Rules are clear: You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.
I feel like you didn't even read anything in this thread. That was a solid page 1 response. In the multiclass rules, which you absolutely use, it says to not use single class rules for spell slots any longer. Spell slots have been entirely and completely superseded by your multiclass rules. Spells Known, and Spell Slots, are two different but related rules. Just because you know and prepare spells like a single classed character would not necessarily mean your other rules, ie spell slot rules, also follow that same instruction. Sure sure, we've long established that is the Rules As Intended. But this was always about the Rules As Written. The actual words on the pages.
You know what's actually kind of funny about the interpretation a lot of you guys make with that bolded bit of yours? Technically, it means archetypes like the arcane trickster or eldritch knight can't use their archetype's spells anymore if they multiclass... because by default their "class" doesn't even have spells. So if you prepare spells as a single-classed member of fighter, for example... well, that none spells.
Ask your DM if you want that fireball so badly, but RAW is not contradicting or has a loophole.
Yeah now I'm quite sure you didn't read the thread if this is your response. I don't need to ask anyone for anything, nor do "I want that fireball so badly". By RAW it works the way I've pointed out, but no one uses RAW in this case, nor should they, and it has been clarified so the RAI is perfectly clear.
I feel like saying "a rogue doesn't get spell slots" is being intentionally obtuse and explains why you don't understand the spell casting rules: you don't want to.
You know what's actually kind of funny about the interpretation a lot of you guys make with that bolded bit of yours? Technically, it means archetypes like the arcane trickster or eldritch knight can't use their archetype's spells anymore if they multiclass... because by default their "class" doesn't even have spells. So if you prepare spells as a single-classed member of fighter, for example... well, that none spells.
It is more sad than funny, actually. The EK and AT would behave exactly as intended when multiclassed. Classes get subclass features. EK and AT get the spellcasting feature, so their class (fighter and rogue) get the spellcasting feature if you chose that subclass. This argument is like saying a champion fighter only crits on 20 because improved critical is not a fighter feature. Moreover it doesn't have anything to do with whether a single classed level 4 sorcerer has level 3 spell slots.
Honestly, everyone should just stop commenting. The side that says single classed character don't get multiclassed spell slots aren't going to change their minds (short of an errata or new rule that allows otherwise), and the side that thinks multiclassed characters determine what spells they know and can prepare based on combined spellcaster levels are not going to be convinced by repeating the rule that specifically says differently (or by repeating the example in the rules that specifically does not match their argument, or by pointing out that there is an entire paragraph in the multiclass spell slot rules that never applies if their argument is correct).
"Everyone should stop commenting, because my side is right and yours is wrong" is not exactly the olive branch you think it is. Yes, the multiclass rules very clearly and definitively say look at your single-class spellcasting feature. Nobody is disputing that. What those disagree with you are saying is... the single-class spellcasting features may still tell you to look at your actual spell slots? Personally I think that this is different for known-casters and prepared-casters.
Thought experiment: let's say there's a new UA race, "Wizardborn," which will never make it into an official publication due to its unbalanced and problematic racial feature: Wizardborn characters all start with a second level spell slot.
A Wizardborn Sorcerer 1 starts with two 1st-level spells, regardless of their 2nd level spell slot, because their Spellcasting feature says so. But when they level up to Sorcerer 2... what happens?
The Spells Known column of the Sorcerer table shows when you learn more sorcerer spells of your choice. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For instance, when you reach 3rd level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level.
How would you actually arbitrate that in this situation?
Related question.... a Wizardborn Cleric 1. What spells can they prepare?
The Cleric table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your cleric 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 cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. When you do so, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
You know what a single-classed member of a class absolutely doesn't have? Other class levels. That is the one thing we can definitively say. What does that mean? When we're deciding what spells we can cast as a particular class, our other class levels don't count for anything. If you are a cleric 1, your wizard level could be 19 (or 72 for all it matters to your cleric level), it doesn't do a thing for your cleric spell selection, because you have to consider yourself as a cleric 1 that gets 1st level spell slots and can prepare 1 + wis mod spells.
as someone else pointed out, spell SLOTS are arguably a different feature than spells KNOWN/PREPARED (they’re bolded subheadings of spellcasting). The multiclassing rules don’t tell you to treat each of your spellcasting features as a single class character, but rather “ Spells Known and Prepared. You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. “
You’re arguing for a more expansive “ignore EVERYTHING from other classes”. Why stop at spell slots... your wisdom modifier might be influenced by those wizard levels... disregard asi’s earned from other class levels too?
Are you avoiding the “wizardborn” dilemma, or you don’t agree it’s relevant? What happens to “single class” casters who happen to have more spell slots than their class table provides, due to racial features, Magic items or effects, plot effects, multiclassing, etc?
Yes, the multiclass rules very clearly and definitively say look at your single-class spellcasting feature. Nobody is disputing that.
I dispute that. That isn't what the rules say. They say:
You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.
You reworded it so it didn't say "you are single-classed." Which has been the entire argument: that single classed characters don't have multiclass spell slots. Rewording a rule to make it comply with your argument is disingenuous. It is the practice of lies, conspiracy theorists, deniers, and con artists not honest debaters.
As for your hypothetical which has nothing to do with milticlassing, if such a thing existed, it would include wording like "this spell slot should not be considered when learning or preparing spells," or "when learning and preparing spells, do so as if you didn't have this feature," to keep it consistent with the rest of the rules. If it didn't, then it would be (100% unbalanced and) different to the current discussion.
as someone else pointed out, spell SLOTS are arguably a different feature than spells KNOWN/PREPARED (they’re bolded subheadings of spellcasting). The multiclassing rules don’t tell you to treat each of your spellcasting features as a single class character, but rather “ Spells Known and Prepared. You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. “
You’re arguing for a more expansive “ignore EVERYTHING from other classes”. Why stop at spell slots... your wisdom modifier might be influenced by those wizard levels... disregard asi’s earned from other class levels too?
This is just argument for argument's sake. I made it clear that I was discussing how a cleric 1 chooses his cleric preparations (and didn't imply anything else). You're ignoring the argument because you don't like the conclusion. You obviously won't think about the words on the page or what they mean, so who cares. Your wiz 1, cleric 1, bard 1, druid 1, sorcerer 16 can cast every spell it wants with charisma in your games, for all I care. When you want to learn how the rules work, re read the arguments that DxJxC and other people who understand them have made. Or hell, read the example in the rulebooks. They make it plain as day.
Are you avoiding the “wizardborn” dilemma, or you don’t agree it’s relevant? What happens to “single class” casters who happen to have more spell slots than their class table provides, due to racial features, Magic items or effects, plot effects, multiclassing, etc?
Yes. It is irrelevant because it is clearly not thought out.
There is no such thing as "multiclass spell slots," "sorcerer spell slots," or anything else. There is only "spell slots," in the same way that there are only "hit points" even though they may come from different classes. I will concede that the Spellcasting feature of the various classes does include this language:
Spell Slots
The [class] table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your [class] spells of 1st level and higher...
If one didn't know better, one could be excused for reading that and saying "even if you have more spell slots for another reason, you can only ever use the number/level of spell slots provided on the sorcerer table to cast your sorcerer spells. Those are your 'sorcerer spell slots.' " But... we know that isn't true. Whether or not you can use other spell slots to know/prepare spells, I think we're all in agreement that you can certainly use them to cast any spells you know or have prepared, right?
Outside of that sentence, nothing else in the classes' various Spellcasting features or in the Multiclass rules attempt to describe spell slots as being divided among [Class X]/[Class Y] spell slots. The only sort of spell slots provided anywhere in the text(s) are "your spell slots."
Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lower-level spell that you cast, like burning hands, has an enhanced effect when cast using a higher-level slot, you can use the enhanced effect, even though you don't have any spells of that higher level.
For example, if you are the aforementioned ranger 4/wizard 3, you count as a 5th-level character when determining your spell slots: you have four 1st-level slots, three 2nd-level slots, and two 3rd-level slots. However, you don't know any 3rd-level spells, nor do you know any 2nd-level ranger spells. You can use the spell slots of those levels to cast the spells you do know — and potentially enhance their effects.
The multiclass rules for "Spells Known and Prepared" doesn't talk about Spell Slots, it just asks you to read your individual spellcasting classes to follow that class' language about knowing/preparing spells. Further down though, the "Spell Slots" section (quoted directly above) does refer back to talking about what spells you know/prepare.
Spells Known and Prepared. You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. 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.
For "known casters", you'll find that in a heading titled "Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher". It will probably read:
Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher
The Spells Known column of the [class] table shows when you learn more [class] spells of your choice. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For instance, when you reach 3rd level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level.
I am of the camp that this "table shows when you learn more [class] spells of your choice" is sufficient to require you to only learn spells of the level shown on the table, regardless of what your spell slots look like. But some other folks in this thread have read that in conjunction with the second sentence to say that the first sentence just controls when you learn spells, and which spells you can learn is derived from total spell slots. I can see their point, though I'm not sure I share that opinion.
For "preparation casters," you will find that in a heading titled "Preparing and Casting Spells." Wizard is worded a little differently than cleric, druid, or artificer, but is similar enough that there's no reason not to lump them together:
Preparing and Casting Spells
The Cleric table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your cleric 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 cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. When you do so, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
For example, if you are a 3rd-level cleric, you have four 1st-level and two 2nd-level spell slots. With a Wisdom of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination. If you prepare the 1st-level spell cure wounds, you can cast it using a 1st-level or 2nd-level slot. Casting the spell doesn’t remove it from your list of prepared spells.
The entire cleric spell list is the cleric spell list. You don't "know" the spells of the appropriate level, the entire spell list is always what it is. And you explicitly prepare spells not as shown on the class table, but rather based on what spell slots you have. I think there's a great argument that RAW, this lets you prepare higher level spells when multiclassed, notwithstanding the clear intention that you do not.
The strongest arguments in favor of your side that I see are:
1. The "for example" and "for instance" sentences in the class spellcasting features show examples of single-classed characters following their table, not checking their actual spell slots.
2. The "for example" sentence in the multiclassing "spells known and prepared" rules incontrovertably shows a multiclass ranger 4/wizard 3 learning spells according to the spell slots a ranger 4 or wizard 3 would have, not attempting to learn spells based on the slots an effective-level-5 multiclass spellcaster would have.
3. The "for example" sentence in the multiclassing "spell slots" rules incontrovertablly says that the ranger 4/wizard 3 "doesn't know" any third level spells, or even second level ranger spells.
4. The sentence in the multiclassing "spell slots" rules that reads "this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells" may operate as a specific exception which supersedes the language found within the individual class' spellcasting features which would provide otherwise.
I'm more comfortable hand waiving away points 1-3 than I am with overlooking 4; it seems to me that 1-3 are directly in conflict with the rules text, since they contradict the individual class' spellcasting features, but isn't worded in a way that sounds like its providing rule text but rather like it's attempting to rephrase something that should be already evident. But point 4 is different, insofar as it is laying down a more-specific rule which can trump the ordinary operation of spells known/prepared. I'm still troubled by it since it begs its own question: it provides what you do if you have spell slots higher than any known spell, but doesn't exactly go so far as to say that you must have spell slots higher than any known spell, and the single class spellcasting features already provide that you can learn/prepare the spells for which you have leveled slots.
Long story short... I agree with you guys 100% that the rules are INTENDED to limit multiclass spellcasters to their individual class tables. I just don't really agree that the rule has been written with tight enough language to actually accomplish that. It's really only the "for example" sentences in the multiclass rules that directly prohibit learning spells based on your total spell slots, and since they're providing an "example" of a rule which isn't actually written elsewhere, they're of dubious merit.
Are you avoiding the “wizardborn” dilemma, or you don’t agree it’s relevant? What happens to “single class” casters who happen to have more spell slots than their class table provides, due to racial features, Magic items or effects, plot effects, multiclassing, etc?
Yes. It is irrelevant because it is clearly not thought out.
That feels like a cop out answer. It's not a trick question, if there were a race, or a feat, or a campaign plot effect, or a magic item which provided a single-classed spellcaster with a higher level spell slot than the slots their table ordinarily provides, and if that feature didn't provide its own limiting text about what that slot could be used for... how would you reconcile that with a RAW reading of the "Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher" (known casters) or "Preparing and Casting Spells" (preparation casters) entries within those classes, if the entire multiclass chapter wasn't in question?
"Everyone should stop commenting, because my side is right and yours is wrong" is not exactly the olive branch you think it is. Yes, the multiclass rules very clearly and definitively say look at your single-class spellcasting feature. Nobody is disputing that. What those disagree with you are saying is... the single-class spellcasting features may still tell you to look at your actual spell slots? Personally I think that this is different for known-casters and prepared-casters.
Thought experiment: let's say there's a new UA race, "Wizardborn," which will never make it into an official publication due to its unbalanced and problematic racial feature: Wizardborn characters all start with a second level spell slot.
A Wizardborn Sorcerer 1 starts with two 1st-level spells, regardless of their 2nd level spell slot, because their Spellcasting feature says so. But when they level up to Sorcerer 2... what happens?
The Spells Known column of the Sorcerer table shows when you learn more sorcerer spells of your choice. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For instance, when you reach 3rd level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level.
How would you actually arbitrate that in this situation?
Related question.... a Wizardborn Cleric 1. What spells can they prepare?
The Cleric table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your cleric 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 cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. When you do so, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Would it be better if they phrased it, "Let's agree to disagree"?
With your theoretical Wizardborn race, my ruling would be that they couldn't choose a second level spell until they would be able to if they were any other race. They could upcast their first level spells, but they couldn't choose a second level one. If the Wizardborn ability specifically gave the ability for classes to know or prepare a second level spell because of the slot, then I would change the ruling. This remains consistent with my ruling for multiclass spell slots.
I'll edit this to get the relevant quotes later, but the reason that I'm on board with not considering multiclass slots available when choosing for each class is because of the example that is given (which is RAW as it's included in the PHB). I know that the example gets hand waved particularly when Sorcerer gets brought up because of the slots available clause. However, that clause is present in Ranger and Wizard, IIRC.
I'll edit this to get the relevant quotes later, but the reason that I'm on board with not considering multiclass slots available when choosing for each class is because of the example that is given (which is RAW as it's included in the PHB). I know that the example gets hand waved particularly when Sorcerer gets brought up because of the slots available clause. However, that clause is present in Ranger and Wizard, IIRC.
Reminder that the Sorcerer spellcasting feature text is word-for-word identical to the a Ranger spellcasting text, so this cannot be waved away that easily.
Wizards are a little different from Clerics/Druids/Artificers because they have a spellbook. Warlocks are a lot different from other spellcasters because they use an entirely different sort of short-rest spellcasting slot. But other than that... is there any difference between the wording for the rest of the known-casters (sorcerer, bard, ranger, paladin, EK Fighter, ET Rogue)?
Wizards are a little different from Clerics/Druids/Artificers because they have a spellbook. Warlocks are a lot different from other spellcasters because they use an entirely different sort of short-rest spellcasting slot. But other than that... is there any difference between the wording for the rest of the known-casters (sorcerer, bard, ranger, paladin, EK Fighter, ET Rogue)?
Ah, this made me actually look these up. Wizards are only different from other prepared casters in that it says the source of your choices is your spellbook, rather than the class list, but still says you must select spells of levels for which you have slots. The Warlock's pact magic uses different wording because all of your pact magic slots are the same level:
The Spells Known column of the Warlock table shows when you learn more warlock spells of your choice of 1st level and higher. A spell you choose must be of a level no higher than what’s shown in the table’s Slot Level column for your level. When you reach 6th level, for example, you learn a new warlock spell, which can be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level.
This rule's sentence describing where to look to determine the slot's level says it comes from the warlock table. The others just tell you to look at the table in one sentence, then to select spells of which you have slots in a separate sentence. I see why the rules are written differently; they obviously have to be, but they are intended to convey the same information. In both cases, the table tells you what spell levels you can prepare indirectly by telling you the level of slots that you would have at a single-classed level of that class, and the authors expect that you will look at the table referred to at the beginning of the section to determine what slots you have available (without saying it again in that sentence). Apparently they should have repeated themselves.
Oh, and even if an example isn't a rule, an example in the rulebook tells you exactly how the rule is supposed to work. It says "if you didn't interpret that last bit the way we wanted you to, here is what we mean." You have the rules text and the clarification all together, there really isn't anything else to interpret. You might argue "it isn't rules text." Ok it is a built in official clarification that tells you how the rules text aught to work. Or really, if it is text that tells you how the game works, then how is it different from a rule anyway?
If you come to a different result than the example, your first thought shouldn't be "ah, it works differently than the designers think;" it should probably be "how did I misinterpret the rules?"
I agree that they're probably intended to convey the same information, although I think that the difference between warlock and the others is a telling example of how the other Spellcasting entries need to be worded to actually accomplish that intent. If they all had been written with the specificity and attention to detail of the Warlock, we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be airtight!
For known-casters, errata should be issued to write it as:
Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher
"The Spells Known column of the [class] table shows when you learn more [class] spells of your choice. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots as shown in the [class] table's Spell Slots Per Spell Level columns. For instance, when you reach 3rd level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level."
Or for prepared-casters:
Preparing and Casting Spells
The [class] table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your [class] 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 [class] spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the [class spell list/spells from your spellbook]. When you do so, choose a number of [class] spells equal to your [spellcasting stat] modifier + your [class] level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots as shown in the [class] table's Spell Slots Per Spell Level columns.
I actually had to check what you were referring to. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were one of those kinds of people, just pointing out the fact that those were the kind of people who twist quotes to change meanings in a hope that you would be more conscious of it (to be better than those people).
There is no such thing as "multiclass spell slots," "sorcerer spell slots," or anything else. There is only "spell slots," in the same way that there are only "hit points" even though they may come from different classes.
Sorry. How about if instead of saying "single classed characters don't have multiclass spell slots," I used the correct terminology "single classed characters does not determine spell slots by consulting the multiclass spellcaster table." Much wordier and means essentially the same thing, but semantically 100% RAW.
-cut-
Whether or not you can use other spell slots to know/prepare spells, I think we're all in agreement that you can certainly use them to cast any spells you know or have prepared, right?
Yes, because the multiclass spellcasting rules specifically say so.
-cut-
The multiclass rules for "Spells Known and Prepared" doesn't talk about Spell Slots, it just asks you to read your individual spellcasting classes to follow that class' language about knowing/preparing spells. Further down though, the "Spell Slots" section (quoted directly above) does refer back to talking about what spells you know/prepare.
Spells Known and Prepared. You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. 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.
This is the important part where the 2 sides are arguing. Every other rule or hypothetical that you or other people bring up is just an attempt to justify or distract from the twisting of this rule. It does not "just" say to use the individual class's spellcasting feature to determine what spells you know and can prepare. It says to do so "as if you were a single-classed member of that class." A single-classed member of a class would not use any multiclassing rules including to determine their spell slots.
-cut-
I am of the camp that this "table shows when you learn more [class] spells of your choice" is sufficient to require you to only learn spells of the level shown on the table, regardless of what your spell slots look like. But some other folks in this thread have read that in conjunction with the second sentence to say that the first sentence just controls when you learn spells, and which spells you can learn is derived from total spell slots. I can see their point, though I'm not sure I share that opinion.
That line is not sufficient to require you to use the chart. The second line is what sets the level limit. Interestingly, I noticed that bard said: "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the table." But bard, warlock, and Wizard (spellbook on level up) were the only classes to refer to chart, none of the other learn casters made this distinction.
-final cut-
The strongest arguments in favor of your side that I see are:
1. The "for example" and "for instance" sentences in the class spellcasting features show examples of single-classed characters following their table, not checking their actual spell slots.
2. The "for example" sentence in the multiclassing "spells known and prepared" rules incontrovertably shows a multiclass ranger 4/wizard 3 learning spells according to the spell slots a ranger 4 or wizard 3 would have, not attempting to learn spells based on the slots an effective-level-5 multiclass spellcaster would have.
3. The "for example" sentence in the multiclassing "spell slots" rules incontrovertablly says that the ranger 4/wizard 3 "doesn't know" any third level spells, or even second level ranger spells.
4. The sentence in the multiclassing "spell slots" rules that reads "this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells" may operate as a specific exception which supersedes the language found within the individual class' spellcasting features which would provide otherwise.
I'm more comfortable hand waiving away points 1-3 than I am with overlooking 4; it seems to me that 1-3 are directly in conflict with the rules text, since they contradict the individual class' spellcasting features, but isn't worded in a way that sounds like its providing rule text but rather like it's attempting to rephrase something that should be already evident. But point 4 is different, insofar as it is laying down a more-specific rule which can trump the ordinary operation of spells known/prepared. I'm still troubled by it since it begs its own question: it provides what you do if you have spell slots higher than any known spell, but doesn't exactly go so far as to say that you must have spell slots higher than any known spell, and the single class spellcasting features already provide that you can learn/prepare the spells for which you have leveled slots.
If 3 examples from the RAW of how 3 different rules are applied seem to directly conflict with those rules, it is far more likely that you have misinterpreted something. Changing your interpretation of a single rules sentence (mentioned above, you know the one) makes every single RAW example make sense.
Long story short... I agree with you guys 100% that the rules are INTENDED to limit multiclass spellcasters to their individual class tables. I just don't really agree that the rule has been written with tight enough language to actually accomplish that. It's really only the "for example" sentences in the multiclass rules that directly prohibit learning spells based on your total spell slots, and since they're providing an "example" of a rule which isn't actually written elsewhere, they're of dubious merit.
It is at least a start that you recognise them as RAI. Hopefully, you will come around on that 1 RAW rule and 3 RAW examples that contradict your interpretations. I definitely agree with you that the rule could have and should have been written more carefully (I've said it on numerous occasions).
As for erratas for clarity, I think your sentence fragment is too long and clunky (no offense). Either they should use the bard's wording I noticed, but for all classes. Or add "and as if you only had the spell slots in that class's class table for your level in that class" to the end of the single-classed line from the multiclass rules. Or something to the same effect.
I'll edit this to get the relevant quotes later, but the reason that I'm on board with not considering multiclass slots available when choosing for each class is because of the example that is given (which is RAW as it's included in the PHB). I know that the example gets hand waved particularly when Sorcerer gets brought up because of the slots available clause. However, that clause is present in Ranger and Wizard, IIRC.
Reminder that the Sorcerer spellcasting feature text is word-for-word identical to the a Ranger spellcasting text, so this cannot be waved away that easily.
That's even better. The example shows a prepared caster and a known caster. One is full caster and the other is half caster. Neither was able to learn/prepare spells that the single classed characters of the same level that the character had invested in that class. The character had spell slots that would have qualified for higher spell selections, but were specifically called out for not being able to. The example is in the PHB and therefore RAW and not commentary from JC or even Sage Advice Compendium. They didn't feel the need to do any other examples, including with Warlock that could arguably use one.
As far as the Wizardborn example, any racial abilities that gave a 2nd level spell did so on a once per rest (long rest?) basis and didn't give that option until 3rd level. Assuming that they gave a full 2nd level slot, there would be qualifiers on it based on that observation. If they did intend for the slot to be fully available, I would assume that the character couldn't use the presence of that slot to select a 2nd level spell until they had a spellcaster with enough levels to cast a 2nd level spell normally unless the ability specifically said that it enabled it. I would also expect an errata to clarify the spell selection normally, unless WotC gets their kicks reading the forums with posts where two sides argue equally vehemently that their position is correct, probably while saying to themselves that both sides are missing the point.
Hi all, new to posting on forums (and DMing) so sorry to necro an older thread but I just wanted to post a bit of a clarification/TL;DR to any future readers (people like myself who wanted to clarify this exact point).
At the end of all of the above discussion, I believe everybody is in agreement that RAI are you SHOULD NOT be able to cast 3rd level spells as a sorc 3/wiz 2 (or any other relevant combination). What I take from all of the above though is that there are two completely valid readings of the RAW due to a lack of definition. I've tried to word them as best I can below (please feel free to further clarify but I'm not trying to argue with anybody):
You CAN'T cast 3rd level spells: Multiclass rules say "spells known as if you were a single class" > "as if you were a single class" means my lv 5 character is really only a level 3 sorc > single classed level 3 sorc does not have 3rd level spell slots > therefore does not have access to 3th level spells. END. (This reading is pretty concise in the case where that's how we wish to define the meaning of "a single class")
You CAN cast 3rd level spells: Multiclass rules say "spells known as if you were a single class" > "as if you were a single class" is actually just referring us to the more specific sorcerer class rules for learning/replacing spells > sorcerer rule specifically states you can learn a new spell "for which you have a spell slot of that level" > RAW don't say where those slots must come from > my level 5 char DOES have 3rd level slots as provided by the multiclassing spell slot rules which overwrite the individual class ones > therefore I can learn it. END. (This reading suggests that in this case the general multiclassing rule is directing us to the more specific sorcerer class rule for knowing spells - we know specific beats general)
The examples as given in the PHB are great to clarify the general multiclass rules and are very clear. However, they don't actually provide a specific enough example or rule to address the specific wording that a sorcerer/ranger/whatever can use any spell slot that is available to them to learn a new spell - nowhere in RAW does it say explicitly that these spell slots must only be equivalent to the sorcerer class table. I do think it is implied however that this SHOULD be the case and I think it's probably just a very technical wording thing for us to be nitpicking. I don't think anybody would honestly expect a 18/2 multiclass char use a 9th level spell from the lower class, but I don't believe that the rules clarify it explicitly enough to say definitively "this is the ONLY way of reading it" when it is very clear from this thread there can be two valid interpretations.
The problem with all of what you've said is that you are using casting almost interchangeably with preparing/knowing a spell. A wiz3/Sorc2 definitely has 3rd level slots, and can therefore use those slots (to upcast spells). The problem is that the Wiz3/sorc2 cannot prepare/know any 3rd level spells according to your reasoning for your first position. A sorc 2 can only learn first level sorcerer spells and a wiz 3 can prepare 1st and 2nd level spells.
There aren't really two acceptable readings of these rules; there is one correct reading and then some people who refuse to read it that way. To read it your second way, you have to ignore words in sentences like "For instance, when you reach 3rd level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level." (emphasis mine). Ignoring parts of rules is squarely in the territory of homebrew.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel like you didn't even read anything in this thread. That was a solid page 1 response. In the multiclass rules, which you absolutely use, it says to not use single class rules for spell slots any longer. Spell slots have been entirely and completely superseded by your multiclass rules. Spells Known, and Spell Slots, are two different but related rules. Just because you know and prepare spells like a single classed character would not necessarily mean your other rules, ie spell slot rules, also follow that same instruction. Sure sure, we've long established that is the Rules As Intended. But this was always about the Rules As Written. The actual words on the pages.
You know what's actually kind of funny about the interpretation a lot of you guys make with that bolded bit of yours? Technically, it means archetypes like the arcane trickster or eldritch knight can't use their archetype's spells anymore if they multiclass... because by default their "class" doesn't even have spells. So if you prepare spells as a single-classed member of fighter, for example... well, that none spells.
Yeah now I'm quite sure you didn't read the thread if this is your response. I don't need to ask anyone for anything, nor do "I want that fireball so badly". By RAW it works the way I've pointed out, but no one uses RAW in this case, nor should they, and it has been clarified so the RAI is perfectly clear.
I got quotes!
I feel like saying "a rogue doesn't get spell slots" is being intentionally obtuse and explains why you don't understand the spell casting rules: you don't want to.
It is more sad than funny, actually. The EK and AT would behave exactly as intended when multiclassed. Classes get subclass features. EK and AT get the spellcasting feature, so their class (fighter and rogue) get the spellcasting feature if you chose that subclass. This argument is like saying a champion fighter only crits on 20 because improved critical is not a fighter feature. Moreover it doesn't have anything to do with whether a single classed level 4 sorcerer has level 3 spell slots.
Honestly, everyone should just stop commenting. The side that says single classed character don't get multiclassed spell slots aren't going to change their minds (short of an errata or new rule that allows otherwise), and the side that thinks multiclassed characters determine what spells they know and can prepare based on combined spellcaster levels are not going to be convinced by repeating the rule that specifically says differently (or by repeating the example in the rules that specifically does not match their argument, or by pointing out that there is an entire paragraph in the multiclass spell slot rules that never applies if their argument is correct).
"Everyone should stop commenting, because my side is right and yours is wrong" is not exactly the olive branch you think it is. Yes, the multiclass rules very clearly and definitively say look at your single-class spellcasting feature. Nobody is disputing that. What those disagree with you are saying is... the single-class spellcasting features may still tell you to look at your actual spell slots? Personally I think that this is different for known-casters and prepared-casters.
Thought experiment: let's say there's a new UA race, "Wizardborn," which will never make it into an official publication due to its unbalanced and problematic racial feature: Wizardborn characters all start with a second level spell slot.
A Wizardborn Sorcerer 1 starts with two 1st-level spells, regardless of their 2nd level spell slot, because their Spellcasting feature says so. But when they level up to Sorcerer 2... what happens?
How would you actually arbitrate that in this situation?
Related question.... a Wizardborn Cleric 1. What spells can they prepare?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You know what a single-classed member of a class absolutely doesn't have? Other class levels. That is the one thing we can definitively say. What does that mean? When we're deciding what spells we can cast as a particular class, our other class levels don't count for anything. If you are a cleric 1, your wizard level could be 19 (or 72 for all it matters to your cleric level), it doesn't do a thing for your cleric spell selection, because you have to consider yourself as a cleric 1 that gets 1st level spell slots and can prepare 1 + wis mod spells.
as someone else pointed out, spell SLOTS are arguably a different feature than spells KNOWN/PREPARED (they’re bolded subheadings of spellcasting). The multiclassing rules don’t tell you to treat each of your spellcasting features as a single class character, but rather “ Spells Known and Prepared. You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. “
You’re arguing for a more expansive “ignore EVERYTHING from other classes”. Why stop at spell slots... your wisdom modifier might be influenced by those wizard levels... disregard asi’s earned from other class levels too?
Are you avoiding the “wizardborn” dilemma, or you don’t agree it’s relevant? What happens to “single class” casters who happen to have more spell slots than their class table provides, due to racial features, Magic items or effects, plot effects, multiclassing, etc?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I dispute that. That isn't what the rules say. They say:
You reworded it so it didn't say "you are single-classed." Which has been the entire argument: that single classed characters don't have multiclass spell slots. Rewording a rule to make it comply with your argument is disingenuous. It is the practice of lies, conspiracy theorists, deniers, and con artists not honest debaters.
As for your hypothetical which has nothing to do with milticlassing, if such a thing existed, it would include wording like "this spell slot should not be considered when learning or preparing spells," or "when learning and preparing spells, do so as if you didn't have this feature," to keep it consistent with the rest of the rules. If it didn't, then it would be (100% unbalanced and) different to the current discussion.
Yes. It is irrelevant because it is clearly not thought out.
I don't appreciate the personal attacks, DxJxC.
There is no such thing as "multiclass spell slots," "sorcerer spell slots," or anything else. There is only "spell slots," in the same way that there are only "hit points" even though they may come from different classes. I will concede that the Spellcasting feature of the various classes does include this language:
If one didn't know better, one could be excused for reading that and saying "even if you have more spell slots for another reason, you can only ever use the number/level of spell slots provided on the sorcerer table to cast your sorcerer spells. Those are your 'sorcerer spell slots.' " But... we know that isn't true. Whether or not you can use other spell slots to know/prepare spells, I think we're all in agreement that you can certainly use them to cast any spells you know or have prepared, right?
Outside of that sentence, nothing else in the classes' various Spellcasting features or in the Multiclass rules attempt to describe spell slots as being divided among [Class X]/[Class Y] spell slots. The only sort of spell slots provided anywhere in the text(s) are "your spell slots."
The multiclass rules for "Spells Known and Prepared" doesn't talk about Spell Slots, it just asks you to read your individual spellcasting classes to follow that class' language about knowing/preparing spells. Further down though, the "Spell Slots" section (quoted directly above) does refer back to talking about what spells you know/prepare.
For "known casters", you'll find that in a heading titled "Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher". It will probably read:
I am of the camp that this "table shows when you learn more [class] spells of your choice" is sufficient to require you to only learn spells of the level shown on the table, regardless of what your spell slots look like. But some other folks in this thread have read that in conjunction with the second sentence to say that the first sentence just controls when you learn spells, and which spells you can learn is derived from total spell slots. I can see their point, though I'm not sure I share that opinion.
For "preparation casters," you will find that in a heading titled "Preparing and Casting Spells." Wizard is worded a little differently than cleric, druid, or artificer, but is similar enough that there's no reason not to lump them together:
The entire cleric spell list is the cleric spell list. You don't "know" the spells of the appropriate level, the entire spell list is always what it is. And you explicitly prepare spells not as shown on the class table, but rather based on what spell slots you have. I think there's a great argument that RAW, this lets you prepare higher level spells when multiclassed, notwithstanding the clear intention that you do not.
The strongest arguments in favor of your side that I see are:
1. The "for example" and "for instance" sentences in the class spellcasting features show examples of single-classed characters following their table, not checking their actual spell slots.
2. The "for example" sentence in the multiclassing "spells known and prepared" rules incontrovertably shows a multiclass ranger 4/wizard 3 learning spells according to the spell slots a ranger 4 or wizard 3 would have, not attempting to learn spells based on the slots an effective-level-5 multiclass spellcaster would have.
3. The "for example" sentence in the multiclassing "spell slots" rules incontrovertablly says that the ranger 4/wizard 3 "doesn't know" any third level spells, or even second level ranger spells.
4. The sentence in the multiclassing "spell slots" rules that reads "this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells" may operate as a specific exception which supersedes the language found within the individual class' spellcasting features which would provide otherwise.
I'm more comfortable hand waiving away points 1-3 than I am with overlooking 4; it seems to me that 1-3 are directly in conflict with the rules text, since they contradict the individual class' spellcasting features, but isn't worded in a way that sounds like its providing rule text but rather like it's attempting to rephrase something that should be already evident. But point 4 is different, insofar as it is laying down a more-specific rule which can trump the ordinary operation of spells known/prepared. I'm still troubled by it since it begs its own question: it provides what you do if you have spell slots higher than any known spell, but doesn't exactly go so far as to say that you must have spell slots higher than any known spell, and the single class spellcasting features already provide that you can learn/prepare the spells for which you have leveled slots.
Long story short... I agree with you guys 100% that the rules are INTENDED to limit multiclass spellcasters to their individual class tables. I just don't really agree that the rule has been written with tight enough language to actually accomplish that. It's really only the "for example" sentences in the multiclass rules that directly prohibit learning spells based on your total spell slots, and since they're providing an "example" of a rule which isn't actually written elsewhere, they're of dubious merit.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That feels like a cop out answer. It's not a trick question, if there were a race, or a feat, or a campaign plot effect, or a magic item which provided a single-classed spellcaster with a higher level spell slot than the slots their table ordinarily provides, and if that feature didn't provide its own limiting text about what that slot could be used for... how would you reconcile that with a RAW reading of the "Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher" (known casters) or "Preparing and Casting Spells" (preparation casters) entries within those classes, if the entire multiclass chapter wasn't in question?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Would it be better if they phrased it, "Let's agree to disagree"?
With your theoretical Wizardborn race, my ruling would be that they couldn't choose a second level spell until they would be able to if they were any other race. They could upcast their first level spells, but they couldn't choose a second level one. If the Wizardborn ability specifically gave the ability for classes to know or prepare a second level spell because of the slot, then I would change the ruling. This remains consistent with my ruling for multiclass spell slots.
I'll edit this to get the relevant quotes later, but the reason that I'm on board with not considering multiclass slots available when choosing for each class is because of the example that is given (which is RAW as it's included in the PHB). I know that the example gets hand waved particularly when Sorcerer gets brought up because of the slots available clause. However, that clause is present in Ranger and Wizard, IIRC.
Reminder that the Sorcerer spellcasting feature text is word-for-word identical to the a Ranger spellcasting text, so this cannot be waved away that easily.
Wizards are a little different from Clerics/Druids/Artificers because they have a spellbook. Warlocks are a lot different from other spellcasters because they use an entirely different sort of short-rest spellcasting slot. But other than that... is there any difference between the wording for the rest of the known-casters (sorcerer, bard, ranger, paladin, EK Fighter, ET Rogue)?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah, this made me actually look these up. Wizards are only different from other prepared casters in that it says the source of your choices is your spellbook, rather than the class list, but still says you must select spells of levels for which you have slots. The Warlock's pact magic uses different wording because all of your pact magic slots are the same level:
This rule's sentence describing where to look to determine the slot's level says it comes from the warlock table. The others just tell you to look at the table in one sentence, then to select spells of which you have slots in a separate sentence. I see why the rules are written differently; they obviously have to be, but they are intended to convey the same information. In both cases, the table tells you what spell levels you can prepare indirectly by telling you the level of slots that you would have at a single-classed level of that class, and the authors expect that you will look at the table referred to at the beginning of the section to determine what slots you have available (without saying it again in that sentence). Apparently they should have repeated themselves.
Oh, and even if an example isn't a rule, an example in the rulebook tells you exactly how the rule is supposed to work. It says "if you didn't interpret that last bit the way we wanted you to, here is what we mean." You have the rules text and the clarification all together, there really isn't anything else to interpret. You might argue "it isn't rules text." Ok it is a built in official clarification that tells you how the rules text aught to work. Or really, if it is text that tells you how the game works, then how is it different from a rule anyway?
If you come to a different result than the example, your first thought shouldn't be "ah, it works differently than the designers think;" it should probably be "how did I misinterpret the rules?"
I agree that they're probably intended to convey the same information, although I think that the difference between warlock and the others is a telling example of how the other Spellcasting entries need to be worded to actually accomplish that intent. If they all had been written with the specificity and attention to detail of the Warlock, we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be airtight!
For known-casters, errata should be issued to write it as:
Or for prepared-casters:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Going to do a couple of cuts for brevity.
I actually had to check what you were referring to. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were one of those kinds of people, just pointing out the fact that those were the kind of people who twist quotes to change meanings in a hope that you would be more conscious of it (to be better than those people).
Sorry. How about if instead of saying "single classed characters don't have multiclass spell slots," I used the correct terminology "single classed characters does not determine spell slots by consulting the multiclass spellcaster table." Much wordier and means essentially the same thing, but semantically 100% RAW.
Yes, because the multiclass spellcasting rules specifically say so.
This is the important part where the 2 sides are arguing. Every other rule or hypothetical that you or other people bring up is just an attempt to justify or distract from the twisting of this rule. It does not "just" say to use the individual class's spellcasting feature to determine what spells you know and can prepare. It says to do so "as if you were a single-classed member of that class." A single-classed member of a class would not use any multiclassing rules including to determine their spell slots.
That line is not sufficient to require you to use the chart. The second line is what sets the level limit. Interestingly, I noticed that bard said: "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the table." But bard, warlock, and Wizard (spellbook on level up) were the only classes to refer to chart, none of the other learn casters made this distinction.
If 3 examples from the RAW of how 3 different rules are applied seem to directly conflict with those rules, it is far more likely that you have misinterpreted something. Changing your interpretation of a single rules sentence (mentioned above, you know the one) makes every single RAW example make sense.
It is at least a start that you recognise them as RAI. Hopefully, you will come around on that 1 RAW rule and 3 RAW examples that contradict your interpretations. I definitely agree with you that the rule could have and should have been written more carefully (I've said it on numerous occasions).
As for erratas for clarity, I think your sentence fragment is too long and clunky (no offense). Either they should use the bard's wording I noticed, but for all classes. Or add "and as if you only had the spell slots in that class's class table for your level in that class" to the end of the single-classed line from the multiclass rules. Or something to the same effect.
That's even better. The example shows a prepared caster and a known caster. One is full caster and the other is half caster. Neither was able to learn/prepare spells that the single classed characters of the same level that the character had invested in that class. The character had spell slots that would have qualified for higher spell selections, but were specifically called out for not being able to. The example is in the PHB and therefore RAW and not commentary from JC or even Sage Advice Compendium. They didn't feel the need to do any other examples, including with Warlock that could arguably use one.
As far as the Wizardborn example, any racial abilities that gave a 2nd level spell did so on a once per rest (long rest?) basis and didn't give that option until 3rd level. Assuming that they gave a full 2nd level slot, there would be qualifiers on it based on that observation. If they did intend for the slot to be fully available, I would assume that the character couldn't use the presence of that slot to select a 2nd level spell until they had a spellcaster with enough levels to cast a 2nd level spell normally unless the ability specifically said that it enabled it. I would also expect an errata to clarify the spell selection normally, unless WotC gets their kicks reading the forums with posts where two sides argue equally vehemently that their position is correct, probably while saying to themselves that both sides are missing the point.
Hi all, new to posting on forums (and DMing) so sorry to necro an older thread but I just wanted to post a bit of a clarification/TL;DR to any future readers (people like myself who wanted to clarify this exact point).
At the end of all of the above discussion, I believe everybody is in agreement that RAI are you SHOULD NOT be able to cast 3rd level spells as a sorc 3/wiz 2 (or any other relevant combination). What I take from all of the above though is that there are two completely valid readings of the RAW due to a lack of definition. I've tried to word them as best I can below (please feel free to further clarify but I'm not trying to argue with anybody):
You CAN'T cast 3rd level spells: Multiclass rules say "spells known as if you were a single class" > "as if you were a single class" means my lv 5 character is really only a level 3 sorc > single classed level 3 sorc does not have 3rd level spell slots > therefore does not have access to 3th level spells. END. (This reading is pretty concise in the case where that's how we wish to define the meaning of "a single class")
You CAN cast 3rd level spells: Multiclass rules say "spells known as if you were a single class" > "as if you were a single class" is actually just referring us to the more specific sorcerer class rules for learning/replacing spells > sorcerer rule specifically states you can learn a new spell "for which you have a spell slot of that level" > RAW don't say where those slots must come from > my level 5 char DOES have 3rd level slots as provided by the multiclassing spell slot rules which overwrite the individual class ones > therefore I can learn it. END. (This reading suggests that in this case the general multiclassing rule is directing us to the more specific sorcerer class rule for knowing spells - we know specific beats general)
The examples as given in the PHB are great to clarify the general multiclass rules and are very clear. However, they don't actually provide a specific enough example or rule to address the specific wording that a sorcerer/ranger/whatever can use any spell slot that is available to them to learn a new spell - nowhere in RAW does it say explicitly that these spell slots must only be equivalent to the sorcerer class table. I do think it is implied however that this SHOULD be the case and I think it's probably just a very technical wording thing for us to be nitpicking. I don't think anybody would honestly expect a 18/2 multiclass char use a 9th level spell from the lower class, but I don't believe that the rules clarify it explicitly enough to say definitively "this is the ONLY way of reading it" when it is very clear from this thread there can be two valid interpretations.
The problem with all of what you've said is that you are using casting almost interchangeably with preparing/knowing a spell. A wiz3/Sorc2 definitely has 3rd level slots, and can therefore use those slots (to upcast spells). The problem is that the Wiz3/sorc2 cannot prepare/know any 3rd level spells according to your reasoning for your first position. A sorc 2 can only learn first level sorcerer spells and a wiz 3 can prepare 1st and 2nd level spells.
There aren't really two acceptable readings of these rules; there is one correct reading and then some people who refuse to read it that way. To read it your second way, you have to ignore words in sentences like "For instance, when you reach 3rd level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level." (emphasis mine). Ignoring parts of rules is squarely in the territory of homebrew.