Multiclass caster and spell levels

Quote from Paradox_Traveler >>

Quote from Farling >>

Quote from DxJxC >>

What is even happening? Why are we ignoring the multiclass rule?:

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 have no idea. That's what I was trying to point out in post #137.

to address both @DxJxC and @Farling : Not ignoring the Multiclass spell slots, the player in multiclassing still uses the spell slot table for the TOTAL player level. I am just addressing the point that chapter 10 of the rules directs you to the specific class description table you use as per the multiclass rules for known and prepared spells. [ Warlock is the only class without a table ]

 Yes, the spellcasting rules in ch10 do tell you how to generally find your spell slots. Not sure what that has to do with the multiclassing rules in ch6 saying to learn/prepare spells according to class, other than that both rules refer to the same chart.

(Also, warlock does have a table. Not sure what that is about either).

Basically, everything you said is confusing. What are you even arguing for and against?

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from barleyregal>>

"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class",

so you cannot refer to anything in the multiclass section of the book while preparing spells, as the multiclass rules do not apply to a single-class character, and you cannot refer to spell slots gained from classes other than Sorcerer as a single-class Sorcerer wouldn't have access to those spell slots either, therefore we must refer to the Sorcerer table only when determining what spell slots our multiclass sorcerer would have as that is what a single-class Sorcerer would do.

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 seperate section of the rules from the section telling you to single-class it up.

You're also right in the sense that that is what everyone actually does in reality, and they just ignore the RAW. Which is the general consensus of everyone.

"When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level", so when we level up from a wizard 4/sorcerer 5 to a wizard 4/sorcerer 6 we gain the features a 6th level sorcerer would gain, so we must refer to the 6th level entry of the Sorcerer table to determine what spell slots we have.

This here is just incorrect though. Because you're a multiclass caster you never refer to that table again for spell slots. Per the multiclass rules you throw your class "Spellcasting" rules out wherever superseded by the multiclass rules. So Spell Slots rules from your base classes are forever after ignored entirely. You don't have them anymore.

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.

The only exception to this would be if some other feature was to specifically reference the spell slot table for your single class... like the multiclass known/prepared rules tells us to do for our wizard Spells Known/Prepared section. That is the exact thing the Sorcerer Spells Known section fails to do.

Spell slots are spells slots. None of them belong to any particular class. They're just all your spell slots.

 

 Preparing/knowing spells as if you were single class means that, by RAW, when a multiclassed sorcerer levels up, they only use spell slots obtained from their sorcerer levels to learn new spells.

I would also say that ASI would be ignored if it came from the non-sorcerer class too by RAW

Not to be too much of a downer but was there really any need to resurrect a thread from almost 2 years ago when all you where going to do was re-state an answer that had already been given multiple times?

I'm going to give my own two cents in the debate: a multiclass sorcerer could, in all likelihood RAW learn any spell which it has a spell slot to cast, but that is only because both the multiclass rules are vague on what "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class" means and also what sorcerer means by "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots". RAI is very clear here thanks to the examples, but RAW is very murky.

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm gonna address a few points I saw throughout the thread:

"Multiclass spell slots are not single class spell slots": This one really annoys me because it's really easy to disprove. There is no mechanical distinction between the spell slots from multiclassing and spell slots from a single class: they're all spell slots. Your character's spell slots are your character's, they don't belong to any one class. The Sorcerer class states that you can learn any spell for which you have a spell slot of the same level: it is never specified that the spell slot has to be from the sorcerer class.

"Jeremy Crawford said otherwise!" Jeremy Crawford's word is not RAW, it's by definition RAI. 

"The examples state differently!" Once again examples are not RAW rules text, they're illustrations of RAI. 

------------------------------------------------------------

As a post word yeah, it's very clear how the rules are supposed to work, but the corner cases are such that they should really be rewritten for clarity's sake. And on another note: ...honestly? I think multiclass casters should be able to learn spells that match their actual spell slots rather than their "single-class spell slots". The current RAI leave mixed casters lagging far behind on important spells known compared to full single-class casters, which is a shame, and being able to pick higher levels of spells for a class you just multiclassed could add interesting character flavor. So, in large, consider this for a house rule, even if practically it's not how the game was originally designed.

RAW is clear enough on this and matches RAI. I do agree it could use some cleanup around multiclassing but the text is clear enough (it refers you directly to the class table only) and also provides an example if you are lost.

But I also think you are wrong about the idea that it is balanced that a single level of wizard is enough to get you complete access to the best spells. No. 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells should be a reward for sticking with a single class.

Love resurrections.  I'm sure most of the initial posters have blocked this discussion.

The multiclass / Sorcerer spell learning has been flogged to perfection - Yes the RAI is RAW in this case.  We speak in context, and a thing said in context is still RAW if it uses that context.  RAI should be based on RAW, but can change from RAW when RAW is misleading.  There is nothing "misleading" about how a sorcerer learns a new spell, or about how multiclassing might change that.  And an example is RAW if the example exists within the rule.  This is used in law all the time, regardless if you are a strict constructionist guy (RAW Then), or a living document type guy (RAI Now).  However an example can be used to illustrate the "happy path" and miss the edge cases, creating an RAI window.  But when the example illustrates a situation where a different interpretation is impossible, then the different RAI without using the example cannot follow.  The example limits the RAI.  Which is why an example adds to the RAW, happy path or not.  Someone (ravenous?) said that RAW should be like program code.  Well program code can easily use examples - it's called pattern matching.  And the specific implementation can be done through assertions.  In this case the example would translate to - A third level sorcerer's known spells matches the available slots for a sorcerer at that level.

The part that was not quite flogged to death were the dependence of number of prepared spells based on ASIs.  First, number of prepared spells is no longer affected by your stats post 2024.  Second, pre 2024, sorcerer's spells known were not affected by stats.  And third, ASI's are not reduced / restricted by the multiclass feature.  You are not creating a third level.. wizard (since sorcerers were not affected), and then leveling up.  All the stuff that exists in context with your character still exist.  It is just the rules for spells known/spells prepared that are class level specific.  Since stats don't affect spells known/spells prepared at all post 2024, this is irrelevant.  But for 2014, stats gained from other classes leveling up are 100% included in spells prepared.

"But spells slots are the same way!".  Yes, yes they are.  But "how you learn spells" is a written rule and is based on how a single class sorcerer's class level affects how spells are learned.  And in context, a sorcerers class level affects a sorcerer's slots at each spell level.  For for all other things, there is no change, and that includes your current stats.  So a wizard of old (2014) could prepare an extra spell based on higher ASIs granted by other classes.

At the end of the day the issue was the so called interpretation of "spell slots" to mean "current spell slots", and not "spell slots as would be determined by the sorcerers level for a single class sorcerer".  In context, the "spell slots" have to be interpreted as "sorcerer spells slots".  But this is RAW also in that the context implied it.  It was also RAW in that the examples showed it.

"But my definition of RAW is different than yours, and so I'm right".  No, concepts and context matter to the concept of RAW.  You cannot define your way into correctness, since correctness requires concepts.  An ambiguous statement means that the concept and context are different based on reading, and an interpretation (RAI) is needed to push one meaning over the other.  But when the concept and the context are unambiguous, and dropping context or changing concepts is the only path to your interpretation, you are not RAW, nor are you RAI.  RAI can not differ from RAW unless the RAW has changed in a different context (an updated meaning (concept, context) of a term).  RAI means there is nothing preventing you from interpreting it this way, or a different way, and you have to add in other elements such as intent, or a historical context (that is *not* the context the rule was written in) to the RAW.  In games where terms are redefined all the time as flavor or rules anchors, this happens all the time, granted.

That did not happen in this case (nor was it alleged by OP).