So now I have a question of my own that is on a very similar topic and seems relevant to this discussion. The 2014 Fey Wanderer subclass of Ranger says this:
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on the region around you. For 1 minute per level of the spell slot you expend, you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you (or within up to 6 miles if you are in your favored terrain): aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
If you are multi-classed, what qualifies as a ranger spell slot? If you are, for instance, a ranger 4/Bard 3, you have two level 3 spell slots, but neither of your classes can (according to RAI) have third level spells. What are those spell slots? Because if we want to say that neither class counts as having third level spell slots, and therefore cannot prepare third level spells, that implies that those spell slots are neither ranger spell slots nor bard spell slots. For that matter, what would your first level spell slots be? Would they be both ranger and sorcerer? Or would we consider them generic "multi-class" spell slots.
I don't think the game actually has a concept of classed spell slots. There are just spell slots, and pact magic slots.
Your interpretation isn't wrong, but I don't think letting you use any spell slot is wrong either. (I also suspect it's never going to matter much in actual play.)
Single-class character means you look at the bard rules for spells. Those tie how many spells you prepare to your bard level, but the level of your spells to your spell slots.
[...]
Examples which contradict the text are just wrong. Examples are not rules.
You are correct, as far as it goes. Examples that contradict the rules are wrong.
However, when the example contradicts your personal interpretation, and there's another interpretation that is not contradicted, consider that the example may instead be clarifying,
Anyway, to address your argument from another approach:
If you were wizard 17/cleric 1/druid 1/bard 1, by your interpretation, you can prepare 9th level spells for cleric, bard, and druid. That seems... excessive, but so be it.
And if you're wizard 19/paladin 1, you can prepare 9th level paladin spells. And, well, you see the problem there.
Single-class character means you look at the bard rules for spells. Those tie how many spells you prepare to your bard level, but the level of your spells to your spell slots.
[...]
Examples which contradict the text are just wrong. Examples are not rules.
You are correct, as far as it goes. Examples that contradict the rules are wrong.
However, when the example contradicts your personal interpretation, and there's another interpretation that is not contradicted, consider that the example may instead be clarifying,
Anyway, to address your argument from another approach:
If you were wizard 17/cleric 1/druid 1/bard 1, by your interpretation, you can prepare 9th level spells for cleric, bard, and druid. That seems... excessive, but so be it.
And if you're wizard 19/paladin 1, you can prepare 9th level paladin spells. And, well, you see the problem there.
I don't see a balance problem. You still just have 1 9th level spell slot per day. It's probably not worth preparing more than two (total) 9th level spells, both because one of them is going to be Wish anyway, and because you're overlimiting your other spell levels.
(Obviously there are no 9th level Paladin spells, so you can't prepare one. I guess that's a way you can have a spell slot for which you can't prepare spells of that level - hey, you found the example I couldn't! (ie, Wizard 16/Paladin 2+))
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off. Pros and Cons. There are many advantages to multiclassing. The main disadvantage is that you are not meant to have access to high level class abilities. So, if you are a character that has taken 4 levels in one class and 3 levels in another class, you aren't meant to be able to use any 7th level class features. When it comes to spellcasting, it's the same idea. That character is not meant to be able to cast any spells as if they are 7th level in any one class. That's how multiclassing is designed. it's a feature, not a bug.
Single-class character means you look at the bard rules for spells. Those tie how many spells you prepare to your bard level, but the level of your spells to your spell slots.
[...]
Examples which contradict the text are just wrong. Examples are not rules.
You are correct, as far as it goes. Examples that contradict the rules are wrong.
However, when the example contradicts your personal interpretation, and there's another interpretation that is not contradicted, consider that the example may instead be clarifying,
Anyway, to address your argument from another approach:
If you were wizard 17/cleric 1/druid 1/bard 1, by your interpretation, you can prepare 9th level spells for cleric, bard, and druid. That seems... excessive, but so be it.
And if you're wizard 19/paladin 1, you can prepare 9th level paladin spells. And, well, you see the problem there.
I don't see a balance problem. You still just have 1 9th level spell slot per day. It's probably not worth preparing more than two (total) 9th level spells, both because one of them is going to be Wish anyway, and because you're overlimiting your other spell levels.
(Obviously there are no 9th level Paladin spells, so you can't prepare one. I guess that's a way you can have a spell slot for which you can't prepare spells of that level - hey, you found the example I couldn't! (ie, Wizard 16/Paladin 2+))
You don’t see a balance problem with a level 1 Druid being able to cast the same spells as if they were a level 17 Druid? If you start allowing this sort of thing, it becomes almost required to multiclass. Under that system, any full caster should take a 1-level dip into wizard and watch their spell list grow exponentially. Fireballs for all! Wish for everyone!! I’ll take access to the full spell lists for two classes over pretty much any caster capstone.
[...] The bard rules for preparing spells never references your bard level for what level of spell they can prepare, they refer to slots you have. ("for which you have spell slots"). [...]
That sentence is referring to your Bard Features table:
Spell Slots.The Bard Features table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your level 1+ spells. You regain all expended slots when you finish a Long Rest.
But that's not how you prepare spells, that's how many slots a single-class bard has to cast with. [...]
Exactly, and the multiclassing rules say: "You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class".
[...] However, which spells makes no reference to the table. It just says you must have spell slots. Note for which you have spell slots. You is your character, not your class level. And your character, via the multiclass rules on spell slots, has 3rd level slots. (By grammatical context, its your character, not the bard table, which has the spell slots). [...]
Again, when multiclassing, you have an additional restriction to follow: "You can use those slots but only to cast your lower-level spells."
You have your own ruling, but it's not ok, sorry. I provided some links to different threads, and the consensus is clear.
Not sure if you're the DM at your table. If so, fine. If not, as a player, it's going to be difficult to convince a DM to allow what you're saying because it's a balance problem. But more importantly, it's not RAW.
[...] The bard rules for preparing spells never references your bard level for what level of spell they can prepare, they refer to slots you have. ("for which you have spell slots"). [...]
That sentence is referring to your Bard Features table:
Spell Slots.The Bard Features table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your level 1+ spells. You regain all expended slots when you finish a Long Rest.
But that's not how you prepare spells, that's how many slots a single-class bard has to cast with. [...]
Exactly, and the multiclassing rules say: "You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class"
Casting with and preparing are not the same. It does not say you have the spell slots to cast with as a single class bard of your level. That text you quoted is solely about how many slots you have to cast with, not how you prepare spells. You obviously use the spell slots from multi-classing for determining how many spells you can cast. So the bard class saying the bard table shows you how many spell slots you have to cast doesn't say anything about preparing spells.
It says you prepare spells as a single-class character. ("You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.") Preparing is covered under the later text in bard. (below)
[...] However, which spells makes no reference to the table. It just says you must have spell slots. Note for which you have spell slots. You is your character, not your class level. And your character, via the multiclass rules on spell slots, has 3rd level slots. (By grammatical context, its your character, not the bard table, which has the spell slots). [...]
Again, when multiclassing, you have an additional restriction to follow: "You can use those slots but only to cast your lower-level spells."
You have your own ruling, but it's not ok, sorry. I provided some links to different threads, and the consensus is clear.
Not sure if you're the DM at your table. If so, fine. If not, as a player, it's going to be difficult to convince a DM to allow what you're saying because it's a balance problem. But more importantly, it's not RAW.
There's no such restriction, because the condition which imposes the restriction generally doesn't apply. "This table might give you spell slots of a higher level than the spells you prepare. You can use those slots but only to cast your lower-level spells." Note 'might' (which implies its a rare occurrence). Whether it applies or not depends on the rules for preparing spells in the class, and what the maximum spell level is for the class. (ie, a Sorceror 16/Paladin 2+ does have slots that are higher level than Paladin spells they can prepare, because Paladin spells only go up to level 5. And because you learn prepared spells only when you gain a level, a Sorceror 16/Paladin 2+ who gained the Paladin levels last would also have 9th level spell slots for which they did not have Sorceror spells, and did not have Paladin spells. So the restriction can kick in, but it is a reasonably unusual occurrence, like 'might' implies).
The only rules for preparing and swapping spells read like the bard rules, and those read as follows:
"The number of spells on your list increases as you gain Bard levels, as shown in the Prepared Spells column of the Bard Features table. Whenever that number increases, choose additional spells from the Bard spell list until the number of spells on your list matches the number on the table. The chosen spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." (So your bard level tells you how many bard spells you prepare, but your spell slots tells you what level spells you can prepare. "You" grammatically refers to your character. It can't refer to bard level. And your character definitively has the multiclass spell slots. And the bard text ensures that yes, a single class bard with a level 3 spell slot can prepare level 3 bard spells, no matter what the bard's level is).
"Whenever you gain a Bard level, you can replace one spell on your list with another Bard spell for which you have spell slots." (Again, only references spell slots you have, with no reference to bard levels.)
So a single class bard determines spells they can prepare solely based on spell slots the character has. It doesn't care where these spell slots come from - whether magic item, divine intervention, or multiclassing, just that the character has them. At which point, the multiclass rules have not given you higher level spell slots than you can prepare, so there is no restriction. (RAW, It is only half-casters which can get spell slots higher than they can prepare, combined with poor class sequencing of a full caster, as far as I can tell).
Look, i get that RAI is what you say, but that's not what RAW says. The RAW is grammatically clear. Consensus only helps us determine likely RAI, not RAW (RAW is solely determined by the language used). If they meant for spell level prepared to be dependent on bard level, it would have been easy to write that. They did in previous editions. They didn't in 5e.
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off. Pros and Cons. There are many advantages to multiclassing. The main disadvantage is that you are not meant to have access to high level class abilities. So, if you are a character that has taken 4 levels in one class and 3 levels in another class, you aren't meant to be able to use any 7th level class features. When it comes to spellcasting, it's the same idea. That character is not meant to be able to cast any spells as if they are 7th level in any one class. That's how multiclassing is designed. it's a feature, not a bug.
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off, not a kick in the nuts. You may have noticed everyone seems to be playing RAI on this, and NO ONE multiclasses two full casters. (The closest you get is dips into warlock, which isn't actually a full caster for multiclassing). That makes it a bug. The multiclassing RAI is overly punitive.
Missing out on class features is a trade-off (and yes, spellcasting classes have features besides spell slots, and some of those class features are really good). Having fewer prepared spells per class is a trade-off. Needing to have a second casting stat is a trade-off. (Bard, Sorceror, and Wizard already have access to wish, so for that to be a thing we're talking Druid or Cleric, who now need either Int or Cha in addition to Wis, Con, and possibly wanting Dex. And Bard's literally already get to pick spells from everybody's spell lists at high levels). Delaying feats/attribute gains is a trade-off. Losing levels in spellcasting progression isn't a trade-off, it's a death sentence.
And most play doesn't happen at 20th level. At least one class will be behind on spell level prepared, because you can only prepare new spells for a class when you gain a level in that class.
I'd be delighted to see a Cleric 5/Wizard 5. That would be super-interesting. It has just 3 more spells prepared, but split between the two and light on versatility within each one, and the same number of spell slots (so its impact on the game really isn't much different from a single-class caster). It's less consequential than taking the shadow-touched feat (even ignoring the stat bonus - the feat at least gives you a free cast per day for each spell). It loses out on a subclass feature, blessed strikes, and divine intervention compared to a single-class cleric, two subclass features relative to a single-class wizard, and will get its third feat late (and quite possibly got its first or second feat late). It also has two different casting stats, which means it likely can only make use of save-based spells with one of the two classes, and even a minimal '13' in one of the casting stats likely means sacrificing on some more generally important stat. Strikes me as pretty much strictly worse than playing a Divine Soul Sorceror.
Even the best full caster multiclass under this interpretation, Bard-Sorceror, wouldn't actually be better than a Sorlock.
Look, i get that RAI is what you say, but that's not what RAW says. The RAW is grammatically clear. Consensus only helps us determine likely RAI, not RAW (RAW is solely determined by the language used). If they meant for spell level prepared to be dependent on bard level, it would have been easy to write that. They did in previous editions. They didn't in 5e.
First, I agree with the others about the reading of the RAW. There are quite a few places where the rules are unclear, but this isn’t one of them. But that notwithstanding, you have said a couple times now that you agree with everyone on what the rules mean even if there’s disagreement on if the way they are worded is unclear. So, what is the argument about anymore? No one here is in a place to change anything. At this point, I’d suggest a different section of the rules from the DMG:
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
So, if you know what the rules mean, and you’re actively arguing against what you agree they mean, it seems like you’re no longer in the realm of a good-faith interpretation.
Squirrelloid Unfortunately, I can't find more arguments to convince you. In the end, your DM is the one who will decide if you can do it that (IMO: wrong) way.
So a single class bard determines spells they can prepare solely based on spell slots the character has.
While this is true, it doesn't mean what you think it means in the context of preparing spells while multiclassing. This is the portion of the rule that you have been misinterpreting.
You prepare your Bard spells as if you were a single class Bard character, and the spells that that Bard character can prepare is based on the spell slots that that Bard character has.
Exercise:
Begin a new game with level 2 characters. Go ahead and roll up a brand-new Bard 2 character for yourself right now by following the rules for character creation. Once you have that character completed, go ahead and prepare your spells. To do so, you use the rules and information that is given in your Bard class, including the Bard Features table as well as the Bard Spellcasting class feature rules text. That character has certain spell slots. You use that information during your spell preparation process.
Now, repeat this process for each of your other classes individually. In this case, you would now prepare your Sorcerer spells as if you were a single class Sorcerer character.
So, begin another new game, this time with level 3 characters. Go ahead and roll up a brand new Sorcerer 3 character for yourself and repeat the above process, this time using the rules and information that is given in your Sorcerer class. That character has certain spell slots. You use that information during your spell preparation process.
After you finish creating these two Lists of prepared spells, go ahead and drag-and-drop both of those Lists into your game world that includes your multiclass Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 character. At this point you do things as that character. You are no longer doing things as if you were some other character. With your multiclass Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 character, go ahead and pick up both of those Lists that were just dropped here and put them both into your pocket.
Again, the game goes through the trouble of providing an example just in case there was any perceived ambiguity in how the rule was written. Given the text for the rule and the text for the example, there is no ambiguity about how this mechanic works in this game. There is exactly one correct interpretation. Other interpretations are wrong.
The only rules for preparing and swapping spells read like the bard rules, and those read as follows:
Well, no. The multiclass rules also address preparing spells. You are to prepare spells as if you are a single-classed caster. Not a single-classed caster who also has a bunch of other caster levels. Just a single classed caster. And a first-level wizard gets to prepare only first level wizard spells, because that's all they have the slots for.
The fact that you, the druid 16/wizard 1, have higher level slots does not matter. You are treating your character like a first-level wizard, and first-level wizards don't.
Look, i get that RAI is what you say, but that's not what RAW says. The RAW is grammatically clear. Consensus only helps us determine likely RAI, not RAW (RAW is solely determined by the language used). If they meant for spell level prepared to be dependent on bard level, it would have been easy to write that. They did in previous editions. They didn't in 5e.
If the RAW is so clear, why does literally every other person in this discussion read it the other way? Why is there an example in the next sentence that contradicts your read?
Now, there is no rule that is so clear that somebody won't misread it. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. (You are, however, several standard deviations off the norm in your attempts to defend your reading.)
So now I have a question of my own that is on a very similar topic and seems relevant to this discussion. The 2014 Fey Wanderer subclass of Ranger says this:
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on the region around you. For 1 minute per level of the spell slot you expend, you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you (or within up to 6 miles if you are in your favored terrain): aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
If you are multi-classed, what qualifies as a ranger spell slot?
While Multiclassing rules don't elaborate on this in clear fashion, it say that once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below....You use the slots for that level to cast spells of an appropriate level from any class whose Spellcasting feature you have, but otherwise no guidance on feature using spell slots to do things other than casting spells.
If you have features that use spell slots you should still be able to use them. I would rule limitation similar to prepare a spell;
''You determine what spell slot you can use with feature for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class''
Also I was just looking at the Sorcerer preparation and noticed this
The number of spells on your list increases as you gain Sorcerer levels, as shown in the Prepared Spells column of the Sorcerer Features table. Whenever that number increases, choose additional Sorcerer spells until the number of spells on your list matches the number in the Sorcerer Features table. The chosen spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For example, if you’re a level 3 Sorcerer, your list of prepared spells can include six Sorcerer spells of level 1 or 2 in any combination.
So the line you are using to justify your RAW interpretation is under the Sorcerer as well. We know the Sorcerer can't do it from the example so why can the Bard?
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off. Pros and Cons. There are many advantages to multiclassing. The main disadvantage is that you are not meant to have access to high level class abilities. So, if you are a character that has taken 4 levels in one class and 3 levels in another class, you aren't meant to be able to use any 7th level class features. When it comes to spellcasting, it's the same idea. That character is not meant to be able to cast any spells as if they are 7th level in any one class. That's how multiclassing is designed. it's a feature, not a bug.
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off, not a kick in the nuts. You may have noticed everyone seems to be playing RAI on this, and NO ONE multiclasses two full casters. (The closest you get is dips into warlock, which isn't actually a full caster for multiclassing). That makes it a bug. The multiclassing RAI is overly punitive.
Missing out on class features is a trade-off (and yes, spellcasting classes have features besides spell slots, and some of those class features are really good). Having fewer prepared spells per class is a trade-off. Needing to have a second casting stat is a trade-off. (Bard, Sorceror, and Wizard already have access to wish, so for that to be a thing we're talking Druid or Cleric, who now need either Int or Cha in addition to Wis, Con, and possibly wanting Dex. And Bard's literally already get to pick spells from everybody's spell lists at high levels). Delaying feats/attribute gains is a trade-off. Losing levels in spellcasting progression isn't a trade-off, it's a death sentence.
And most play doesn't happen at 20th level. At least one class will be behind on spell level prepared, because you can only prepare new spells for a class when you gain a level in that class.
I'd be delighted to see a Cleric 5/Wizard 5. That would be super-interesting. It has just 3 more spells prepared, but split between the two and light on versatility within each one, and the same number of spell slots (so its impact on the game really isn't much different from a single-class caster). It's less consequential than taking the shadow-touched feat (even ignoring the stat bonus - the feat at least gives you a free cast per day for each spell). It loses out on a subclass feature, blessed strikes, and divine intervention compared to a single-class cleric, two subclass features relative to a single-class wizard, and will get its third feat late (and quite possibly got its first or second feat late). It also has two different casting stats, which means it likely can only make use of save-based spells with one of the two classes, and even a minimal '13' in one of the casting stats likely means sacrificing on some more generally important stat. Strikes me as pretty much strictly worse than playing a Divine Soul Sorceror.
Even the best full caster multiclass under this interpretation, Bard-Sorceror, wouldn't actually be better than a Sorlock.
What about magical secrets for a bard? Multiclassing isn’t supposed to be a kick in the nuts, but the way you interpret it basically makes that Bard feature useless.
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off. Pros and Cons. There are many advantages to multiclassing. The main disadvantage is that you are not meant to have access to high level class abilities. So, if you are a character that has taken 4 levels in one class and 3 levels in another class, you aren't meant to be able to use any 7th level class features. When it comes to spellcasting, it's the same idea. That character is not meant to be able to cast any spells as if they are 7th level in any one class. That's how multiclassing is designed. it's a feature, not a bug.
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off, not a kick in the nuts. You may have noticed everyone seems to be playing RAI on this, and NO ONE multiclasses two full casters. (The closest you get is dips into warlock, which isn't actually a full caster for multiclassing). That makes it a bug. The multiclassing RAI is overly punitive.
Missing out on class features is a trade-off (and yes, spellcasting classes have features besides spell slots, and some of those class features are really good). Having fewer prepared spells per class is a trade-off. Needing to have a second casting stat is a trade-off. (Bard, Sorceror, and Wizard already have access to wish, so for that to be a thing we're talking Druid or Cleric, who now need either Int or Cha in addition to Wis, Con, and possibly wanting Dex. And Bard's literally already get to pick spells from everybody's spell lists at high levels). Delaying feats/attribute gains is a trade-off. Losing levels in spellcasting progression isn't a trade-off, it's a death sentence.
And most play doesn't happen at 20th level. At least one class will be behind on spell level prepared, because you can only prepare new spells for a class when you gain a level in that class.
I'd be delighted to see a Cleric 5/Wizard 5. That would be super-interesting. It has just 3 more spells prepared, but split between the two and light on versatility within each one, and the same number of spell slots (so its impact on the game really isn't much different from a single-class caster). It's less consequential than taking the shadow-touched feat (even ignoring the stat bonus - the feat at least gives you a free cast per day for each spell). It loses out on a subclass feature, blessed strikes, and divine intervention compared to a single-class cleric, two subclass features relative to a single-class wizard, and will get its third feat late (and quite possibly got its first or second feat late). It also has two different casting stats, which means it likely can only make use of save-based spells with one of the two classes, and even a minimal '13' in one of the casting stats likely means sacrificing on some more generally important stat. Strikes me as pretty much strictly worse than playing a Divine Soul Sorceror.
Even the best full caster multiclass under this interpretation, Bard-Sorceror, wouldn't actually be better than a Sorlock.
I completely agree with this. It has always felt like multi-classing with casters is really bad, and this is actually a reasonable explanation of how to fix that. I will admit that actually playing this way will require permission from the dm, and that it opens the door for some extremely powerful builds, but I still think that at its heart this is a reasonable interpretation and way to play the game.
What about magical secrets for a bard? Multiclassing isn’t supposed to be a kick in the nuts, but the way you interpret it basically makes that Bard feature useless.
--Magical Secrets makes all those spells bard spells, which means they use Cha instead of a different stat.
--Not multiclassing means you get all your class features, and get your feats on time.
--Any class feature which scales on class levels gets full scaling. Bardic Inspiration is the most obvious, but there are subclass features which scale on the bardic inspiration die, too (Ex: Dance Bard's Dazzling Footwork: Bardic Damage.) Other spellcasting classes also have features which scale on class level, most obviously the subclasses which add always prepared spells to your prepared spells list.
The only rules for preparing and swapping spells read like the bard rules, and those read as follows:
Well, no. The multiclass rules also address preparing spells. You are to prepare spells as if you are a single-classed caster. Not a single-classed caster who also has a bunch of other caster levels. Just a single classed caster. And a first-level wizard gets to prepare only first level wizard spells, because that's all they have the slots for.
The fact that you, the druid 16/wizard 1, have higher level slots does not matter. You are treating your character like a first-level wizard, and first-level wizards don't.
Look, i get that RAI is what you say, but that's not what RAW says. The RAW is grammatically clear. Consensus only helps us determine likely RAI, not RAW (RAW is solely determined by the language used). If they meant for spell level prepared to be dependent on bard level, it would have been easy to write that. They did in previous editions. They didn't in 5e.
If the RAW is so clear, why does literally every other person in this discussion read it the other way? Why is there an example in the next sentence that contradicts your read?
Now, there is no rule that is so clear that somebody won't misread it. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. (You are, however, several standard deviations off the norm in your attempts to defend your reading.)
Because most people aren't good at closely reading text. "You" is your character. Clear does not mean most people read it right, just that the grammar, properly parsed, is unambiguous. In general, properly assigning pronouns is a skill most people seem to lack, especially when they go into reading something with preconceived notions of how it works. And the example in multiclassing creates a preconceived notion of how it works - which turns off people's brains when they go and read the class, and they assume the example got it right.
Examples are not rules text. If they gave an example where a short sword did bludgeoning damage, or where they ignored Radiant resistance using the Elemental Adept feat, those examples would simply be wrong. They wouldn't change the rules of short swords or elemental adept.
And see also Lore Bard class feature Magical Discoveries: "A spell you choose must be a cantrip or a spell for which you have spell slots, as shown in the Bard Features table." This is specifically limited to spell slots shown in the bard table. The difference in wording implies it works differently.
So a single class bard determines spells they can prepare solely based on spell slots the character has.
While this is true, it doesn't mean what you think it means in the context of preparing spells while multiclassing. This is the portion of the rule that you have been misinterpreting.
You prepare your Bard spells as if you were a single class Bard character, and the spells that that Bard character can prepare is based on the spell slots that that Bard character has.
Exercise:
Begin a new game with level 2 characters. Go ahead and roll up a brand-new Bard 2 character for yourself right now by following the rules for character creation. Once you have that character completed, go ahead and prepare your spells. To do so, you use the rules and information that is given in your Bard class, including the Bard Features table as well as the Bard Spellcasting class feature rules text. That character has certain spell slots. You use that information during your spell preparation process.
Now, repeat this process for each of your other classes individually. In this case, you would now prepare your Sorcerer spells as if you were a single class Sorcerer character.
So, begin another new game, this time with level 3 characters. Go ahead and roll up a brand new Sorcerer 3 character for yourself and repeat the above process, this time using the rules and information that is given in your Sorcerer class. That character has certain spell slots. You use that information during your spell preparation process.
After you finish creating these two Lists of prepared spells, go ahead and drag-and-drop both of those Lists into your game world that includes your multiclass Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 character. At this point you do things as that character. You are no longer doing things as if you were some other character. With your multiclass Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 character, go ahead and pick up both of those Lists that were just dropped here and put them both into your pocket.
Again, the game goes through the trouble of providing an example just in case there was any perceived ambiguity in how the rule was written. Given the text for the rule and the text for the example, there is no ambiguity about how this mechanic works in this game. There is exactly one correct interpretation. Other interpretations are wrong.
Yes, let's play a game. Your DM, for whatever reason, gives you a magical item at level one which provides you with a 5th level spell slot. At level 2, can you prepare a 5th level spell? Do you have 5th level spell slot? Yes. Then you can prepare a 5th level spell.
What level of spell you can prepare does not depend on the bard table, just whether "you" have the spell slot. That's the rules for a single-class bard of any level. It requires you to look at the spell slots you have, not the bardic table. It never tells you to look at the bardic table for this. It tells you to look at your spell slots.
Contrast with College of Lore, Magical Discoveries feature: "A spell you choose must be a cantrip or a spell for which you have spell slots, as shown in the Bard Features table." This one specifically limits you to slots from the Bard Features table. The difference in wording is definitive. The regular rule does not.
Look, i get that RAI is what you say, but that's not what RAW says. The RAW is grammatically clear. Consensus only helps us determine likely RAI, not RAW (RAW is solely determined by the language used). If they meant for spell level prepared to be dependent on bard level, it would have been easy to write that. They did in previous editions. They didn't in 5e.
First, I agree with the others about the reading of the RAW. There are quite a few places where the rules are unclear, but this isn’t one of them. But that notwithstanding, you have said a couple times now that you agree with everyone on what the rules mean even if there’s disagreement on if the way they are worded is unclear. So, what is the argument about anymore? No one here is in a place to change anything. At this point, I’d suggest a different section of the rules from the DMG:
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
So, if you know what the rules mean, and you’re actively arguing against what you agree they mean, it seems like you’re no longer in the realm of a good-faith interpretation.
No, I'm agreeing on what I think the designers intended to mean. That is not the same thing as what they actually mean. Designers frequently write things that aren't what they intended, and it's a crap shoot on whether people follow the intention or what is written.
(DnD Example: Crawford has specifically said that not only is Hunger of Hadar's magical darkness impenetrable to sight or darkvision, not even devil's sight works through it. However, it appears to be consensus that the spell doesn't work like that. Consensus on Hunger of Hadar only makes you blind inside it (because it says it does), but does not impede darkvision from outside (because it doesn't say it does), and we have explicit dev confirmation that RAI is not that).
(For a non-DND example, the CMON miniature game ASOIAF had the designer attend Nationals one year, and complain that everyone was playing a rule wrong, and then explain how he thought it should work to the judges. His explanation was not what the text said, nor even close. It wasn't the first time he'd disagreed with his own text. At least some of the time, he gets ignored in favor of what the text says).
(And of course, I've made an argument in favor of a literal reading here being more fun, too).
I don't think the game actually has a concept of classed spell slots. There are just spell slots, and pact magic slots.
Your interpretation isn't wrong, but I don't think letting you use any spell slot is wrong either. (I also suspect it's never going to matter much in actual play.)
You are correct, as far as it goes. Examples that contradict the rules are wrong.
However, when the example contradicts your personal interpretation, and there's another interpretation that is not contradicted, consider that the example may instead be clarifying,
Anyway, to address your argument from another approach:
If you were wizard 17/cleric 1/druid 1/bard 1, by your interpretation, you can prepare 9th level spells for cleric, bard, and druid. That seems... excessive, but so be it.
And if you're wizard 19/paladin 1, you can prepare 9th level paladin spells. And, well, you see the problem there.
I don't see a balance problem. You still just have 1 9th level spell slot per day. It's probably not worth preparing more than two (total) 9th level spells, both because one of them is going to be Wish anyway, and because you're overlimiting your other spell levels.
(Obviously there are no 9th level Paladin spells, so you can't prepare one. I guess that's a way you can have a spell slot for which you can't prepare spells of that level - hey, you found the example I couldn't! (ie, Wizard 16/Paladin 2+))
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off. Pros and Cons. There are many advantages to multiclassing. The main disadvantage is that you are not meant to have access to high level class abilities. So, if you are a character that has taken 4 levels in one class and 3 levels in another class, you aren't meant to be able to use any 7th level class features. When it comes to spellcasting, it's the same idea. That character is not meant to be able to cast any spells as if they are 7th level in any one class. That's how multiclassing is designed. it's a feature, not a bug.
You don’t see a balance problem with a level 1 Druid being able to cast the same spells as if they were a level 17 Druid? If you start allowing this sort of thing, it becomes almost required to multiclass.
Under that system, any full caster should take a 1-level dip into wizard and watch their spell list grow exponentially. Fireballs for all! Wish for everyone!! I’ll take access to the full spell lists for two classes over pretty much any caster capstone.
Exactly, and the multiclassing rules say: "You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class".
Again, when multiclassing, you have an additional restriction to follow: "You can use those slots but only to cast your lower-level spells."
You have your own ruling, but it's not ok, sorry. I provided some links to different threads, and the consensus is clear.
Not sure if you're the DM at your table. If so, fine. If not, as a player, it's going to be difficult to convince a DM to allow what you're saying because it's a balance problem. But more importantly, it's not RAW.
Casting with and preparing are not the same. It does not say you have the spell slots to cast with as a single class bard of your level. That text you quoted is solely about how many slots you have to cast with, not how you prepare spells. You obviously use the spell slots from multi-classing for determining how many spells you can cast. So the bard class saying the bard table shows you how many spell slots you have to cast doesn't say anything about preparing spells.
It says you prepare spells as a single-class character. ("You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.") Preparing is covered under the later text in bard. (below)
You're being very sloppy with language here.
There's no such restriction, because the condition which imposes the restriction generally doesn't apply. "This table might give you spell slots of a higher level than the spells you prepare. You can use those slots but only to cast your lower-level spells." Note 'might' (which implies its a rare occurrence). Whether it applies or not depends on the rules for preparing spells in the class, and what the maximum spell level is for the class. (ie, a Sorceror 16/Paladin 2+ does have slots that are higher level than Paladin spells they can prepare, because Paladin spells only go up to level 5. And because you learn prepared spells only when you gain a level, a Sorceror 16/Paladin 2+ who gained the Paladin levels last would also have 9th level spell slots for which they did not have Sorceror spells, and did not have Paladin spells. So the restriction can kick in, but it is a reasonably unusual occurrence, like 'might' implies).
The only rules for preparing and swapping spells read like the bard rules, and those read as follows:
"The number of spells on your list increases as you gain Bard levels, as shown in the Prepared Spells column of the Bard Features table. Whenever that number increases, choose additional spells from the Bard spell list until the number of spells on your list matches the number on the table. The chosen spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots." (So your bard level tells you how many bard spells you prepare, but your spell slots tells you what level spells you can prepare. "You" grammatically refers to your character. It can't refer to bard level. And your character definitively has the multiclass spell slots. And the bard text ensures that yes, a single class bard with a level 3 spell slot can prepare level 3 bard spells, no matter what the bard's level is).
"Whenever you gain a Bard level, you can replace one spell on your list with another Bard spell for which you have spell slots." (Again, only references spell slots you have, with no reference to bard levels.)
So a single class bard determines spells they can prepare solely based on spell slots the character has. It doesn't care where these spell slots come from - whether magic item, divine intervention, or multiclassing, just that the character has them. At which point, the multiclass rules have not given you higher level spell slots than you can prepare, so there is no restriction. (RAW, It is only half-casters which can get spell slots higher than they can prepare, combined with poor class sequencing of a full caster, as far as I can tell).
Look, i get that RAI is what you say, but that's not what RAW says. The RAW is grammatically clear. Consensus only helps us determine likely RAI, not RAW (RAW is solely determined by the language used). If they meant for spell level prepared to be dependent on bard level, it would have been easy to write that. They did in previous editions. They didn't in 5e.
Multiclassing is meant to be a trade-off, not a kick in the nuts. You may have noticed everyone seems to be playing RAI on this, and NO ONE multiclasses two full casters. (The closest you get is dips into warlock, which isn't actually a full caster for multiclassing). That makes it a bug. The multiclassing RAI is overly punitive.
Missing out on class features is a trade-off (and yes, spellcasting classes have features besides spell slots, and some of those class features are really good). Having fewer prepared spells per class is a trade-off. Needing to have a second casting stat is a trade-off. (Bard, Sorceror, and Wizard already have access to wish, so for that to be a thing we're talking Druid or Cleric, who now need either Int or Cha in addition to Wis, Con, and possibly wanting Dex. And Bard's literally already get to pick spells from everybody's spell lists at high levels). Delaying feats/attribute gains is a trade-off. Losing levels in spellcasting progression isn't a trade-off, it's a death sentence.
And most play doesn't happen at 20th level. At least one class will be behind on spell level prepared, because you can only prepare new spells for a class when you gain a level in that class.
I'd be delighted to see a Cleric 5/Wizard 5. That would be super-interesting. It has just 3 more spells prepared, but split between the two and light on versatility within each one, and the same number of spell slots (so its impact on the game really isn't much different from a single-class caster). It's less consequential than taking the shadow-touched feat (even ignoring the stat bonus - the feat at least gives you a free cast per day for each spell). It loses out on a subclass feature, blessed strikes, and divine intervention compared to a single-class cleric, two subclass features relative to a single-class wizard, and will get its third feat late (and quite possibly got its first or second feat late). It also has two different casting stats, which means it likely can only make use of save-based spells with one of the two classes, and even a minimal '13' in one of the casting stats likely means sacrificing on some more generally important stat. Strikes me as pretty much strictly worse than playing a Divine Soul Sorceror.
Even the best full caster multiclass under this interpretation, Bard-Sorceror, wouldn't actually be better than a Sorlock.
First, I agree with the others about the reading of the RAW. There are quite a few places where the rules are unclear, but this isn’t one of them.
But that notwithstanding, you have said a couple times now that you agree with everyone on what the rules mean even if there’s disagreement on if the way they are worded is unclear. So, what is the argument about anymore? No one here is in a place to change anything. At this point, I’d suggest a different section of the rules from the DMG:
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
So, if you know what the rules mean, and you’re actively arguing against what you agree they mean, it seems like you’re no longer in the realm of a good-faith interpretation.
Squirrelloid Unfortunately, I can't find more arguments to convince you. In the end, your DM is the one who will decide if you can do it that (IMO: wrong) way.
While this is true, it doesn't mean what you think it means in the context of preparing spells while multiclassing. This is the portion of the rule that you have been misinterpreting.
You prepare your Bard spells as if you were a single class Bard character, and the spells that that Bard character can prepare is based on the spell slots that that Bard character has.
Exercise:
Begin a new game with level 2 characters. Go ahead and roll up a brand-new Bard 2 character for yourself right now by following the rules for character creation. Once you have that character completed, go ahead and prepare your spells. To do so, you use the rules and information that is given in your Bard class, including the Bard Features table as well as the Bard Spellcasting class feature rules text. That character has certain spell slots. You use that information during your spell preparation process.
Now, repeat this process for each of your other classes individually. In this case, you would now prepare your Sorcerer spells as if you were a single class Sorcerer character.
So, begin another new game, this time with level 3 characters. Go ahead and roll up a brand new Sorcerer 3 character for yourself and repeat the above process, this time using the rules and information that is given in your Sorcerer class. That character has certain spell slots. You use that information during your spell preparation process.
After you finish creating these two Lists of prepared spells, go ahead and drag-and-drop both of those Lists into your game world that includes your multiclass Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 character. At this point you do things as that character. You are no longer doing things as if you were some other character. With your multiclass Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 character, go ahead and pick up both of those Lists that were just dropped here and put them both into your pocket.
Again, the game goes through the trouble of providing an example just in case there was any perceived ambiguity in how the rule was written. Given the text for the rule and the text for the example, there is no ambiguity about how this mechanic works in this game. There is exactly one correct interpretation. Other interpretations are wrong.
Well, no. The multiclass rules also address preparing spells. You are to prepare spells as if you are a single-classed caster. Not a single-classed caster who also has a bunch of other caster levels. Just a single classed caster. And a first-level wizard gets to prepare only first level wizard spells, because that's all they have the slots for.
The fact that you, the druid 16/wizard 1, have higher level slots does not matter. You are treating your character like a first-level wizard, and first-level wizards don't.
If the RAW is so clear, why does literally every other person in this discussion read it the other way? Why is there an example in the next sentence that contradicts your read?
Now, there is no rule that is so clear that somebody won't misread it. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. (You are, however, several standard deviations off the norm in your attempts to defend your reading.)
While Multiclassing rules don't elaborate on this in clear fashion, it say that once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below....You use the slots for that level to cast spells of an appropriate level from any class whose Spellcasting feature you have, but otherwise no guidance on feature using spell slots to do things other than casting spells.
If you have features that use spell slots you should still be able to use them. I would rule limitation similar to prepare a spell;
''You determine what spell slot you can use with feature for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class''
Also I was just looking at the Sorcerer preparation and noticed this
The number of spells on your list increases as you gain Sorcerer levels, as shown in the Prepared Spells column of the Sorcerer Features table. Whenever that number increases, choose additional Sorcerer spells until the number of spells on your list matches the number in the Sorcerer Features table. The chosen spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For example, if you’re a level 3 Sorcerer, your list of prepared spells can include six Sorcerer spells of level 1 or 2 in any combination.
So the line you are using to justify your RAW interpretation is under the Sorcerer as well. We know the Sorcerer can't do it from the example so why can the Bard?
What about magical secrets for a bard? Multiclassing isn’t supposed to be a kick in the nuts, but the way you interpret it basically makes that Bard feature useless.
I completely agree with this. It has always felt like multi-classing with casters is really bad, and this is actually a reasonable explanation of how to fix that. I will admit that actually playing this way will require permission from the dm, and that it opens the door for some extremely powerful builds, but I still think that at its heart this is a reasonable interpretation and way to play the game.
--Magical Secrets makes all those spells bard spells, which means they use Cha instead of a different stat.
--Not multiclassing means you get all your class features, and get your feats on time.
--Any class feature which scales on class levels gets full scaling. Bardic Inspiration is the most obvious, but there are subclass features which scale on the bardic inspiration die, too (Ex: Dance Bard's Dazzling Footwork: Bardic Damage.) Other spellcasting classes also have features which scale on class level, most obviously the subclasses which add always prepared spells to your prepared spells list.
Because most people aren't good at closely reading text. "You" is your character. Clear does not mean most people read it right, just that the grammar, properly parsed, is unambiguous. In general, properly assigning pronouns is a skill most people seem to lack, especially when they go into reading something with preconceived notions of how it works. And the example in multiclassing creates a preconceived notion of how it works - which turns off people's brains when they go and read the class, and they assume the example got it right.
Examples are not rules text. If they gave an example where a short sword did bludgeoning damage, or where they ignored Radiant resistance using the Elemental Adept feat, those examples would simply be wrong. They wouldn't change the rules of short swords or elemental adept.
And see also Lore Bard class feature Magical Discoveries: "A spell you choose must be a cantrip or a spell for which you have spell slots, as shown in the Bard Features table." This is specifically limited to spell slots shown in the bard table. The difference in wording implies it works differently.
Yes, let's play a game. Your DM, for whatever reason, gives you a magical item at level one which provides you with a 5th level spell slot. At level 2, can you prepare a 5th level spell? Do you have 5th level spell slot? Yes. Then you can prepare a 5th level spell.
What level of spell you can prepare does not depend on the bard table, just whether "you" have the spell slot. That's the rules for a single-class bard of any level. It requires you to look at the spell slots you have, not the bardic table. It never tells you to look at the bardic table for this. It tells you to look at your spell slots.
Contrast with College of Lore, Magical Discoveries feature: "A spell you choose must be a cantrip or a spell for which you have spell slots, as shown in the Bard Features table." This one specifically limits you to slots from the Bard Features table. The difference in wording is definitive. The regular rule does not.
No, I'm agreeing on what I think the designers intended to mean. That is not the same thing as what they actually mean. Designers frequently write things that aren't what they intended, and it's a crap shoot on whether people follow the intention or what is written.
(DnD Example: Crawford has specifically said that not only is Hunger of Hadar's magical darkness impenetrable to sight or darkvision, not even devil's sight works through it. However, it appears to be consensus that the spell doesn't work like that. Consensus on Hunger of Hadar only makes you blind inside it (because it says it does), but does not impede darkvision from outside (because it doesn't say it does), and we have explicit dev confirmation that RAI is not that).
(For a non-DND example, the CMON miniature game ASOIAF had the designer attend Nationals one year, and complain that everyone was playing a rule wrong, and then explain how he thought it should work to the judges. His explanation was not what the text said, nor even close. It wasn't the first time he'd disagreed with his own text. At least some of the time, he gets ignored in favor of what the text says).
(And of course, I've made an argument in favor of a literal reading here being more fun, too).