I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
Personally, I hold the multiclass example in higher regard than squirrel does, but the above point is hard to reconcile with RAW.
I also think there are severe balance issues with the interpretation: Sorc 17/ Cleric 1/ Bard 1/ Wizard 1 gets to prepare 4 level 9 spells, each from different lists?! I don't think so. There's also the fact that half-casters have spell lists that make that reading non-sensical. Swap Bard for Pally and there are no level 6+ spells in the Paladin list to prepare for the slots you have above 6. The intent is very clear. The DMG tells us not to interpret the rules in order to game the system.
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not? [...]
You mean something like this, for example, for a Wizard? I'd say then, in this scenario, as a level 1 Wizard, you could prepare one spell of level 9.
Level
PB
CLASS FEATURES
Cantrips
Prepared Spells
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
+2
XXX
3
4
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
EDIT: Is it possible to get this situation using the 2024 books?
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
If the character would have this spell slot if they were a single class character then I think it would be fair game for spell preparation.
You mean something like this, for example, for a Wizard? I'd say then, in this scenario, as a level 1 Wizard, you could prepare one spell of level 9.
Level
PB
CLASS FEATURES
Cantrips
Prepared Spells
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
+2
XXX
3
4
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
EDIT: Is it possible to get this situation using the 2024 books?
Since a Wizard is capable of "finding" spells to add to the spellbook as well as changing up their entire prepared List of Level 1+ Spells so frequently (upon Long Rest), I don't see why this Wizard couldn't have 4 Level-9 spells prepared at character Level 1 and also 0 Level-1 spells prepared. That would be a waste of the Level 1 spell slots of course, but the rules would allow it.
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
If the character would have this spell slot if they were a single class character then I think it would be fair game for spell preparation.
This situation has nothing to do with multiclassing, though. That's the problem. There is no "if they were a single class character" to fall back to with the item example. There is no multiclassing "extra rules" to parse. The rules come straight from the class page, which says you prepare spells at levels for which you have spell slots and the hypothetical item in question gave you a spell slot higher than what you would have from gaining levels in your class alone.
The example is part of the rules and part of the explanation of the rules. The example cannot be ignored when determining RAW.
Going back to your Sorcerer 3 / Bard 2 question, you prepare Sorcerer spells as a level 3 Sorcerer and Bard spells as a level 3 Bard. You can then cast spells with up to 3rd level slots (which could be used for upcasting spells or converting to Sorcery points). However, the only prepared spells from your classes will be 1st level Bard spells and 1st & 2nd level Sorcerer spells, per RAW.
Examples are not rules. Examples have never been rules. DnD has had examples which were straight-up wrong before, and the entire history of RAW interpretation has ignored those wrong examples.
-----------
There's no reason to treat gaining a spell slot from a magic item / god's intervention differently from the spell slots for multi-classing.
When it says to prepare spells for each class as a single class character, it solely means 'follow the rules for your class'. How many spells directs you to the class table (so you'd look up the line at Bard 2). Which spells directs you to slots you have.
Consider this from the perspective of an already multiclass character (Sorceror 3/Bard 1) gaining another level of Bard. They already have the slots from the previous level. There's no disputing "you" have those slots. They're a brute fact of the character, just like hit points or attribute scores. The Bard rules never say 'check the bard table', they merely direct you to look at slots "you" have. It's completely agnostic as to the source of those slots.
And the Lore Bard feature could have just used the same language - that you were limited to the slots you had. It's written from the same perspective as the basic Bard rules - single-class bards. That they didn't proves the writer clearly had awareness that there were ways to have higher level slots than your Bard level alone would entitle you to, and that means they made a conscious decision to write it differently than the regular Bard spell preparation rules. This should have been boilerplate copied text if the writer believed they worked the same. It's not. That proves it works differently. (This is also a basic principle in interpreting law, too. Differences in language used matter).
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
Personally, I hold the multiclass example in higher regard than squirrel does, but the above point is hard to reconcile with RAW.
I also think there are severe balance issues with the interpretation: Sorc 17/ Cleric 1/ Bard 1/ Wizard 1 gets to prepare 4 level 9 spells, each from different lists?! I don't think so. There's also the fact that half-casters have spell lists that make that reading non-sensical. Swap Bard for Pally and there are no level 6+ spells in the Paladin list to prepare for the slots you have above 6. The intent is very clear. The DMG tells us not to interpret the rules in order to game the system.
I can't remember the last time I actually played at level 20.
But what does it matter, you can still only cast one level 9 spell. And you'll miss out on an EB feat, a level 18 subclass feature, and Arcane Apotheosis (which is probably better than a couple extra 9th level spells prepared, as its pretty awesome).
Also, a Sorceror 20 can already have up to 8 level 9 spells prepared. (They gain a new prepared spell at each level, and can swap an earlier spell from each level), and can already access the entire Cleric list by taking Divine Soul subclass (and cast them with Cha). And they'd cast any of those spells using charisma. (There's only 7 9th level spells, including 2014 spells that weren't reprinted yet, which a Divine Soul Sorceror can't cast. Most of which are Wizard/Warlock, and many of which have saves, so you wouldn't multiclass for them anyway. Bard picks you up... 1 9th level spell you don't otherwise have access to?).
By contrast, your proposal can prepare a total of 5 level 9 spells, some of which won't be terribly useful because of a bad casting stat. Sounds worse to me.
I'll note that most builds plan on preparing ~2 level 9 spells, because you do just get 1 slot. So no one wants that many prepared 9th level spells.
Obviously the half-casters can get slots they can't prepare spells for. Hey look, a use for that text that says you might have slots you can't prepare spells for! This is not a rules problem.
-----------
Checking the wording of different classes carefully, I'd note that Wizards are interesting. If they find a scroll of the spell during their adventures, they can copy it into their spellbook if they have a slot to cast it. But they don't have a 'swap a spell at level-up' option, so you can't just get a level 9 wizard spell by taking level 1 of wizard. (Their spellbook still starts with 6 level 1 spells). And spells they get to add to their spellbook during level-up are still limited by their wizard level. "Whenever you gain a Wizard level after 1, add two Wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown in the Wizard Features table."
Another instance of different language that imposes that condition.
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
If the character would have this spell slot if they were a single class character then I think it would be fair game for spell preparation.
This situation has nothing to do with multiclassing, though. That's the problem. There is no "if they were a single class character" to fall back to with the item example. There is no multiclassing "extra rules" to parse. The rules come straight from the class page, which says you prepare spells at levels for which you have spell slots and the hypothetical item in question gave you a spell slot higher than what you would have from gaining levels in your class alone.
Right, that's the point that I was trying to make. If you could have this spell slot regardless of whether or not you are a single class character or a multiclass character because you have acquired that slot in some other way such as a magic item, then the multiclass rules do not alter that. In both cases (as a single class character and as a multiclass character) you would include that spell slot amongst the ones that you have when preparing your spells.
The multiclass restriction works specifically because you have gained some of your spell slots by virtue of multiclassing. So, you don't factor all of those in while preparing your spells -- you only factor in the spell slots that you would have as if you were a single class character for whichever class List of Level 1+ spells you are currently preparing. You repeat that process for each of your spells individually. If you would have a Level 9 spell slot because your character is wearing a magic item, then that is fair game for your spell preparation. You could actually take advantage of this twice for a multiclass character so your Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 could have a 9th level Sorcerer spell prepared as well as a 9th level Bard spell prepared. Of course, none of this refutes what the multiclass rules say or spell preparation or how they work. It's a different situation.
When it says to prepare spells for each class as a single class character, it solely means 'follow the rules for your class'.
No, it doesn't. It explicitly says to follow the procedure for each of your classes individually as if you were a single-classed member of that class. To clarify what this statement means, an example is provided in the text. It's unambiguous.
And the Lore Bard feature could have just used the same language - that you were limited to the slots you had. It's written from the same perspective as the basic Bard rules - single-class bards. That they didn't proves the writer clearly had awareness that there were ways to have higher level slots than your Bard level alone would entitle you to, and that means they made a conscious decision to write it differently than the regular Bard spell preparation rules. This should have been boilerplate copied text if the writer believed they worked the same. It's not. That proves it works differently. (This is also a basic principle in interpreting law, too. Differences in language used matter).
And again, the reason for this difference is because the multiclass rules do not provide any restrictions to the activities that are given in this class feature, so the class feature itself had to explicitly write those restrictions into the feature.
__________
Let's try it like this:
Suppose you are a Level 10 Barbarian. Your Proficiency Bonus is +4. There's no disputing this. It's a brute fact of your character.
Along the way, you acquired a Feat that says something like: "When you hit a creature with an attack, you can deal Bonus damage equal to your Proficiency Bonus as if you were a Level 1 Barbarian".
The next time that you hit a creature with an attack, how much Bonus damage can you deal?
Checking the wording of different classes carefully, I'd note that Wizards are interesting. If they find a scroll of the spell during their adventures, they can copy it into their spellbook if they have a slot to cast it. But they don't have a 'swap a spell at level-up' option, so you can't just get a level 9 wizard spell by taking level 1 of wizard. (Their spellbook still starts with 6 level 1 spells). And spells they get to add to their spellbook during level-up are still limited by their wizard level. "Whenever you gain a Wizard level after 1, add two Wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown in the Wizard Features table."
Another instance of different language that imposes that condition.
Wizards have the ability to change out their entire prepared Wizard List of Level 1+ Spells at every Long Rest. So, if a Level 1 Wizard acquires a spell scroll that he is able to scribe, then he can also prepare that spell while at Character Level 1.
The example is part of the rules and part of the explanation of the rules. The example cannot be ignored when determining RAW.
Going back to your Sorcerer 3 / Bard 2 question, you prepare Sorcerer spells as a level 3 Sorcerer and Bard spells as a level 3 Bard. You can then cast spells with up to 3rd level slots (which could be used for upcasting spells or converting to Sorcery points). However, the only prepared spells from your classes will be 1st level Bard spells and 1st & 2nd level Sorcerer spells, per RAW.
Examples are not rules. Examples have never been rules. DnD has had examples which were straight-up wrong before, and the entire history of RAW interpretation has ignored those wrong examples.
Examples used to clarify the stated word are rules and will always be rules. There is a difference between the clarifying statements in the Multiclassing Rules and the example of play. English is not as absolute as you imagine and when an example is used to define or clarify the meaning of a statement, it becomes part of the RAW.
And don't for a moment think that D&D has not had its fair share of rules that contradicted with other rules.
Your interpretation of RAW is incorrect. Here's why:
There's no reason to treat gaining a spell slot from a magic item / god's intervention differently from the spell slots for multi-classing.
"You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." If you are a Sorcerer 3 / Bard 2. You prepare Bard spells as if you were a level 2 Bard, not a level 5 one. You cannot prepare Aid because it is not on the Sorcerer list (unless subclass adds it for you but then it would be a Sorcerer spell). You cannot prepare Tongues because neither Bard 2 nor Sorcerer 3 can prepare 3rd level spells.
General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use Strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.
The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.
The Multiclass rules supersede the single class rules.
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
Personally, I hold the multiclass example in higher regard than squirrel does, but the above point is hard to reconcile with RAW.
While hypotheticals are sometimes useful in rule discussions, this one isn't. Any such ability ought to answer the question within its own rules, because it's without mechanical precedent. Without the actual text of that ability, it just ends up supporting whatever point the person using it was already making.
(Also, it would likely be structured as either "once per day, you may cast one of your spells at level X without expending a spell slot" or "You may choose a level X spell from your class lists. It counts as prepared for that class, and you may cast it once a day without expending a spell slot", because that's how they structure abilities that give you spells outside the class progression.)
If you would have a Level 9 spell slot because your character is wearing a magic item, then that is fair game for your spell preparation.
I disagree with this, at the very least from a RAI perspective. The entire discussion is in the context of the spellcasting feature. The spellcasting feature tells you that you have spell slots available based on the class table. The feature says that you can prepare spells that are available to cast with this feature (so we're still the context of the broader Spellcasting feature that is determined by the class table). Unless an effect says otherwise, any effect that gives out a spell slot would give you slots for casting and not for preparation. I understand where you are coming from though.
I actually vaguely remember a thread a while back where someone managed to quote a really obscure class feature from an old supplementary book (I don't think it was third party material, but I can't remember for certain) where the character was given some sort of extra spell slot which was meant to be used in some specific ways. The question was about whether it could be used to cast their other spells, and it seemed like the consensus was that it should be allowed. I wish I could remember what it was and was able to cut-and-paste that here, but alas, I cannot. It might have just been a Level 1 slot though, I'm not sure. So, it's not totally impossible that you might acquire a spell slot outside of normal class progression -- but it seems like the authors of the official material do try pretty hard to almost never do that.
If you would have a Level 9 spell slot because your character is wearing a magic item, then that is fair game for your spell preparation.
I disagree with this, at the very least from a RAI perspective. The entire discussion is in the context of the spellcasting feature. The spellcasting feature tells you that you have spell slots available based on the class table. The feature says that you can prepare spells that are available to cast with this feature (so we're still the context of the broader Spellcasting feature that is determined by the class table). Unless an effect says otherwise, any effect that gives out a spell slot would give you slots for casting and not for preparation. I understand where you are coming from though.
The wording of the Spellcasting class feature doesn't care about which spell slots you actually have when it comes to the process of spell preparation though. The multiclass rules ensure that the extra slots gained through multiclassing don't count when undergoing this process, but if there was some other way to gain extra spell slots it does not appear that the spell preparation process described within the Spellcasting class feature would be restricted from factoring those in.
Again, as others have pointed out, it's important to reemphasize that this hypothetical does not apply to the main discussion about spell preparation as a multiclass character.
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
Personally, I hold the multiclass example in higher regard than squirrel does, but the above point is hard to reconcile with RAW.
While hypotheticals are sometimes useful in rule discussions, this one isn't. Any such ability ought to answer the question within its own rules, because it's without mechanical precedent. Without the actual text of that ability, it just ends up supporting whatever point the person using it was already making.
(Also, it would likely be structured as either "once per day, you may cast one of your spells at level X without expending a spell slot" or "You may choose a level X spell from your class lists. It counts as prepared for that class, and you may cast it once a day without expending a spell slot", because that's how they structure abilities that give you spells outside the class progression.)
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?
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.
I have to say, I have been both the primary author of rules text and the authoritative source of rulings for a game, and I still wasn't as confident in my reading of the texts I was ruling on as you are here.
But, I do consider myself pretty capable in interpretation of rules text.
So, the relevant text, because specific beats general, is:
Spells Prepared. You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.
This is remarkably unambiguous. I find it remarkably difficult to entertain any reading other than "pretend you have no other caster levels, and proceed from there".
But, if you are unsure, there's an example in the very next sentence.
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.
You really have to have more support than you are presenting to argue the example is an error on the level of "bludgeoning short sword".
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.
Unless the game is written with extremely tight templating and keywording, this is not an assumption you can make when interpreting the rules. If we were talking Magic the Gathering, it might be the case.
D&D 5e, or likely any edition but maybe 4e, is not written in that style. 5e in particular is written in more conventional English. Unless you're talking specifically defined terms of art, a difference in wording can easily be irrelevant.
(Is their stylistic choice ideal for figuring out thorny rule questions? No. However, 5e is not the sort of game that needs table-to-table rules consistency. DMs exist to adjudicate on the fly.)
1: Most of the people in this thread are right to bring up that preparing spells is done as if you were the two individual classes, rather than combining any features of multiclassing when preparing spells. Anyone still arguing against that truly is arguing in bad faith since the example obviously points out how that works in practice. (It was included to provide clarity on what that line means and avoid semantics being used as a bludgeon like some people are attempting in here.)
2: The hypothetical about a single-class character getting a higher-level spell slot is a great example of why there's exactly zero official material that grants such a thing.
3: The 3e note in post 3 on the first page was pretty bad, too. If the multiclassing slots thing existed in 3e, you could still prepare spells with those slots using metamagic (since most metamagic options require you to prepare/cast them with a higher-level slot).
3: The 3e note in post 3 on the first page was pretty bad, too. If the multiclassing slots thing existed in 3e, you could still prepare spells with those slots using metamagic (since most metamagic options require you to prepare/cast them with a higher-level slot).
That was a comment about how examples were treated in 3e rules analysis - as non-entities. They were never used as authorities on how the rules worked (and they were not infrequently wrong).
And I am arguing for using the rules for preparing spells as two separate single classes. I just see no textual reason to pretend characters don't have the slots they actually have. The class rules don't tell you to use the table for spell slots to determine your slots for level of spell you prepared, but they do tell you to use the table for how many spells you can prepare. That's a significant textual difference. So you're a Bard 2 with level 3 slots? The rules as written can handle that.
3: The 3e note in post 3 on the first page was pretty bad, too. If the multiclassing slots thing existed in 3e, you could still prepare spells with those slots using metamagic (since most metamagic options require you to prepare/cast them with a higher-level slot).
That was a comment about how examples were treated in 3e rules analysis - as non-entities. They were never used as authorities on how the rules worked (and they were not infrequently wrong).
And I am arguing for using the rules for preparing spells as two separate single classes. I just see no textual reason to pretend characters don't have the slots they actually have. The class rules don't tell you to use the table for spell slots to determine your slots for level of spell you prepared, but they do tell you to use the table for how many spells you can prepare. That's a significant textual difference. So you're a Bard 2 with level 3 slots? The rules as written can handle that.
3.x was more precise rules in its wording than 5e. 5e uses more natural language and the same assumptions do not apply. The rules state that when you prepare spells, a Bard 2 prepares them as a Bard 2 and Bard 2 cannot prepare 2nd or 3rd level spells.
3: The 3e note in post 3 on the first page was pretty bad, too. If the multiclassing slots thing existed in 3e, you could still prepare spells with those slots using metamagic (since most metamagic options require you to prepare/cast them with a higher-level slot).
That was a comment about how examples were treated in 3e rules analysis - as non-entities. They were never used as authorities on how the rules worked (and they were not infrequently wrong).
And I am arguing for using the rules for preparing spells as two separate single classes. I just see no textual reason to pretend characters don't have the slots they actually have. The class rules don't tell you to use the table for spell slots to determine your slots for level of spell you prepared, but they do tell you to use the table for how many spells you can prepare. That's a significant textual difference. So you're a Bard 2 with level 3 slots? The rules as written can handle that.
3.x was more precise rules in its wording than 5e. 5e uses more natural language and the same assumptions do not apply. The rules state that when you prepare spells, a Bard 2 prepares them as a Bard 2 and Bard 2 cannot prepare 2nd or 3rd level spells.
It could, if it had 2nd or 3rd level slots, according to Bard's own rules.
... it has 2nd and 3rd level slots.
You're all assuming that you ignore the multiclass spell slots with that text. But it never says to ignore the spell slots multiclassing gives you. You also have 5 hit dice, even though a bard 2 doesn't have 5 hit dice.
I'm assuming "Prepare spells as a single-class bard" just means 'go follow the rules for preparing spells in the bard class (because that's the rules on preparing spells as a single-class bard). You're level 2 whenever those rules require you to know that'. The table is only part of the 'prepare spells rules' when the 'prepare spells rules' explicitly mention the table. Notably, the prepare spell rules never invoke the bard table for spell slots, so you've been directed to use rules that invoke spell slots you have, not that you would have according to the bard table.
I think one point still has yet to be addressed: what if a pure bard 3 (or any other full caster, since they all use the same language) received a spell slot above what they would normally gain through levels (say 5th level slot). Perhaps it is some magic item, like squirrel suggested. Would the player, on level up, get to prepare a spell for that 5th level spell slot? If not, why not?
Personally, I hold the multiclass example in higher regard than squirrel does, but the above point is hard to reconcile with RAW.
I also think there are severe balance issues with the interpretation: Sorc 17/ Cleric 1/ Bard 1/ Wizard 1 gets to prepare 4 level 9 spells, each from different lists?! I don't think so. There's also the fact that half-casters have spell lists that make that reading non-sensical. Swap Bard for Pally and there are no level 6+ spells in the Paladin list to prepare for the slots you have above 6. The intent is very clear. The DMG tells us not to interpret the rules in order to game the system.
You mean something like this, for example, for a Wizard? I'd say then, in this scenario, as a level 1 Wizard, you could prepare one spell of level 9.
EDIT: Is it possible to get this situation using the 2024 books?
If the character would have this spell slot if they were a single class character then I think it would be fair game for spell preparation.
Since a Wizard is capable of "finding" spells to add to the spellbook as well as changing up their entire prepared List of Level 1+ Spells so frequently (upon Long Rest), I don't see why this Wizard couldn't have 4 Level-9 spells prepared at character Level 1 and also 0 Level-1 spells prepared. That would be a waste of the Level 1 spell slots of course, but the rules would allow it.
This situation has nothing to do with multiclassing, though. That's the problem. There is no "if they were a single class character" to fall back to with the item example. There is no multiclassing "extra rules" to parse. The rules come straight from the class page, which says you prepare spells at levels for which you have spell slots and the hypothetical item in question gave you a spell slot higher than what you would have from gaining levels in your class alone.
What existing game feature in the core rules give 9th level spell slots to a Wizard level 1?
Examples are not rules. Examples have never been rules. DnD has had examples which were straight-up wrong before, and the entire history of RAW interpretation has ignored those wrong examples.
-----------
There's no reason to treat gaining a spell slot from a magic item / god's intervention differently from the spell slots for multi-classing.
When it says to prepare spells for each class as a single class character, it solely means 'follow the rules for your class'. How many spells directs you to the class table (so you'd look up the line at Bard 2). Which spells directs you to slots you have.
Consider this from the perspective of an already multiclass character (Sorceror 3/Bard 1) gaining another level of Bard. They already have the slots from the previous level. There's no disputing "you" have those slots. They're a brute fact of the character, just like hit points or attribute scores. The Bard rules never say 'check the bard table', they merely direct you to look at slots "you" have. It's completely agnostic as to the source of those slots.
And the Lore Bard feature could have just used the same language - that you were limited to the slots you had. It's written from the same perspective as the basic Bard rules - single-class bards. That they didn't proves the writer clearly had awareness that there were ways to have higher level slots than your Bard level alone would entitle you to, and that means they made a conscious decision to write it differently than the regular Bard spell preparation rules. This should have been boilerplate copied text if the writer believed they worked the same. It's not. That proves it works differently. (This is also a basic principle in interpreting law, too. Differences in language used matter).
I can't remember the last time I actually played at level 20.
But what does it matter, you can still only cast one level 9 spell. And you'll miss out on an EB feat, a level 18 subclass feature, and Arcane Apotheosis (which is probably better than a couple extra 9th level spells prepared, as its pretty awesome).
Also, a Sorceror 20 can already have up to 8 level 9 spells prepared. (They gain a new prepared spell at each level, and can swap an earlier spell from each level), and can already access the entire Cleric list by taking Divine Soul subclass (and cast them with Cha). And they'd cast any of those spells using charisma. (There's only 7 9th level spells, including 2014 spells that weren't reprinted yet, which a Divine Soul Sorceror can't cast. Most of which are Wizard/Warlock, and many of which have saves, so you wouldn't multiclass for them anyway. Bard picks you up... 1 9th level spell you don't otherwise have access to?).
By contrast, your proposal can prepare a total of 5 level 9 spells, some of which won't be terribly useful because of a bad casting stat. Sounds worse to me.
I'll note that most builds plan on preparing ~2 level 9 spells, because you do just get 1 slot. So no one wants that many prepared 9th level spells.
Obviously the half-casters can get slots they can't prepare spells for. Hey look, a use for that text that says you might have slots you can't prepare spells for! This is not a rules problem.
-----------
Checking the wording of different classes carefully, I'd note that Wizards are interesting. If they find a scroll of the spell during their adventures, they can copy it into their spellbook if they have a slot to cast it. But they don't have a 'swap a spell at level-up' option, so you can't just get a level 9 wizard spell by taking level 1 of wizard. (Their spellbook still starts with 6 level 1 spells). And spells they get to add to their spellbook during level-up are still limited by their wizard level. "Whenever you gain a Wizard level after 1, add two Wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown in the Wizard Features table."
Another instance of different language that imposes that condition.
I don't think any, and that crazy example (or anything like it) is impossible to achieve using the current rules.
Right, that's the point that I was trying to make. If you could have this spell slot regardless of whether or not you are a single class character or a multiclass character because you have acquired that slot in some other way such as a magic item, then the multiclass rules do not alter that. In both cases (as a single class character and as a multiclass character) you would include that spell slot amongst the ones that you have when preparing your spells.
The multiclass restriction works specifically because you have gained some of your spell slots by virtue of multiclassing. So, you don't factor all of those in while preparing your spells -- you only factor in the spell slots that you would have as if you were a single class character for whichever class List of Level 1+ spells you are currently preparing. You repeat that process for each of your spells individually. If you would have a Level 9 spell slot because your character is wearing a magic item, then that is fair game for your spell preparation. You could actually take advantage of this twice for a multiclass character so your Sorcerer 3/Bard 2 could have a 9th level Sorcerer spell prepared as well as a 9th level Bard spell prepared. Of course, none of this refutes what the multiclass rules say or spell preparation or how they work. It's a different situation.
No, it doesn't. It explicitly says to follow the procedure for each of your classes individually as if you were a single-classed member of that class. To clarify what this statement means, an example is provided in the text. It's unambiguous.
And yet, you wouldn't have all of those slots if you were just a Bard 2 in that example.
And again, the reason for this difference is because the multiclass rules do not provide any restrictions to the activities that are given in this class feature, so the class feature itself had to explicitly write those restrictions into the feature.
__________
Let's try it like this:
Suppose you are a Level 10 Barbarian. Your Proficiency Bonus is +4. There's no disputing this. It's a brute fact of your character.
Along the way, you acquired a Feat that says something like: "When you hit a creature with an attack, you can deal Bonus damage equal to your Proficiency Bonus as if you were a Level 1 Barbarian".
The next time that you hit a creature with an attack, how much Bonus damage can you deal?
__________
Wizards have the ability to change out their entire prepared Wizard List of Level 1+ Spells at every Long Rest. So, if a Level 1 Wizard acquires a spell scroll that he is able to scribe, then he can also prepare that spell while at Character Level 1.
Examples used to clarify the stated word are rules and will always be rules. There is a difference between the clarifying statements in the Multiclassing Rules and the example of play. English is not as absolute as you imagine and when an example is used to define or clarify the meaning of a statement, it becomes part of the RAW.
And don't for a moment think that D&D has not had its fair share of rules that contradicted with other rules.
Your interpretation of RAW is incorrect. Here's why:
"You determine what spells you can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." If you are a Sorcerer 3 / Bard 2. You prepare Bard spells as if you were a level 2 Bard, not a level 5 one. You cannot prepare Aid because it is not on the Sorcerer list (unless subclass adds it for you but then it would be a Sorcerer spell). You cannot prepare Tongues because neither Bard 2 nor Sorcerer 3 can prepare 3rd level spells.
Rhythm of Play
The Multiclass rules supersede the single class rules.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
While hypotheticals are sometimes useful in rule discussions, this one isn't. Any such ability ought to answer the question within its own rules, because it's without mechanical precedent. Without the actual text of that ability, it just ends up supporting whatever point the person using it was already making.
(Also, it would likely be structured as either "once per day, you may cast one of your spells at level X without expending a spell slot" or "You may choose a level X spell from your class lists. It counts as prepared for that class, and you may cast it once a day without expending a spell slot", because that's how they structure abilities that give you spells outside the class progression.)
I disagree with this, at the very least from a RAI perspective. The entire discussion is in the context of the spellcasting feature. The spellcasting feature tells you that you have spell slots available based on the class table. The feature says that you can prepare spells that are available to cast with this feature (so we're still the context of the broader Spellcasting feature that is determined by the class table). Unless an effect says otherwise, any effect that gives out a spell slot would give you slots for casting and not for preparation. I understand where you are coming from though.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I actually vaguely remember a thread a while back where someone managed to quote a really obscure class feature from an old supplementary book (I don't think it was third party material, but I can't remember for certain) where the character was given some sort of extra spell slot which was meant to be used in some specific ways. The question was about whether it could be used to cast their other spells, and it seemed like the consensus was that it should be allowed. I wish I could remember what it was and was able to cut-and-paste that here, but alas, I cannot. It might have just been a Level 1 slot though, I'm not sure. So, it's not totally impossible that you might acquire a spell slot outside of normal class progression -- but it seems like the authors of the official material do try pretty hard to almost never do that.
The wording of the Spellcasting class feature doesn't care about which spell slots you actually have when it comes to the process of spell preparation though. The multiclass rules ensure that the extra slots gained through multiclassing don't count when undergoing this process, but if there was some other way to gain extra spell slots it does not appear that the spell preparation process described within the Spellcasting class feature would be restricted from factoring those in.
Again, as others have pointed out, it's important to reemphasize that this hypothetical does not apply to the main discussion about spell preparation as a multiclass character.
This is fair, and I'm willing to cede the point.
I have to say, I have been both the primary author of rules text and the authoritative source of rulings for a game, and I still wasn't as confident in my reading of the texts I was ruling on as you are here.
But, I do consider myself pretty capable in interpretation of rules text.
So, the relevant text, because specific beats general, is:
This is remarkably unambiguous. I find it remarkably difficult to entertain any reading other than "pretend you have no other caster levels, and proceed from there".
But, if you are unsure, there's an example in the very next sentence.
You really have to have more support than you are presenting to argue the example is an error on the level of "bludgeoning short sword".
Unless the game is written with extremely tight templating and keywording, this is not an assumption you can make when interpreting the rules. If we were talking Magic the Gathering, it might be the case.
D&D 5e, or likely any edition but maybe 4e, is not written in that style. 5e in particular is written in more conventional English. Unless you're talking specifically defined terms of art, a difference in wording can easily be irrelevant.
(Is their stylistic choice ideal for figuring out thorny rule questions? No. However, 5e is not the sort of game that needs table-to-table rules consistency. DMs exist to adjudicate on the fly.)
1: Most of the people in this thread are right to bring up that preparing spells is done as if you were the two individual classes, rather than combining any features of multiclassing when preparing spells. Anyone still arguing against that truly is arguing in bad faith since the example obviously points out how that works in practice. (It was included to provide clarity on what that line means and avoid semantics being used as a bludgeon like some people are attempting in here.)
2: The hypothetical about a single-class character getting a higher-level spell slot is a great example of why there's exactly zero official material that grants such a thing.
3: The 3e note in post 3 on the first page was pretty bad, too. If the multiclassing slots thing existed in 3e, you could still prepare spells with those slots using metamagic (since most metamagic options require you to prepare/cast them with a higher-level slot).
That was a comment about how examples were treated in 3e rules analysis - as non-entities. They were never used as authorities on how the rules worked (and they were not infrequently wrong).
And I am arguing for using the rules for preparing spells as two separate single classes. I just see no textual reason to pretend characters don't have the slots they actually have. The class rules don't tell you to use the table for spell slots to determine your slots for level of spell you prepared, but they do tell you to use the table for how many spells you can prepare. That's a significant textual difference. So you're a Bard 2 with level 3 slots? The rules as written can handle that.
3.x was more precise rules in its wording than 5e. 5e uses more natural language and the same assumptions do not apply. The rules state that when you prepare spells, a Bard 2 prepares them as a Bard 2 and Bard 2 cannot prepare 2nd or 3rd level spells.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It could, if it had 2nd or 3rd level slots, according to Bard's own rules.
... it has 2nd and 3rd level slots.
You're all assuming that you ignore the multiclass spell slots with that text. But it never says to ignore the spell slots multiclassing gives you. You also have 5 hit dice, even though a bard 2 doesn't have 5 hit dice.
I'm assuming "Prepare spells as a single-class bard" just means 'go follow the rules for preparing spells in the bard class (because that's the rules on preparing spells as a single-class bard). You're level 2 whenever those rules require you to know that'. The table is only part of the 'prepare spells rules' when the 'prepare spells rules' explicitly mention the table. Notably, the prepare spell rules never invoke the bard table for spell slots, so you've been directed to use rules that invoke spell slots you have, not that you would have according to the bard table.