The question here is what does "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." really mean?
The game devs, DDB staff, and most of this forum take "single-classed member of that class" to mean that you ignore your other class levels all together. If you are a sorcerer 3/ whatever X then you prepare your sorcerer spells as if you were a third level sorcerer. That is all. A third level sorcerer is bound to choose 1st or 2nd level spells because it would not have any other slots (we have to pretend, remember). When we are choosing "as if we are a single-classed member of a class," that means we act as if our other class levels don't exist. It is in fact the class table that gives each class its slots (nothing else provides you with that information for single-classed casters), so when the sorcerer spellcasting feature asks you to choose spells for which you have slots, it is actually asking you to look at that table, indirectly.
You seem to invent a thing that isn't described. If you could choose spells based on your overall slots, rather than your individual class levels, then wouldn't the rules just say that instead? Wouldn't it be much easier to just say "you can select any spell to know or prepare from any class list for which you have levels and appropriate slots" rather than this convoluted method that asks you to go reread your class text but still nets you being able to do basically the same thing most of the time, and (as you've even admitted) doesn't even work the same for every class under your reading? This is so complicated that it sounds like a trick. The rules aren't trying to trick you.
The multiclass rules specifically state to prepare/learn spells as if you you were a single-classed member of that class.
Does a single-classed character have multiclass spell slots?
You are conflating the instruction to know/prepare with spell slots. Those are two separate rules sections.
The instruction to treat yourself as single classed is only for known/prepared spells, not for spell slots. You have the spell slots of a multiclass character, per the multiclass rules themselves. You only have the spell slots of a multiclass character. You do not have wizard or sorcerer spell slots. Those rules have been superceded and the only slots you have are your multiclass ones.
The reason why Wizard is different is because it tells you to specifically limit your new spell choices based on the spell slots of the wizard table itself. Not by just your spell slots.
Your interpretation of my line of reasoning is a little off the mark. But exploring it is a good way to get to some sort of understanding.
Agreed, so let me explain my line of reasoning. I'll capitalise the section where I think the key difference is; it isn't supposed to be patronising, I just think it's where the difference comes from.
You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class
"Okay, I just became a level 3 sorcerer so I'll go to the sorcerer class to determine what spells I can learn."
Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots
"Oh, I have level 3 spell slots, but the spell slots I have were granted to me by the multiclass rules. I'M STILL IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING/LEARNING SPELLS, SO I'M STILL UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF AS IF YOU WERE A SINGLE-CLASSED MEMBER OF THAT CLASS SO I NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT LEVEL OF SPELL SLOTS I WOULD HAVE AS A SINGLE-CLASS CHARACTER. A single-classed level 3 sorcerer would only have 2nd level spell slots, therefore I can only learn up to 2nd level sorcerer spells."
(I use class level, not character level, to determine what spell slots I would have because Class Features pg 164 says "When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level." Therefore I can't use my character level, because that would be getting features for a class level that is higher than the class level I just gained.)
While preparing/learning spells the rule "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." instantly switches me to "pretend I'm single class"-mode. There is no rule in the Spells Known and Prepared section which tells me to stop pretending I'm single-class, so until I have finished preparing/learning spells I keep on pretending to be single class. In fact it's precisely because the spell slot rules are a different section that I think they don't apply to the rules for preparing/learning spells.
And, just to reiterate... this is just the RAW that no one plays it as. Just use the RAI that everyone... everyone uses.
Of course I'm using the RAI, I simply disagree that RAW says sorcerer can learn higher level spells based on multiclass spell slots.
Which is fine when the example comes from outside of the rules in question, possibly even including SAC (I have no problem with people saying that SAC is RAI because it's outside the books. I have no problem with people saying that it's RAW because it is official rulings, though the "rulings" does make it more RAI). The example in the multiclass rules is actually in the rules and is literally RAW no matter how you interpret it or choose to ignore it. It's not flavor text like the introductions to the races and the classes. It was important enough that they chose to include the example to ensure that everyone knew what the RAI was in writing before releasing the book.
Oh is this the forum where we cross-post to unrelated threads with lies? Cool.
For the record, I've never argued sections aren't important. I only argue that you do what the rules explicitly tell you to do... that's RAW. RAI is more functional interpretation of the rules and what you almost exclusively stick to discussing. You just confuse it for RAW sometimes though. See:
I'm lying am I? In the other thread, you argue that you can cast a somatic only spell with a focus and with your other hand holding a weapon or something else. You state that you have to read the rules in their entirety to be able to get to the material components section to see that the hand that is either holding the focus or can hold the focus can perform somatic components of spells. (As an aside, even your signature quote, "A hand with a material component, including a spellcasting focus, can perform somatic components (PH, 203) ~ Jeremy Crawford" calls the spellcasting focus a material component.) Thus, the fact that the somatic component section says nothing about this is unimportant and therefore sections are unimportant. If anything, I was misconstruing this excerpt from your post #96, "The Multiclass rules have a section for spells known/prepared and another section for spell slots. Two different sections. If they were just one section, then what you said above here would be correct. But they're not one section. The rule that you know and prepare spells as a single class character doesn't have any effect on your multiclass spell slots. As the spell slots is a separate section of the rules from the section telling you to single-class it up" to entail that you thought that sections were important at all. I apologize for presenting that as the case if it is not true.
As for your insistence on ignoring the example, consider that the example isn't even in a different paragraph in the quotes that you are using (see post #84). By saying that the example doesn't matter, you are telling people to stop reading in the middle of a paragraph. This response from post #72, suggests that you shouldn't do that (emphasis added).
Well, some tell you that you choose spells based on the table, and others tell you to choose spells based on available spell slots.
So, there is, in fact, a very relevant difference between them. You're free to ignore anything in the books that you like to. Tends to not be considered RAW when you do, though.
RAW: Read it like code, like a machine, very technically and strictly. RAI: What are they trying to tell us here? What makes sense?
Examples, for example, fall into the RAI category. They tell us the intent.
So if someone is ignoring your "example" while discussing RAW, now you know why.
Ah, but if it is written in the rules, it is RAW. There is an example in this case, and it is the definition of RAW. An example in RAW, not only tells you exactly how a wizard ranger multiclass works, but how all multiclasses work because it is an example that shows you how the system must work and can be applied by extension, and it is RAW because it is written in the rulebook.
But your argument has another failing. The rules are written in idiomatic English and do not lend themselves to being interpreted as code. You can't point to a place that tells us that we have to hold a sword to make an attack with it. And as someone else already pointed out, if you mechanically read the sentences being discussed on this page, you'll find that it doesn't tell you what level single-classed caster you are when you choose your spells.
If you don't actually play the way that you are arguing the rules read (at minimum to you), why aren't you putting a disclaimer in saying, "This isn't how I actually play, but this is how the rules read" from the start? Just saying that it's RAW doesn't cut it in that case.
The reason that this is important is this is the rules forum. There are new players coming to this forum to learn how to play. They are developing their expectation of how the game is played based on how people present the material here and it's all RAI in here aside from direct quotes. The difference between RAI and RAW is not always going to be a nuance that they grasp (or even what RAI or RAW mean).
Some people try to play as close to RAW as possible and some take the implication that something is RAI to mean that it's incorrect.
If your goal is to enlighten the players seeking clarification because the RAW is often a mess on clarity, it's not bad to present the alternate meaning, particularly with a "not how I play but how I read it.
If your goal is to get a job with WotC or have them make errata, why are you discussing this on a third party website? Contact them directly.
If your goal is to have a debate about the topics without intent to inform about how you actually play, start a thread that states that is the purpose. That way the newer players can have an idea that you aren't trying to clarify the rules for them (not saying that the debates can't clarify, just that it's not the main goal).
Finally, I mentioned that I don't have a problem with SAC as being seen as not RAW and that it is closer to RAI because of the rulings aspect. Here is why I consider it RAW personally. I feel that SAC provides the same purpose with examples as errata provides for rules, the main difference being that the SAC are not included in new printings. The fact that the SAC isn't included in new printings doesn't bother me because of the extra cost potential that adding the new examples would add to the book, which in turn drives the cost to the player or diminishes the profit to WotC. That doesn't make SAC any less official, it has been declared official by WotC. That's what changes the SAC from RAI to RAW for me along with the fact that I consider examples within the PHB to be RAW as much as the rules.
That said, the character creation wizard will help anyone looking for clarification on how the multiclass rules work for spell selection and anyone can create a character that will demonstrate that for them (it might not be the character that you want to build, but that's a matter of paying DnDB the money for the right to build those characters).
Keep in mind that the Wizard class will allow you to add more spells than you could specifically from level up because of the ability to write spells into your spellbook, but it won't let you take spells of a higher level than you are able to cast.
Finally, to BarleyRegal, were you inferring in your post #95 that my post #90 was arguing against Ranger and Sorcerer being the same or was that reference to an earlier post? If it was my #90, I'm actually saying the opposite and that the fact that a Sorcerer is a Full caster and a Ranger is a Half caster wouldn't affect them since both would have 3rd level spell slots as 4th level character multiclassed with Wizard 3 (Sorcerer would also have a 4th).
The reason that this matters for the discussion is that both have the sentence, "Each of these Spells must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots" in their spellcasting section. That is the basis of the argument for a Sorcerer 4 multiclass with 3rd level spell slots having access to 3rd level spells. Ranger having that exact same language and being used in the PHB example to show that they could only cast first level ranger spells disproves that Sorcerers would get 3rd level spells in the same scenario (replacing either the Wizard or the Ranger). The example is actually in both the spells known and the spell slots sections, which doesn't give an out for Ravendous' argument that sections matter (which is disingenuous since Ravendous argues the opposite in https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/49286-spellcasting-focus-prevents-somatic-components)
Between your answer, this answer and many other answers, coupled with Stormknight's suggestion to try it out on the character builder (which supports the reading that Sorcerers are not exempt from that ruling), it's clear that the RAW does not support the exemption unless one only cherry picks the pieces that they like and ignores the rest.
I think I was referencing a post earlier than yours, but it's possible I may have misunderstood your post when I was reading through them to catch up. I agree that the ranger example clearly demonstrates how such wording should be handled as ranger and sorcerer share the same wording.
RAW: Read it like code, like a machine, very technically and strictly. RAI: What are they trying to tell us here? What makes sense?
Examples, for example, fall into the RAI category. They tell us the intent.
So if someone is ignoring your "example" while discussing RAW, now you know why.
Ah, but if it is written in the rules, it is RAW. There is an example in this case, and it is the definition of RAW. An example in RAW, not only tells you exactly how a wizard ranger multiclass works, but how all multiclasses work because it is an example that shows you how the system must work and can be applied by extension, and it is RAW because it is written in the rulebook.
But your argument has another failing. The rules are written in idiomatic English and do not lend themselves to being interpreted as code. You can't point to a place that tells us that we have to hold a sword to make an attack with it. And as someone else already pointed out, if you mechanically read the sentences being discussed on this page, you'll find that it doesn't tell you what level single-classed caster you are when you choose your spells.
Actually, under Class Features in the multiclass rules on pg 164 of the phb it states
When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level.
So it does tell you what level single-classed caster you are when you choose your spells. You are the level you just gained. Doesn't change your point, just reinforces that sorcerers can't gain spells higher than the level they would normally gain at their class level.
I'm not going to read too far into my example, since it was intentional misunderstanding. My point was simply that if you want to, you can make almost anything you want to do seem ok with the rules by selecting which sentences you use vs ignore and which sentences you read word for word ignoring their context and natural language constructions.
The question here is what does "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." really mean?
The game devs, DDB staff, and most of this forum take "single-classed member of that class" to mean that you ignore your other class levels all together. If you are a sorcerer 3/ whatever X then you prepare your sorcerer spells as if you were a third level sorcerer. That is all. A third level sorcerer is bound to choose 1st or 2nd level spells because it would not have any other slots (we have to pretend, remember). When we are choosing "as if we are a single-classed member of a class," that means we act as if our other class levels don't exist. It is in fact the class table that gives each class its slots (nothing else provides you with that information for single-classed casters), so when the sorcerer spellcasting feature asks you to choose spells for which you have slots, it is actually asking you to look at that table, indirectly.
You seem to invent a thing that isn't described. If you could choose spells based on your overall slots, rather than your individual class levels, then wouldn't the rules just say that instead? Wouldn't it be much easier to just say "you can select any spell to know or prepare from any class list for which you have levels and appropriate slots" rather than this convoluted method that asks you to go reread your class text but still nets you being able to do basically the same thing most of the time, and (as you've even admitted) doesn't even work the same for every class under your reading? This is so complicated that it sounds like a trick. The rules aren't trying to trick you.
Your spells slots are your spell slots. They don't change. Here is another example then, to drill this point home.
If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.
We can even use this very example. We just need to clarify and say intelligence started at 15, and is now 16 because of the Ability Score Improvement you got from Ranger 4.
Do you pretend your Int is 15 because you are a single class character or no?
No, it is 16. And you have spell slots. Unless a rule changes these things directly or specifically, they are hard fixed values already on your character sheet.
Both Ability Scores AND Spell Slots are separate rules sections from Spells Known/Prepared. They are not altered or changed by instructions to prepare spells as if a single class.
Not by RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Agree to disagree. I can equally argue that the spellcasting class feature is the rules section and that parts of it refer to other parts of it (as well as the class table) and neither of us will get anywhere. It is just that one reading has the example (RAW) on its side, DDB on its side, and most of the rest of this forum on its side.
I can equally argue that the spellcasting class feature is the rules section and that parts of it refer to other parts of it (as well as the class table) and neither of us will get anywhere.
I'd never suggest you can't argue something, but you'd be wrong if you did argue that. Each section makes itself known pretty well, there isn't much room to pretend sections don't exist.
It is just that one reading has the example (RAWRAI) on its side, DDB on its side, and most of the rest of this forum on its side.
There aren't really sides here. Pretty sure everyone agrees on how to run it in practice. I 100% agree with the DDB response here. If you wanna know how to run it, just make one here and it works great! I've not made this opinion secret so it really is weird that you're trying to say otherwise.
Just out of curiosity though. Is it 5 or is it 6? Spells prepared. In the example.
If they started with a 15 Int and it is only 16 because of the Ranger level-ups... do they prepare 5, or prepare 6, wizard spells.
And, then... why?
Preparing and Casting Spells
The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
For example, if you’re a 3rd-level wizard, you have four 1st-level and two 2nd-level spell slots. With an Intelligence of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination, chosen from your spellbook. If you prepare the 1st-level spell magic missile, you can cast it using a 1st-level or a 2nd-level slot. Casting the spell doesn’t remove it from your list of prepared spells.
You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.
This is the very same exact rules section we are specifically pretending we're a single class for, remember.
So, is it 5.... or 6. And, Why?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Which is fine when the example comes from outside of the rules in question, possibly even including SAC (I have no problem with people saying that SAC is RAI because it's outside the books. I have no problem with people saying that it's RAW because it is official rulings, though the "rulings" does make it more RAI). The example in the multiclass rules is actually in the rules and is literally RAW no matter how you interpret it or choose to ignore it. It's not flavor text like the introductions to the races and the classes. It was important enough that they chose to include the example to ensure that everyone knew what the RAI was in writing before releasing the book.
So, Examples help us understand Intent. They don't actually contain rule instructions. They don't provide requirements, or options, or... anything at all really. They merely provide a guide to understanding the rules already presented elsewhere. As such, the examples are to help us determine the RAI. An example is one instance of a thing in action, per the intent of the designers. It is "what they wanted it to look like in action". Intent.
You'll also note, that, examples don't restrict other possibilities from existing. They're generally not written in such a way. That isn't their purpose. Examples are illustrative, not instructive.
Trying to interpret an example as somehow a constricting or limiting element to the rulebook doesn't adhere to the purpose and function of what an example even is. That's not what it is for, and it doesn't make sense to try to use them in that way either. Examples are generally speaking a good thing to copy/imitate/reproduce, and is reasonable representative of the general concept it is intended to illustrate... however, and example doesn't exclude alternatives or deviations from itself, either. It can't. And, expecting an exhaustive list of examples for all possible combination of interaction just isn't a reasonable or practical expectation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The question here is what does "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." really mean?
The game devs, DDB staff, and most of this forum take "single-classed member of that class" to mean that you ignore your other class levels all together. If you are a sorcerer 3/ whatever X then you prepare your sorcerer spells as if you were a third level sorcerer. That is all. A third level sorcerer is bound to choose 1st or 2nd level spells because it would not have any other slots (we have to pretend, remember). When we are choosing "as if we are a single-classed member of a class," that means we act as if our other class levels don't exist. It is in fact the class table that gives each class its slots (nothing else provides you with that information for single-classed casters), so when the sorcerer spellcasting feature asks you to choose spells for which you have slots, it is actually asking you to look at that table, indirectly.
You seem to invent a thing that isn't described. If you could choose spells based on your overall slots, rather than your individual class levels, then wouldn't the rules just say that instead? Wouldn't it be much easier to just say "you can select any spell to know or prepare from any class list for which you have levels and appropriate slots" rather than this convoluted method that asks you to go reread your class text but still nets you being able to do basically the same thing most of the time, and (as you've even admitted) doesn't even work the same for every class under your reading? This is so complicated that it sounds like a trick. The rules aren't trying to trick you.
Your spells slots are your spell slots. They don't change. Here is another example then, to drill this point home.
If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.
We can even use this very example. We just need to clarify and say intelligence started at 15, and is now 16 because of the Ability Score Improvement you got from Ranger 4.
Doesn't change the fact that for the ranger levels in the example, which uses the exact same learning mechanic as the sorcerer, they only learnt 1st level spells, or did they just choose to only take 1st level spells instead of the 3rd level spells they could choose to know if the rules were written as you believe they were?
Do you pretend your Int is 15 because you are a single class character or no?
No, it is 16. And you have spell slots. Unless a rule changes these things directly or specifically, they are hard fixed values already on your character sheet.
You could write on your character sheet that you have 9th level spells at level 1, but that doesn't mean you've followed the rules correctly, and doesn't mean a level 1 sorcerer can learn 9th level spells. Your character sheet isn't gospel, and nothing in the phb says to refer to your character sheet to determine what levels of spell you have, but you are frequently told to refer to your class table, including for what levels you learn new sorcerer spells at. In the absence of an explicit rule saying to refer to your sorcerer table to see what level of spells you can learn, and given the presence of an explicit rule to ignore multiclass rules when learning spells, where would you guess to look? "Hoofprints!? Must be a bunch of unicorns! An empty road!? Something must have eaten all the cars in the world!!"
Both Ability Scores AND Spell Slots are separate rules sections from Spells Known/Prepared. They are not altered or changed by instructions to prepare spells as if a single class.
Not by RAW.
They absolutely 100% are ignored though. The multiclass rules are an addendum to the single-class rules for the pure and simple reason that each character starts at level 1 and a level 1 character is, inevitably, a single-classed character.
You take the base rule, and you stick a post-it note multiclass rule over it and say "There! Now I will use the multiclass rules because I am now multiclassed where I was not multiclassed before.". Then, when you learn spells, it tells you to ignore all the post-it note multiclass rules and use the single-class rules that were there before. All of them. It mentions no exceptions. It does not say "as if you were a single-classed member of that class except still calculate your spell slots as if you were multiclassed."
It is more true to say that, RAW, you would ignore the stat increases granted by other classes. An exception isn't made for them either. But that would mean RAW is even weaker than RAI, rather than the other way around, and that would serve you no purpose in arguing that "Actually, RAW says that I can learn whatever level of spells I want so I should be able to learn these spells which are stronger."
Or let me put it another way. You are correct. You do have higher level spell slots already. But remember you are a multiclassed character. You ignore everything you have already written on your character sheet because your character sheet shows a multiclassed character and you are learning spells as if you were single classed.
YOU 👏 LEARN 👏 SPELLS 👏 AS 👏 IF 👏 YOU 👏 WERE 👏 SINGLE 👏 CLASS
SINGLE 👏 CLASS 👏 CHARACTERS 👏 DON'T 👏 USE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES
YOU 👏 IGNORE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES 👏 WHEN 👏 LEARNING 👏 SPELLS
HIGHER 👏 LEVEL 👏 SPELL 👏 SLOTS 👏 COME 👏 FROM 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES
YOU 👏 IGNORE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES 👏 WHEN 👏 LEARNING 👏 SPELLS
The example is a rule by example. It is written in the rulebook. That makes it RAW.
The problem with your reading is that it doesn't ask you to only use the "Spells known of first level or higher" section when determining your spells, it says "a single-classed member of that class." Your reading would be reasonable if it asked for that particular section. Since it doesn't, you have to use all of your class spellcasting feature rules to determine what slots would be available to a single-classed member of your class to determine what spells you can or cannot prepare -- just like you would if you weren't multi-classed. It is asking you to pretend that you are not multi-classed -- to do that, you really need to do that and pretend that you're not multi-classed.
Nowhere do any of the rules tell you that your ASI's or ability scores are at all class dependent. You'll note that the wizard rules don't tell you to ignore your ASIs from other classes.
The question here is what does "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." really mean?
The game devs, DDB staff, and most of this forum take "single-classed member of that class" to mean that you ignore your other class levels all together. If you are a sorcerer 3/ whatever X then you prepare your sorcerer spells as if you were a third level sorcerer. That is all. A third level sorcerer is bound to choose 1st or 2nd level spells because it would not have any other slots (we have to pretend, remember). When we are choosing "as if we are a single-classed member of a class," that means we act as if our other class levels don't exist. It is in fact the class table that gives each class its slots (nothing else provides you with that information for single-classed casters), so when the sorcerer spellcasting feature asks you to choose spells for which you have slots, it is actually asking you to look at that table, indirectly.
You seem to invent a thing that isn't described. If you could choose spells based on your overall slots, rather than your individual class levels, then wouldn't the rules just say that instead? Wouldn't it be much easier to just say "you can select any spell to know or prepare from any class list for which you have levels and appropriate slots" rather than this convoluted method that asks you to go reread your class text but still nets you being able to do basically the same thing most of the time, and (as you've even admitted) doesn't even work the same for every class under your reading? This is so complicated that it sounds like a trick. The rules aren't trying to trick you.
Your spells slots are your spell slots. They don't change. Here is another example then, to drill this point home.
If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.
We can even use this very example. We just need to clarify and say intelligence started at 15, and is now 16 because of the Ability Score Improvement you got from Ranger 4.
Doesn't change the fact that for the ranger levels in the example, which uses the exact same learning mechanic as the sorcerer, they only learnt 1st level spells, or did they just choose to only take 1st level spells instead of the 3rd level spells they could choose to know if the rules were written as you believe they were?
Do you pretend your Int is 15 because you are a single class character or no?
No, it is 16. And you have spell slots. Unless a rule changes these things directly or specifically, they are hard fixed values already on your character sheet.
You could write on your character sheet that you have 9th level spells at level 1, but that doesn't mean you've followed the rules correctly, and doesn't mean a level 1 sorcerer can learn 9th level spells. Your character sheet isn't gospel, and nothing in the phb says to refer to your character sheet to determine what levels of spell you have, but you are frequently told to refer to your class table, including for what levels you learn new sorcerer spells at. In the absence of an explicit rule saying to refer to your sorcerer table to see what level of spells you can learn, and given the presence of an explicit rule to ignore multiclass rules when learning spells, where would you guess to look? "Hoofprints!? Must be a bunch of unicorns! An empty road!? Something must have eaten all the cars in the world!!"
Both Ability Scores AND Spell Slots are separate rules sections from Spells Known/Prepared. They are not altered or changed by instructions to prepare spells as if a single class.
Not by RAW.
They absolutely 100% are ignored though. The multiclass rules are an addendum to the single-class rules for the pure and simple reason that each character starts at level 1 and a level 1 character is, inevitably, a single-classed character.
You take the base rule, and you stick a post-it note multiclass rule over it and say "There! Now I will use the multiclass rules because I am now multiclassed where I was not multiclassed before.". Then, when you learn spells, it tells you to ignore all the post-it note multiclass rules and use the single-class rules that were there before. All of them. It mentions no exceptions. It does not say "as if you were a single-classed member of that class except still calculate your spell slots as if you were multiclassed."
It is more true to say that, RAW, you would ignore the stat increases granted by other classes. An exception isn't made for them either. But that would mean RAW is even weaker than RAI, rather than the other way around, and that would serve you no purpose in arguing that "Actually, RAW says that I can learn whatever level of spells I want so I should be able to learn these spells which are stronger."
Or let me put it another way. You are correct. You do have higher level spell slots already. But remember you are a multiclassed character. You ignore everything you have already written on your character sheet because your character sheet shows a multiclassed character and you are learning spells as if you were single classed.
YOU 👏 LEARN 👏 SPELLS 👏 AS 👏 IF 👏 YOU 👏 WERE 👏 SINGLE 👏 CLASS
SINGLE 👏 CLASS 👏 CHARACTERS 👏 DON'T 👏 USE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES
YOU 👏 IGNORE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES 👏 WHEN 👏 LEARNING 👏 SPELLS
HIGHER 👏 LEVEL 👏 SPELL 👏 SLOTS 👏 COME 👏 FROM 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES
YOU 👏 IGNORE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES 👏 WHEN 👏 LEARNING 👏 SPELLS
That was a really long way to say: 5
(6 is, however, the correct answer)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The example is a rule by example. It is written in the rulebook. That makes it RAW.
An example is not a rule by definition. This is basic vocabulary here.
Rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
Example: a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.
I'm not sure how to help you guys if basic definitions are tripping you up. Examples aren't rules, by their very definition. They can be illustrative of them... but they aren't them.
The problem with your reading is that it doesn't ask you to only use the "Spells known of first level or higher" section when determining your spells, it says "a single-classed member of that class." Your reading would be reasonable if it asked for that particular section. Since it doesn't, you have to use all of your class spellcasting feature rules to determine what slots would be available to a single-classed member of your class to determine what spells you can or cannot prepare -- just like you would if you weren't multi-classed. It is asking you to pretend that you are not multi-classed -- to do that, you really need to do that and pretend that you're not multi-classed.
Nowhere do any of the rules tell you that your ASI's or ability scores are at all class dependent. You'll note that the wizard rules don't tell you to ignore your ASIs from other classes.
I see you too would be a 5 but you forgot that ASIs are gained directly from classes... so you double errored into a correct final result lol. Two wrong do make a right, sometimes, after all.
If you're not ignoring the Ranger ASI, then you're not preparing your spells as if you were ONLY a wizard, now are you?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
An excellent point, brilliantly explained. Just explain to me how you refer to a multiclass rule while following a rule which specifically tells you to not use multiclass rules?
Please don't mischaracterize what I say to get a rise out of me. That is trolling behavior.
The rules aren't as clear as they could be, but that is why they provide the example. If you are unable to comprehend the rules, the example is there to help you.
An excellent point, brilliantly explained. Just explain to me how you refer to a multiclass rule while following a rule which specifically tells you to not use multiclass rules?
Ok here's my question. If you get a spell from one class let's say ranger ua swarmkeeper you get the mage hand cantrip. "When you cast it, the hand takes the form of swarming nature spirits."
Then you multiclass into arcane trickster and you get mage handa but with all the goodies. Would you be able to gain the same functions through arcane trickster but with your swarm?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The question here is what does "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." really mean?
The game devs, DDB staff, and most of this forum take "single-classed member of that class" to mean that you ignore your other class levels all together. If you are a sorcerer 3/ whatever X then you prepare your sorcerer spells as if you were a third level sorcerer. That is all. A third level sorcerer is bound to choose 1st or 2nd level spells because it would not have any other slots (we have to pretend, remember). When we are choosing "as if we are a single-classed member of a class," that means we act as if our other class levels don't exist. It is in fact the class table that gives each class its slots (nothing else provides you with that information for single-classed casters), so when the sorcerer spellcasting feature asks you to choose spells for which you have slots, it is actually asking you to look at that table, indirectly.
You seem to invent a thing that isn't described. If you could choose spells based on your overall slots, rather than your individual class levels, then wouldn't the rules just say that instead? Wouldn't it be much easier to just say "you can select any spell to know or prepare from any class list for which you have levels and appropriate slots" rather than this convoluted method that asks you to go reread your class text but still nets you being able to do basically the same thing most of the time, and (as you've even admitted) doesn't even work the same for every class under your reading? This is so complicated that it sounds like a trick. The rules aren't trying to trick you.
Agreed, so let me explain my line of reasoning. I'll capitalise the section where I think the key difference is; it isn't supposed to be patronising, I just think it's where the difference comes from.
You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class
"Okay, I just became a level 3 sorcerer so I'll go to the sorcerer class to determine what spells I can learn."
Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots
"Oh, I have level 3 spell slots, but the spell slots I have were granted to me by the multiclass rules. I'M STILL IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING/LEARNING SPELLS, SO I'M STILL UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF AS IF YOU WERE A SINGLE-CLASSED MEMBER OF THAT CLASS SO I NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT LEVEL OF SPELL SLOTS I WOULD HAVE AS A SINGLE-CLASS CHARACTER. A single-classed level 3 sorcerer would only have 2nd level spell slots, therefore I can only learn up to 2nd level sorcerer spells."
(I use class level, not character level, to determine what spell slots I would have because Class Features pg 164 says "When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level." Therefore I can't use my character level, because that would be getting features for a class level that is higher than the class level I just gained.)
While preparing/learning spells the rule "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." instantly switches me to "pretend I'm single class"-mode. There is no rule in the Spells Known and Prepared section which tells me to stop pretending I'm single-class, so until I have finished preparing/learning spells I keep on pretending to be single class. In fact it's precisely because the spell slot rules are a different section that I think they don't apply to the rules for preparing/learning spells.
Of course I'm using the RAI, I simply disagree that RAW says sorcerer can learn higher level spells based on multiclass spell slots.
Which is fine when the example comes from outside of the rules in question, possibly even including SAC (I have no problem with people saying that SAC is RAI because it's outside the books. I have no problem with people saying that it's RAW because it is official rulings, though the "rulings" does make it more RAI). The example in the multiclass rules is actually in the rules and is literally RAW no matter how you interpret it or choose to ignore it. It's not flavor text like the introductions to the races and the classes. It was important enough that they chose to include the example to ensure that everyone knew what the RAI was in writing before releasing the book.
Edit:
I'm lying am I? In the other thread, you argue that you can cast a somatic only spell with a focus and with your other hand holding a weapon or something else. You state that you have to read the rules in their entirety to be able to get to the material components section to see that the hand that is either holding the focus or can hold the focus can perform somatic components of spells. (As an aside, even your signature quote, "A hand with a material component, including a spellcasting focus, can perform somatic components (PH, 203) ~ Jeremy Crawford" calls the spellcasting focus a material component.) Thus, the fact that the somatic component section says nothing about this is unimportant and therefore sections are unimportant. If anything, I was misconstruing this excerpt from your post #96, "The Multiclass rules have a section for spells known/prepared and another section for spell slots. Two different sections. If they were just one section, then what you said above here would be correct. But they're not one section. The rule that you know and prepare spells as a single class character doesn't have any effect on your multiclass spell slots. As the spell slots is a separate section of the rules from the section telling you to single-class it up" to entail that you thought that sections were important at all. I apologize for presenting that as the case if it is not true.
As for your insistence on ignoring the example, consider that the example isn't even in a different paragraph in the quotes that you are using (see post #84). By saying that the example doesn't matter, you are telling people to stop reading in the middle of a paragraph. This response from post #72, suggests that you shouldn't do that (emphasis added).
Ah, but if it is written in the rules, it is RAW. There is an example in this case, and it is the definition of RAW. An example in RAW, not only tells you exactly how a wizard ranger multiclass works, but how all multiclasses work because it is an example that shows you how the system must work and can be applied by extension, and it is RAW because it is written in the rulebook.
But your argument has another failing. The rules are written in idiomatic English and do not lend themselves to being interpreted as code. You can't point to a place that tells us that we have to hold a sword to make an attack with it. And as someone else already pointed out, if you mechanically read the sentences being discussed on this page, you'll find that it doesn't tell you what level single-classed caster you are when you choose your spells.
Final post before I disengage from this thread.
If you don't actually play the way that you are arguing the rules read (at minimum to you), why aren't you putting a disclaimer in saying, "This isn't how I actually play, but this is how the rules read" from the start? Just saying that it's RAW doesn't cut it in that case.
The reason that this is important is this is the rules forum. There are new players coming to this forum to learn how to play. They are developing their expectation of how the game is played based on how people present the material here and it's all RAI in here aside from direct quotes. The difference between RAI and RAW is not always going to be a nuance that they grasp (or even what RAI or RAW mean).
Some people try to play as close to RAW as possible and some take the implication that something is RAI to mean that it's incorrect.
If your goal is to enlighten the players seeking clarification because the RAW is often a mess on clarity, it's not bad to present the alternate meaning, particularly with a "not how I play but how I read it.
If your goal is to get a job with WotC or have them make errata, why are you discussing this on a third party website? Contact them directly.
If your goal is to have a debate about the topics without intent to inform about how you actually play, start a thread that states that is the purpose. That way the newer players can have an idea that you aren't trying to clarify the rules for them (not saying that the debates can't clarify, just that it's not the main goal).
Finally, I mentioned that I don't have a problem with SAC as being seen as not RAW and that it is closer to RAI because of the rulings aspect. Here is why I consider it RAW personally. I feel that SAC provides the same purpose with examples as errata provides for rules, the main difference being that the SAC are not included in new printings. The fact that the SAC isn't included in new printings doesn't bother me because of the extra cost potential that adding the new examples would add to the book, which in turn drives the cost to the player or diminishes the profit to WotC. That doesn't make SAC any less official, it has been declared official by WotC. That's what changes the SAC from RAI to RAW for me along with the fact that I consider examples within the PHB to be RAW as much as the rules.
That said, the character creation wizard will help anyone looking for clarification on how the multiclass rules work for spell selection and anyone can create a character that will demonstrate that for them (it might not be the character that you want to build, but that's a matter of paying DnDB the money for the right to build those characters).
Keep in mind that the Wizard class will allow you to add more spells than you could specifically from level up because of the ability to write spells into your spellbook, but it won't let you take spells of a higher level than you are able to cast.
I think I was referencing a post earlier than yours, but it's possible I may have misunderstood your post when I was reading through them to catch up. I agree that the ranger example clearly demonstrates how such wording should be handled as ranger and sorcerer share the same wording.
Actually, under Class Features in the multiclass rules on pg 164 of the phb it states
So it does tell you what level single-classed caster you are when you choose your spells. You are the level you just gained. Doesn't change your point, just reinforces that sorcerers can't gain spells higher than the level they would normally gain at their class level.
I'm not going to read too far into my example, since it was intentional misunderstanding. My point was simply that if you want to, you can make almost anything you want to do seem ok with the rules by selecting which sentences you use vs ignore and which sentences you read word for word ignoring their context and natural language constructions.
Your spells slots are your spell slots. They don't change. Here is another example then, to drill this point home.
We can even use this very example. We just need to clarify and say intelligence started at 15, and is now 16 because of the Ability Score Improvement you got from Ranger 4.
Do you pretend your Int is 15 because you are a single class character or no?
No, it is 16. And you have spell slots. Unless a rule changes these things directly or specifically, they are hard fixed values already on your character sheet.
Both Ability Scores AND Spell Slots are separate rules sections from Spells Known/Prepared. They are not altered or changed by instructions to prepare spells as if a single class.
Not by RAW.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Agree to disagree. I can equally argue that the spellcasting class feature is the rules section and that parts of it refer to other parts of it (as well as the class table) and neither of us will get anywhere. It is just that one reading has the example (RAW) on its side, DDB on its side, and most of the rest of this forum on its side.
I'd never suggest you can't argue something, but you'd be wrong if you did argue that. Each section makes itself known pretty well, there isn't much room to pretend sections don't exist.
There aren't really sides here. Pretty sure everyone agrees on how to run it in practice. I 100% agree with the DDB response here. If you wanna know how to run it, just make one here and it works great! I've not made this opinion secret so it really is weird that you're trying to say otherwise.
Just out of curiosity though. Is it 5 or is it 6? Spells prepared. In the example.
If they started with a 15 Int and it is only 16 because of the Ranger level-ups... do they prepare 5, or prepare 6, wizard spells.
And, then... why?
This is the very same exact rules section we are specifically pretending we're a single class for, remember.
So, is it 5.... or 6. And, Why?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So, Examples help us understand Intent. They don't actually contain rule instructions. They don't provide requirements, or options, or... anything at all really. They merely provide a guide to understanding the rules already presented elsewhere. As such, the examples are to help us determine the RAI. An example is one instance of a thing in action, per the intent of the designers. It is "what they wanted it to look like in action". Intent.
You'll also note, that, examples don't restrict other possibilities from existing. They're generally not written in such a way. That isn't their purpose. Examples are illustrative, not instructive.
Trying to interpret an example as somehow a constricting or limiting element to the rulebook doesn't adhere to the purpose and function of what an example even is. That's not what it is for, and it doesn't make sense to try to use them in that way either. Examples are generally speaking a good thing to copy/imitate/reproduce, and is reasonable representative of the general concept it is intended to illustrate... however, and example doesn't exclude alternatives or deviations from itself, either. It can't. And, expecting an exhaustive list of examples for all possible combination of interaction just isn't a reasonable or practical expectation.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Doesn't change the fact that for the ranger levels in the example, which uses the exact same learning mechanic as the sorcerer, they only learnt 1st level spells, or did they just choose to only take 1st level spells instead of the 3rd level spells they could choose to know if the rules were written as you believe they were?
You could write on your character sheet that you have 9th level spells at level 1, but that doesn't mean you've followed the rules correctly, and doesn't mean a level 1 sorcerer can learn 9th level spells. Your character sheet isn't gospel, and nothing in the phb says to refer to your character sheet to determine what levels of spell you have, but you are frequently told to refer to your class table, including for what levels you learn new sorcerer spells at. In the absence of an explicit rule saying to refer to your sorcerer table to see what level of spells you can learn, and given the presence of an explicit rule to ignore multiclass rules when learning spells, where would you guess to look? "Hoofprints!? Must be a bunch of unicorns! An empty road!? Something must have eaten all the cars in the world!!"
They absolutely 100% are ignored though. The multiclass rules are an addendum to the single-class rules for the pure and simple reason that each character starts at level 1 and a level 1 character is, inevitably, a single-classed character.
You take the base rule, and you stick a post-it note multiclass rule over it and say "There! Now I will use the multiclass rules because I am now multiclassed where I was not multiclassed before.". Then, when you learn spells, it tells you to ignore all the post-it note multiclass rules and use the single-class rules that were there before. All of them. It mentions no exceptions. It does not say "as if you were a single-classed member of that class except still calculate your spell slots as if you were multiclassed."
It is more true to say that, RAW, you would ignore the stat increases granted by other classes. An exception isn't made for them either. But that would mean RAW is even weaker than RAI, rather than the other way around, and that would serve you no purpose in arguing that "Actually, RAW says that I can learn whatever level of spells I want so I should be able to learn these spells which are stronger."
Or let me put it another way. You are correct. You do have higher level spell slots already. But remember you are a multiclassed character. You ignore everything you have already written on your character sheet because your character sheet shows a multiclassed character and you are learning spells as if you were single classed.
YOU 👏 LEARN 👏 SPELLS 👏 AS 👏 IF 👏 YOU 👏 WERE 👏 SINGLE 👏 CLASS
SINGLE 👏 CLASS 👏 CHARACTERS 👏 DON'T 👏 USE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES
YOU 👏 IGNORE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES 👏 WHEN 👏 LEARNING 👏 SPELLS
HIGHER 👏 LEVEL 👏 SPELL 👏 SLOTS 👏 COME 👏 FROM 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES
YOU 👏 IGNORE 👏 MULTICLASS 👏 RULES 👏 WHEN 👏 LEARNING 👏 SPELLS
The example is a rule by example. It is written in the rulebook. That makes it RAW.
The problem with your reading is that it doesn't ask you to only use the "Spells known of first level or higher" section when determining your spells, it says "a single-classed member of that class." Your reading would be reasonable if it asked for that particular section. Since it doesn't, you have to use all of your class spellcasting feature rules to determine what slots would be available to a single-classed member of your class to determine what spells you can or cannot prepare -- just like you would if you weren't multi-classed. It is asking you to pretend that you are not multi-classed -- to do that, you really need to do that and pretend that you're not multi-classed.
Nowhere do any of the rules tell you that your ASI's or ability scores are at all class dependent. You'll note that the wizard rules don't tell you to ignore your ASIs from other classes.
That was a really long way to say: 5
(6 is, however, the correct answer)
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
An example is not a rule by definition. This is basic vocabulary here.
Rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
Example: a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.
I'm not sure how to help you guys if basic definitions are tripping you up. Examples aren't rules, by their very definition. They can be illustrative of them... but they aren't them.
I see you too would be a 5 but you forgot that ASIs are gained directly from classes... so you double errored into a correct final result lol. Two wrong do make a right, sometimes, after all.
If you're not ignoring the Ranger ASI, then you're not preparing your spells as if you were ONLY a wizard, now are you?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
An excellent point, brilliantly explained. Just explain to me how you refer to a multiclass rule while following a rule which specifically tells you to not use multiclass rules?
Please don't mischaracterize what I say to get a rise out of me. That is trolling behavior.
The rules aren't as clear as they could be, but that is why they provide the example. If you are unable to comprehend the rules, the example is there to help you.
No explanation? What a shock.
Ok here's my question. If you get a spell from one class let's say ranger ua swarmkeeper you get the mage hand cantrip. "When you cast it, the hand takes the form of swarming nature spirits."
Then you multiclass into arcane trickster and you get mage handa but with all the goodies. Would you be able to gain the same functions through arcane trickster but with your swarm?