. These are to be kept separate.
It really doesn't. The wizard spellcasting rule doesn't reference his wizard spell slots as the restriction, they simply reference his character spell slots. Super minor oversight. No insults. Just a minor hole in the RAW. And one that the Example plugs up really well, I might add.
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 still think the easy answer is by demonstration. Just follow this experiment here on DnDBeyond and you have your answer.
You started with a 16 Int as a wizard. You're now a Cleric 4 / Wizard 1. And, when you hit that 4th level in Cleric you took the ASI and added 2 to your intelligence, bringing it up to 18 Int.
Do you prepare 4 or 5 wizard spells?
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.
Technically, yes, I suppose I am arguing for only 4 Wizard spells. In fact, I already said that that was what I was arguing for; I said that a feat gained from a 4th level Wizard shouldn't affect a 1st level Cleric's spell preparing abilities. That is the literal interpretation of the text of the rules, and you've yet to actually give any logical reasoning against it, besides saying that DnDBeyond doesn't work like that. Saying that DnDBeyond doesn't support my claim is, of course, absolutely ridiculous, since DnDBeyond doesn't support what you're saying either. In fact, it supports what you are saying much less than what I am saying, since what I am saying could pretty easily be chalked up to a bug regarding how ability scores work and is a much more minor difference.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It isn't. And I have.
You prepare them as a single class, but the single class wizard spellcasting rule points you back to your character slots not to the class chart. And nowhere does it say to pretend you don't have those slots. Just like you don't pretend your int is still 16. Because nothing told you to do that. Thus, we prepare 5 spells.
There is no issues with something like the Bard, because the bard single class rules DO point you to your class chart for spell slots. It doesn't point to your total slots. If wizard had been phrased the same way, no issues. And the Intent is super obvious, wizard was supposed to have meant to reference back to the single class chart for slots the same way as bard does. It was a tiny oversight in the RAW. But the RAI is super 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.
This is so frustrating. You keep saying that, but you don't provide reasoning. The thing that told you to do that is the same thing that told you to pretend you don't have any other classes. If you don't have any other classes, you don't have the multiclass
If there were a Cleric subclass that, say, let you prepare 2nd-level spells at level 1 for some reason (not giving you spell slots, just letting you prepare them), then you wouldn't take that into account if you were preparing wizard spells for a Wizard 1/Cleric 1. This is because you are explicitly told that you should ignore said feature, as per the rules on preparing spells (that is, "as if you were a single-classed member of that class"). Are you with me? Likewise, you wouldn't take the +1 to your Intelligence modifier into account from a fourth level Cleric ASI, since that is a feature gained from a class that is being completely ignored for the purposes of preparing Wizard spells.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That is the reasoning you're replying to. What do you mean?
Nothing tells you to pretend you don't have any other classes. That's my whole point. That's why the experiment. So you can see that we don't do this.
The reasoning we don't do this? The rules never say to.
No. I'm not with you. If you have a cleric feature that you get at level 1 that says you can prepare 2nd level spells, then you can prepare 2nd level spells. Either with just the cleric spells, or both the cleric and the wizard spells, depending on exactly how it was worded. This would be a case where a specific feature was modifying a more general rule.
Yeah nothing says to do this in the 5e rules.
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 going to ask you. What do you think the words "as if" mean? Because you and I certainly have very different definitions. I interpret them as "pretend this is different for the purposes of a specific thing." How do you interpret them?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You wanna know what this quote means?
It means you prepare your spells for your wizard class. Then you prepare your spells for your cleric class. Once for each spellcasting class. And when you do, you prepare them the same way a single class spellcaster would prepare them.
What that means for a Bard, and what that means for a Wizard are two different things though. Lets look at just what 2 single classed characters do. These are not even multiclassed. Lets compare a L1 Bard dude and a L1 Wizard buddy of his. Why is the process different for one from the other?
The Bard picks his spells known. He is limited to spells of a level he has slots as shown on the table. This single classed Bard is told to reference his table to see if his slot level is correct when learning spell.
vs
The wizard prepares spells every day, and he is limited to spells that he has slots too. But instead of being told to reference his class table for the level of those slots, we're just referencing the slots directly, whatever he actually has. (This is the small oversight)
Normally, this little difference in how the single classed characters go about their business doesn't even matter. If you're single classed why does it matter if you reference your class table slots or if you reference the actual slots you really have? This is always going to be identical while you're single class.
But. When we add in multiclass rules into the mix it does become a minor issue. Because while you're preparing spells as a single classed wizard you still go about it the same way that single classed wizard does. You reference the slots you actually have, not the table. The multiclassed bard doesn't have this problem because his process as a single class was to always reference his table anyway. Wizard? Not so.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You didn't answer my question. You, once again, gave your interpretation without any reasoning. What do the words "as if" mean to you? Because the way I define those words and the way you are reading the rules are separate.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
We gotta answer that in context of the phrase in which we find 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." In this context "as if" means you prepare spells "the same way" a single-classed character would. You prepare them as 'would be the case' if you were single classed.
The act of preparation (and knowing) is handled the same way a single class would do it.
But it is important to note here that the only thing that is "as if" is how we prepare or know spells. Not how many slots we have. Nor ASI or other features. The only thing we treat as if we were single classed is the way in which we know and prepare spells.
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 poll on this thread currently reads 92.1 percent no, 7.9 percent yes. The RAW answer is no. The RAI answer is also no
I look forward to the thread somehow reaching double-digit pages anyway due to the incite argument cantrip being spammed
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No a Wizard 4/Sorcerer 1 cannot prepare Fireball the rules are clear about it
Sometimes I feel sorry for designers. It must be hard to write a rule that is well worded, and have players grab at every little loophole, real or imagined, to make it say what it doesn't say.
The rule, as it is written, does not give rise to confusion. You have to actively misread it to claim that a lvl 19 cleric/lvl 1 wizard can cast Wish. And as the poll above shows, where only 3 out of 40 people have voted that such a thing is possible. It is not a problem of how the rule is written, but of those who insist on breaking the game.
Spell slots are like muscles. Classes are like sports. You use the same muscles to do most sports, but your skill in one sport is separate from your skill in another. Just because you have the physical strength to do a 3-point throw in basketball doesn’t mean you have the skill to do so. If a basketball player starts playing baseball, their physical strength will increase, but their ability to throw a 3-pointer won't.
A wizard-4/cleric-1 multiclass DOES have access to 3rd level spell slots, since they have the "spell-strength" of a 5th level spellcaster. But they CANNOT cast Fireball (or any 3rd level spell without using a spell scroll), since they sacrificed some specialization to dabble in cleric.
(Edited to elaborate further. Also, if you can't tell, I don't play sports. I just like the analogy.)
For the millionth goddamn time, I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT GET SPELL SLOTS FROM THE MULTICLASSING TABLE. I am saying that you do not get them for the purposes of preparing spells. I've made it as clear as possible.
How should the context even affect the meaning of the words "as if?" Stop dodging my question by putting your own interpretation without any logic behind it. What do the words "as if" mean to you? And don't give the dumb "in the context they mean whatever I want them to" for the third time. What do they mean. Answer that.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Ok. Here's the deal. I really don't wanna just answer the question you're actually asking. Because the only answer to what you're asking comes off as sarcastic, and I am not trying to be sarcastic. But the words "as if" with "no context" is: an informal expression that means "I doubt that".
Example. Player1 says"My DM lets me cast fireball as a cleric4/wizard1" Player2 replies "As if".
But there is no way that's what you want to know. Which is why I answer it in context of the sentence in which it is found. I've answered it several times now. Words mean different things in different context, that's just a fundamental aspect of language. In the context of that particular rule, my answer has been given. I haven't dodged your question, I have directly answered it. it is:
If this answer isn't the answer to your question, then I do not know what you're asking me.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My previous post was deleted, so I'll add and rephrase:
I agree that the rules as written are clear about how multiclassing spellslots and preparation work and believe that it does not need revision. The embedded example should be considered part of RAW, and not merely inform RAI. However, many things would benefit from a visual representation.
([Revised] controversial part to follow)
Since frustration seems to be building, using the site feature "Ignore User" may make it easier to disengage when beneficial. You can find this feature by hovering over the desired user's name. This feature is easier to access in either landscape mode for phone users, or via the desktop GUI. I have done so with one user, and it has made my experience with DNDBeyond much more pleasant.
If you point out a problem, some people will make you out to be the problem, because they were content ignoring the problem you're drawing attention to. I feel that applies here for some reason. Because we all agree that a Wiz4/Clr1 cannot cast fireball normally. There shouldn't be any animosity. We agree on what actually matters. How to play.
The only disagreement is in the how the rule is formatted. A strict reading would allow it to cast fireball, but only if you ignored the clear and present RAI-setting examples. So no one does. And no one should. I certainly am not advocating for that. Play it how everyone plays it, how it is clearly supposed to be played. RAI? Clear. Play it this way. RAW? Small gap. Would be great if they errata it some day or clear it up in 6e.
I think it is important to note, though, that this rule does cause confusion. Throughout the entirety of 5e this topic pops up from time to time because people do get confused by it. And I don't think it is prudent to assume anyone who notices this gap are necessarily trying to 'game the system' for some untoward advantage. Seeing a problem doesn't mean you want it to be there. And it is there, there is a hole there in the RAW. Easily plugged, but there nonetheless. Daring to notice it shouldn't be heresy.
The answer for OP is just:
Then, if he tries to argue that he knows the Fireball spell because he owns that found spellbook clarify that:
The only real exception is something like that Fulminating Treatise magic item. But, absent a magic item or other complication, these answers should suffice.
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.
What Gap are you referring to? The Rules As Written are quite clear as to how a Multiclassing Wizard handles Knowing and preparing their spells. The Rules As Written within the Wizards Class section clearly states how a wizard at any level has to know and prepare spells for casting.
There is no problem to speak of unless one wishes to disregard the exact wording of the Rules As Written to obtain what was stated "to 'game the system' for some untoward advantage."
So with that let all look at the verbatim [ Rules As Written ] pulled from the Basic Rules Wizard Class spellcasting section: Wizard Knowing and Preparing Spells
As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power. See chapter 10 for the general rules of spellcasting and chapter 11 for the wizard spell list.
Cantrips
At 1st level, you know three cantrips of your choice from the wizard spell list. You learn additional wizard cantrips of your choice at higher levels, as shown in the Cantrips Known column of the Wizard table.
Spellbook
At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice. Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.
Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).
Preparing and Casting Spells
The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Bolded and underlined text point to the actual RAW for how a wizard Prepares the spells for which they want to cast, the wizards spellbook contains the list of spells that can be prepared. The wizards spellbook list, not what spell slots a wizard might have to cast spells with, is what determines what spells the wizard can prepare. A wizards spellbook is limited by RAW in its ability to hold leveled spells the wizard can KNOW AND PREPARE for casting by way of the Wizard Table within the Wizard Class.
[ please note that the section Learning Spells of 1-st level and Higher is located at the end of the wizards spellcasting section, moving this relevant set of rules to the proper place as shown above would ease any confusion, gap, and ambiguity with regards to RAW]