Multiclassing rules state that paladin and ranger get spell slots for half their level rounded down and 1/3 level rounded down for Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. But the classes actually round up in their calculations. So a 5th level AT has spell slots as a 2nd level caster, but only counts as a first level caster when multiclassing. That means that if he adds a level of wizard it's actually the same as adding another level of AT for spell slots, even though he's adding a full caster level. It can lead to ridiculous situations like a level 5 AT adding 5 levels of EK and not gaining a single spell slot.
I assume rounding wrong was intentional to reduce the power of multiclassing, but it just seems weird, and multiclassing full casters suffer no such restriction.
"It can lead to ridiculous situations like a level 5 AT adding 5 levels of EK and not gaining a single spell slot."
I don't understand this comment.
A 5th level AT or EK has 3 first level spells while a 5AT+5EK has 10/3 = 3rd level = 4 1st and 2 2nd level slots so they gain a first and two second level spell slots ... on the other hand a pure 10th level AT or EK would have 4 first and 3 second so they would be slightly ahead as a single class in terms of just spell slots.
On the other hand a pure AT or EK will get second level spells at 7th level while a mixed class will have to wait until 9th. However, presumably, the mixed class character has a much larger choice of spells as well as several more cantrips to choose from and the other class features ... so lagging behind a spell slot might not be a big deal.
Unruly_Cow's statement doesn't make sense, but Matthias_von_Schwarzwald's example illustrates the problem.
If you single class as a partial caster, your spell slots are based on rounding your equivalent caster level up. When you start multiclassing your partial levels get rounded down and if you have multiple partial classes, they each get rounded down.
That leads to silly outcomes like:
A 3rd level Ranger is treated as 2nd level caster but a 3 Ranger/1 Druid is also a 2nd level caster.
A 9th level Paladin is treated as a 5th level caster but a 5 Paladin/4 Ranger is treated as a 4th level caster.
A 10th level Paladin is treated as a 5th level caster but a 5 Paladin/5 Ranger is still treated as 4th level caster even though their total levels divide evenly.
You never mysteriously lose caster levels when combining full casting classes. An X wizard/Y cleric is always treated as caster level X + Y.
To get results that are consistent with single classing you have to divide without rounding, then round the total up.
I’m pretty sure they did this intentionally. And the reason is the same reason why they’re half casters and not full casters. Those classes have added abilities that they determined needed to be balanced by reducing the spell slots and levels available when compared to a full caster of the same level. A Druid with film caster slots and spell levels available to them would be extremely pushed, maybe even broken.
so following the same logic, if you combined two classes with strong abilities AND they got to round up on all their half casting classes would definitely have the potential to be broken.
imagine this:
Eldrich Knight 3/Arcane Trickster 3/Druid 3(circle of the moon)
Turn 1: cast a buff spell and wild shape
Turn 2 and after: Multi attack as whatever beast you shape into and probably be able to add your 2d6 sneak attack most of the time. And at any point you can revert back to your normal form and start slinging more spells if you need to. And then wildshape again.
you are a serious tank with access to a slew of 3rd level spells. Including Fireball, but what would be my favorite in this scenario is Melfs Minute Arrows. You cast that on turn one and then wild shape. So now you’re multi and sneak attacking AND you using your bonus action to fling mini fireballs around. That’s 2d6 on a failed Dex save to anyone within 5 ft of the impact. And you still have two more 3rd level slots and all your other spell slots left.
I’m pretty sure they did this intentionally. And the reason is the same reason why they’re half casters and not full casters. Those classes have added abilities that they determined needed to be balanced by reducing the spell slots and levels available when compared to a full caster of the same level. A Druid with film caster slots and spell levels available to them would be extremely pushed, maybe even broken.
so following the same logic, if you combined two classes with strong abilities AND they got to round up on all their half casting classes would definitely have the potential to be broken.
imagine this:
Eldrich Knight 3/Arcane Trickster 3/Druid 3(circle of the moon)
Turn 1: cast a buff spell and wild shape
Turn 2 and after: Multi attack as whatever beast you shape into and probably be able to add your 2d6 sneak attack most of the time. And at any point you can revert back to your normal form and start slinging more spells if you need to. And then wildshape again.
you are a serious tank with access to a slew of 3rd level spells. Including Fireball, but what would be my favorite in this scenario is Melfs Minute Arrows. You cast that on turn one and then wild shape. So now you’re multi and sneak attacking AND you using your bonus action to fling mini fireballs around. That’s 2d6 on a failed Dex save to anyone within 5 ft of the impact. And you still have two more 3rd level slots and all your other spell slots left.
Slots and spells available to you are treated seperately though. You'd have access to 1st level Wizard spells from EK and AT and 2nd level Druid spells from Druid 3. No 3rd level spells for you even if you'd have the slots for them. You could only use those slots to upcast a 1st or 2nd level spell.
Both classes round down individually, so a 5/5 AT/EK would be 1+1=2 for spell slots. This is the same as a 5th (or 4th) level AT.
I guess I interpret the rules on p164 of the phb differently from you.
"Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."
I interpret this to be adding together ALL your levels as a fighter or rogue and dividing by 3 ... not fighter/3 + rogue/3.
Thus a 5AT/5EK has 10/3 = 3rd level caster NOT 5/3 + 5/3 = 2nd level caster.
A 5 paladin, 4 ranger is a 9/2 = 4th level caster. etc
No, you round down for each class individually before adding them.
Think about it this way: none of the partial-caster classes (except Artificer) get their Spellcasting feature at level 1. So if you had a Paladin 1/Ranger 1, adding the half-caster levels before rounding would give you the spell slots of a 1st-level caster, even though this character wouldn't have gained the Spellcasting feature yet from either class.
Also, with the Artificer, you round up the levels from that half-caster class; clearly you can't lump its levels together with other half-caster levels before rounding. This is meant to keep things consistent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Nbx, Biggest problem with you 3/3/3 build is you are not a serious tank. You will only be able to wildshape into cr1. That is the same as a level 9 single class non monk druid. Your beast form will be too fragile for combat.
No, you round down for each class individually before adding them.
Think about it this way: none of the partial-caster classes (except Artificer) get their Spellcasting feature at level 1. So if you had a Paladin 1/Ranger 1, adding the half-caster levels before rounding would give you the spell slots of a 1st-level caster, even though this character wouldn't have gained the Spellcasting feature yet from either class.
Also, with the Artificer, you round up the levels from that half-caster class; clearly you can't lump its levels together with other half-caster levels before rounding. This is meant to keep things consistent.
If neither class has the spellcasting feature then they don't have spell slots at all. In addition, the RAW which I quoted above can easily be read either way - so ask your DM how they want to run it.
"Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below."
The multiclass spellcasting rules do NOT apply if you don't have the spellcasting feature.
If a character was a 1 paladin/3 ranger - they'd be a 1st level spell caster since they don't have the spellcasting feature from paladin yet. On the other hand a 3 paladin/3 ranger would be a 3rd level spell caster by my application of the rules but only a 2nd level spell caster by your reading.
Finally, I interpret the RAW "by adding together all your levels" to mean literally that. You add together all your levels in full caster classes, all your levels in 1/2 caster classes and divide by 2 and all your levels in 1/3 caster classes and divide by 3 - then add it all together ... but I can easily see how someone could read it differently.
Again, the fact that not all partial-caster classes round down indicates that you need to deal with each class independently. Also, for what it's worth, making an Arcane Trickster 5 / Eldritch Knight 5 on DDB gets you 3 1st-level spell slots, the same as a level 2 full caster. In any case, D&D doesn't really reward multiclassing with partial-casters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
One of the most powerful MCs is a paladin with a level or two of warlock
A wizard taking (or starting with) a level of Artificer is very powerful.
Regarding MCing two partial casters, could the fact that Artificer round up make a difference? An Artificer 3 / Eldritch Knight 3 is a 3rd level caster, 5he same as a half caster. Not thought through the details but giving the Artificer action Surge a fighting style and second wind as well as a few extra spells known sounds like a reasonable compromise for being behind on Artificer levels. I could also see an arcane trickster / armorer sneaking about in his plate mail infiltrator armor.
You can't just remove directions from their context.
If you say: "Take two red sticks. Add them to two blue sticks (cut in half), and then three yellow sticks (cut in thirds) to get your full length of stick." Supposed to do: x + y/2 + z/3
You cannot just connect a blue stick to a red stick and cut the whole thing in half. You end up with half of the length, instead of 3/4ths the length. What you're supposed to get: x + y/2 (say, 2 + 2/2 = 3) What you're doing: (x + y)/2 (say, (2 + 2)/2 = 2)
Just because it's in parenthesis doesn't mean you apply it later, it does the opposite, it means it applies specifically to what it's directly behind and referencing in the directions.
Saying "Jill has brown hair, and so does Jack (except it's curly)." Doesn't mean you assume they both have curly hair. You assume ONLY Jack has curly hair.
That is what you're doing wrong with the wording here. "Add your your levels in x, add them to half of y (rounded down), and a third of z (rounded down). Then you have your caster level"
You are ignoring that the directions explicitly affect only the parts, and instead trying to apply it to the whole.
If we were to turn this into an equation it should be: x + floor(y/2) + floor(z/3) where floor is rounding down.
Looking at it on my D&D Beyond character sheet and they seem to round up.
I was just testing and I made a character that was a level one sorcerer and level 3 Artificer and it gave me two second level spell slots as if I was a third level caster but if it was rounded down Sorcerer = 1 Artificer 3/2 = 1.5 rounded down would be 1 therefore if you did round down then it would have treated me as a level two caster.
Looking at it on my D&D Beyond character sheet and they seem to round up.
I was just testing and I made a character that was a level one sorcerer and level 3 Artificer and it gave me two second level spell slots as if I was a third level caster but if it was rounded down Sorcerer = 1 Artificer 3/2 = 1.5 rounded down would be 1 therefore if you did round down then it would have treated me as a level two caster.
Except that artificers specifically round up instead of down like the other half casters. Specific rule for artificers takes precedence over the general rule for half casters.
Unfortunately, this text is only in the Tasha's artificer listing and not in the general class summary on D&D Beyond.
Multiclassing rules state that paladin and ranger get spell slots for half their level rounded down and 1/3 level rounded down for Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. But the classes actually round up in their calculations. So a 5th level AT has spell slots as a 2nd level caster, but only counts as a first level caster when multiclassing. That means that if he adds a level of wizard it's actually the same as adding another level of AT for spell slots, even though he's adding a full caster level. It can lead to ridiculous situations like a level 5 AT adding 5 levels of EK and not gaining a single spell slot.
I assume rounding wrong was intentional to reduce the power of multiclassing, but it just seems weird, and multiclassing full casters suffer no such restriction.
Yup. I doubt it was an intentional decision but the multiclass rules suck for partial casters.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
When a rule produces illogical results (such as a 3rd-level ranger not gaining spell slots from taking a level of druid), ignore it.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"It can lead to ridiculous situations like a level 5 AT adding 5 levels of EK and not gaining a single spell slot."
I don't understand this comment.
A 5th level AT or EK has 3 first level spells while a 5AT+5EK has 10/3 = 3rd level = 4 1st and 2 2nd level slots so they gain a first and two second level spell slots ... on the other hand a pure 10th level AT or EK would have 4 first and 3 second so they would be slightly ahead as a single class in terms of just spell slots.
On the other hand a pure AT or EK will get second level spells at 7th level while a mixed class will have to wait until 9th. However, presumably, the mixed class character has a much larger choice of spells as well as several more cantrips to choose from and the other class features ... so lagging behind a spell slot might not be a big deal.
Unruly_Cow's statement doesn't make sense, butMatthias_von_Schwarzwald's example illustrates the problem.If you single class as a partial caster, your spell slots are based on rounding your equivalent caster level up. When you start multiclassing your partial levels get rounded down and if you have multiple partial classes, they each get rounded down.
That leads to silly outcomes like:
You never mysteriously lose caster levels when combining full casting classes. An X wizard/Y cleric is always treated as caster level X + Y.
To get results that are consistent with single classing you have to divide without rounding, then round the total up.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Both classes round down individually, so a 5/5 AT/EK would be 1+1=2 for spell slots. This is the same as a 5th (or 4th) level AT.
Whoops, you're right. I had a brain fart and forgot they divide by 3 when working out that example.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I’m pretty sure they did this intentionally. And the reason is the same reason why they’re half casters and not full casters. Those classes have added abilities that they determined needed to be balanced by reducing the spell slots and levels available when compared to a full caster of the same level. A Druid with film caster slots and spell levels available to them would be extremely pushed, maybe even broken.
so following the same logic, if you combined two classes with strong abilities AND they got to round up on all their half casting classes would definitely have the potential to be broken.
imagine this:
Eldrich Knight 3/Arcane Trickster 3/Druid 3(circle of the moon)
Turn 1: cast a buff spell and wild shape
Turn 2 and after: Multi attack as whatever beast you shape into and probably be able to add your 2d6 sneak attack most of the time. And at any point you can revert back to your normal form and start slinging more spells if you need to. And then wildshape again.
you are a serious tank with access to a slew of 3rd level spells. Including Fireball, but what would be my favorite in this scenario is Melfs Minute Arrows. You cast that on turn one and then wild shape. So now you’re multi and sneak attacking AND you using your bonus action to fling mini fireballs around. That’s 2d6 on a failed Dex save to anyone within 5 ft of the impact. And you still have two more 3rd level slots and all your other spell slots left.
Slots and spells available to you are treated seperately though. You'd have access to 1st level Wizard spells from EK and AT and 2nd level Druid spells from Druid 3. No 3rd level spells for you even if you'd have the slots for them. You could only use those slots to upcast a 1st or 2nd level spell.
I guess I interpret the rules on p164 of the phb differently from you.
"Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."
I interpret this to be adding together ALL your levels as a fighter or rogue and dividing by 3 ... not fighter/3 + rogue/3.
Thus a 5AT/5EK has 10/3 = 3rd level caster NOT 5/3 + 5/3 = 2nd level caster.
A 5 paladin, 4 ranger is a 9/2 = 4th level caster. etc
No, you round down for each class individually before adding them.
Think about it this way: none of the partial-caster classes (except Artificer) get their Spellcasting feature at level 1. So if you had a Paladin 1/Ranger 1, adding the half-caster levels before rounding would give you the spell slots of a 1st-level caster, even though this character wouldn't have gained the Spellcasting feature yet from either class.
Also, with the Artificer, you round up the levels from that half-caster class; clearly you can't lump its levels together with other half-caster levels before rounding. This is meant to keep things consistent.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Nbx, Biggest problem with you 3/3/3 build is you are not a serious tank. You will only be able to wildshape into cr1. That is the same as a level 9 single class non monk druid. Your beast form will be too fragile for combat.
If neither class has the spellcasting feature then they don't have spell slots at all. In addition, the RAW which I quoted above can easily be read either way - so ask your DM how they want to run it.
"Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below."
The multiclass spellcasting rules do NOT apply if you don't have the spellcasting feature.
If a character was a 1 paladin/3 ranger - they'd be a 1st level spell caster since they don't have the spellcasting feature from paladin yet. On the other hand a 3 paladin/3 ranger would be a 3rd level spell caster by my application of the rules but only a 2nd level spell caster by your reading.
Finally, I interpret the RAW "by adding together all your levels" to mean literally that. You add together all your levels in full caster classes, all your levels in 1/2 caster classes and divide by 2 and all your levels in 1/3 caster classes and divide by 3 - then add it all together ... but I can easily see how someone could read it differently.
Again, the fact that not all partial-caster classes round down indicates that you need to deal with each class independently. Also, for what it's worth, making an Arcane Trickster 5 / Eldritch Knight 5 on DDB gets you 3 1st-level spell slots, the same as a level 2 full caster. In any case, D&D doesn't really reward multiclassing with partial-casters.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Depends on the multiclass.
One of the most powerful MCs is a paladin with a level or two of warlock
A wizard taking (or starting with) a level of Artificer is very powerful.
Regarding MCing two partial casters, could the fact that Artificer round up make a difference? An Artificer 3 / Eldritch Knight 3 is a 3rd level caster, 5he same as a half caster. Not thought through the details but giving the Artificer action Surge a fighting style and second wind as well as a few extra spells known sounds like a reasonable compromise for being behind on Artificer levels. I could also see an arcane trickster / armorer sneaking about in his plate mail infiltrator armor.
You can't just remove directions from their context.
If you say:
"Take two red sticks. Add them to two blue sticks (cut in half), and then three yellow sticks (cut in thirds) to get your full length of stick."
Supposed to do: x + y/2 + z/3
You cannot just connect a blue stick to a red stick and cut the whole thing in half.
You end up with half of the length, instead of 3/4ths the length.
What you're supposed to get: x + y/2 (say, 2 + 2/2 = 3)
What you're doing: (x + y)/2 (say, (2 + 2)/2 = 2)
Just because it's in parenthesis doesn't mean you apply it later, it does the opposite, it means it applies specifically to what it's directly behind and referencing in the directions.
Saying "Jill has brown hair, and so does Jack (except it's curly)." Doesn't mean you assume they both have curly hair. You assume ONLY Jack has curly hair.
That is what you're doing wrong with the wording here.
"Add your your levels in x, add them to half of y (rounded down), and a third of z (rounded down). Then you have your caster level"
You are ignoring that the directions explicitly affect only the parts, and instead trying to apply it to the whole.
If we were to turn this into an equation it should be:
x + floor(y/2) + floor(z/3)
where floor is rounding down.
Instead you are doing: floor(x+y/2+z/3)
That is not the same equation.
Looking at it on my D&D Beyond character sheet and they seem to round up.
I was just testing and I made a character that was a level one sorcerer and level 3 Artificer and it gave me two second level spell slots as if I was a third level caster but if it was rounded down Sorcerer = 1 Artificer 3/2 = 1.5 rounded down would be 1 therefore if you did round down then it would have treated me as a level two caster.
Except that artificers specifically round up instead of down like the other half casters. Specific rule for artificers takes precedence over the general rule for half casters.
Unfortunately, this text is only in the Tasha's artificer listing and not in the general class summary on D&D Beyond.
From Tasha's:
"MULTICLASSING AND THE ARTIFICER