As to your hypothetical, if it were a game feature that granted you a slot for which you couldn't normally learn spells, that feature would hypothetically tell you how it worked (and you'd likely still say it worked differently); whereas if it were a DM gift, the DM would hypothetically be responsible for explaining it to you -- that is the great thing about hypotheticals: you can hypothetically fix any problem in one with more hypotheticals.
If you're not sure how sorcerer multiclass spellcasting works, just create the character in the D&D Beyond character builder - it'll do the calculations for you on that for spells known per class, spell slots, spells prepared etc.
If you're not sure how sorcerer multiclass spellcasting works, just create the character in the D&D Beyond character builder - it'll do the calculations for you on that for spells known per class, spell slots, spells prepared etc.
Wouldn't that be a nifty way to figure out the answer.
Maybe we should all start writing our replies one sentence at a time, since that is all you ever seem to take from the rules, Rav.
I will often quote relevant excerpts from the rules text, yes, even just a single line of it. Especially when discussing Rules As Written. When doing so, it is not always prudent to simply copypasta an entire wall of text. I recommend a similar approach when discussing RAW, quoting the actual text itself is often helpful so that the reader of your comment has the actual rules text right there in front of them and they don't need to go through the hassle of pulling it up to see what you're referring to. I especially recommend it for you, since having to go through the trouble of quoting a rules text might reduce the frequency that you just fabricate rules out of thin air.
The sorcerer rule is not written with multiclassing in mind -- With that said, the rule tells you how it works and even uses the words "in this class" in its example (which, again, you have to ignore if you want to invent a non-standard reading of the rule); the rule in one sentence refers you to your class table then in the next sentence continues on talking about information in that table without a second reference to that table.
This is a perfect example. See, here you go fabricating stuff out of thin air again. The Multiclass rules for Spells Known/Prepared nor the Sorcerer Spells known sections even use the word "table" a single time. Ctrl F that, you get zero results.
You wouldn't be as likely to push out this sort of misinformation if you would quote the rules text that you are pulling your "information" from.
Since in this case I need to highlight the absence of something you falsely claim exists, I'll need to quote the entire sections:
You know two 1st-level Spells of your choice from the Sorcerer spell list.
You learn an additional Sorcerer spell of your choice at each level except 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 20th. 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.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the Sorcerer Spells you know and replace it with another spell from the Sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots.
and
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. Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.
There are no references to class tables in either of these relevant rules sections.
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.
How long did it take to find a version of the sorcerer spellcasting feature that doesn't agree with any of the three (1,2,3) pages on DDB or the printed rulebooks?
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.
It refers to the table right there in black and white. And again, take Stormknight up on his offer. Build the character.
Maybe we should all start writing our replies one sentence at a time, since that is all you ever seem to take from the rules, Rav.
I will often quote relevant excerpts from the rules text, yes, even just a single line of it. Especially when discussing Rules As Written. When doing so, it is not always prudent to simply copypasta an entire wall of text. I recommend a similar approach when discussing RAW, quoting the actual text itself is often helpful so that the reader of your comment has the actual rules text right there in front of them and they don't need to go through the hassle of pulling it up to see what you're referring to. I especially recommend it for you, since having to go through the trouble of quoting a rules text might reduce the frequency that you just fabricate rules out of thin air.
The sorcerer rule is not written with multiclassing in mind -- With that said, the rule tells you how it works and even uses the words "in this class" in its example (which, again, you have to ignore if you want to invent a non-standard reading of the rule); the rule in one sentence refers you to your class table then in the next sentence continues on talking about information in that table without a second reference to that table.
This is a perfect example. See, here you go fabricating stuff out of thin air again. The Multiclass rules for Spells Known/Prepared nor the Sorcerer Spells known sections even use the word "table" a single time. Ctrl F that, you get zero results.
You wouldn't be as likely to push out this sort of misinformation if you would quote the rules text that you are pulling your "information" from.
Since in this case I need to highlight the absence of something you falsely claim exists, I'll need to quote the entire sections:
You know two 1st-level Spells of your choice from the Sorcerer spell list.
You learn an additional Sorcerer spell of your choice at each level except 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 20th. 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.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the Sorcerer Spells you know and replace it with another spell from the Sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots.
and
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. Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.
There are no references to class tables in either of these relevant rules sections.
I unblocked you just so I could see what convoluted “logic” upon which you were basing this argument. However it turns out that’s irrelevant after all. The reason being that in order for what you claim to be true, the following would have to be false:
If you're not sure how sorcerer multiclass spellcasting works, just create the character in the D&D Beyond character builder - it'll do the calculations for you on that for spells known per class, spell slots, spells prepared etc.
Are you in fact claiming that a DDB Staff member is either lying or inept?
How long did it take to find a version of the sorcerer spellcasting feature that doesn't agree with any of the three (1,2,3) pages on DDB or the printed rulebooks?
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.
It refers to the table right there in black and white.
Huh, that's actually pretty interesting. Quote to the rescue! You're totally right. roll20 has a different text than other sources do. So yes, you are correct that it references the table.
It is, however, addressing specifically the Spells Known column alone, so the rest of the table isn't relevant to that excerpt. Meaning... Spell Slots are still determined by the multiclass rules superseding the class rules.
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.
I unblocked you just so I could see what convoluted “logic” upon which you were basing this argument. However it turns out that’s irrelevant after all. The reason being that in order for what you claim to be true, the following would have to be false:
If you're not sure how sorcerer multiclass spellcasting works, just create the character in the D&D Beyond character builder - it'll do the calculations for you on that for spells known per class, spell slots, spells prepared etc.
Are you in fact claiming that a DDB Staff member is either lying or inept?
I upvoted his answer? Not sure what you're going on about.
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.
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).
These are interesting to compare.
Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher
You know two 1st-level spells of your choice from the sorcerer spell list.
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.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
The sorcerer is clearly worded differently, without the direct reference to the sorcerer class table for spell slots. The wizard, does have that reference.
This clearly demonstrates that the wizard and the sorcerer operate differently in this regard, because they carved out a specific additional clause in the rules for wizards that is absent from the sorcerer.
This really is one of those times when the RAI is so obvious and the RAW so exploitative that everyone out there defers to the RAI for how to do it. Everyone. Anyone trying to actually get the RAW in a game is generally just laughed at. But RAW is RAW. And this technically is RAW. This really is a case where an official errata is warranted tbh. If the rule said:
Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Sorcerer table.
Then this wouldn't even be a thing.
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.
Maybe we should all start writing our replies one sentence at a time, since that is all you ever seem to take from the rules, Rav.
I will often quote relevant excerpts from the rules text, yes, even just a single line of it. Especially when discussing Rules As Written. When doing so, it is not always prudent to simply copypasta an entire wall of text. I recommend a similar approach when discussing RAW, quoting the actual text itself is often helpful so that the reader of your comment has the actual rules text right there in front of them and they don't need to go through the hassle of pulling it up to see what you're referring to. I especially recommend it for you, since having to go through the trouble of quoting a rules text might reduce the frequency that you just fabricate rules out of thin air.
The sorcerer rule is not written with multiclassing in mind -- With that said, the rule tells you how it works and even uses the words "in this class" in its example (which, again, you have to ignore if you want to invent a non-standard reading of the rule); the rule in one sentence refers you to your class table then in the next sentence continues on talking about information in that table without a second reference to that table.
This is a perfect example. See, here you go fabricating stuff out of thin air again. The Multiclass rules for Spells Known/Prepared nor the Sorcerer Spells known sections even use the word "table" a single time. Ctrl F that, you get zero results.
You wouldn't be as likely to push out this sort of misinformation if you would quote the rules text that you are pulling your "information" from.
Since in this case I need to highlight the absence of something you falsely claim exists, I'll need to quote the entire sections:
You know two 1st-level Spells of your choice from the Sorcerer spell list.
You learn an additional Sorcerer spell of your choice at each level except 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 20th. 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.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the Sorcerer Spells you know and replace it with another spell from the Sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have Spell Slots.
and
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. Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.
There are no references to class tables in either of these relevant rules sections.
I unblocked you just so I could see what convoluted “logic” upon which you were basing this argument. However it turns out that’s irrelevant after all. The reason being that in order for what you claim to be true, the following would have to be false:
If you're not sure how sorcerer multiclass spellcasting works, just create the character in the D&D Beyond character builder - it'll do the calculations for you on that for spells known per class, spell slots, spells prepared etc.
Are you in fact claiming that a DDB Staff member is either lying or inept?
I challenge anyone to build a Wizard 4/sorcerer 4 or a Sorcerer 4/X 4 in DnDBeyond. If it's a full caster (non Warlock), it will have access to 3rd AND 4th level spell slots as an 8th level spellcaster, but won't be able to cast anything but 1st and 2nd level spells, just like the RAW example explains it. The example that is in the relevant section of choosing your spells. If it's a Half caster, it will be a 6th level caster, and a Third Caster will be a 5th level caster. Both of which have a third level spell slot. Neither will be able to know or prepare a third level spell. Just like the example. And any non caster will just be a 4th level caster.
Wizards are prepared casters and would naturally have different language than Sorcerers. Rangers are also known casters and oddly enough the spell slot language is exactly the same as Sorcerer. Funny how a Ranger 4/Wizard 3 can't even cast 2nd level spells (with access to a 3rd level slot mind you) but a Sorcerer 4/Wizard 3 is supposed to have access to 3rd level spells because the Sorcerer is so different from a Ranger. Bringing up the fact that the Ranger is a half caster won't help, because the character still has access to third level slots and has the same language as Sorcerer regarding needing a spell slot of the proper level to cast it.
As for giving a Sorcerer 4 or lower a 3rd level slot from a God, you're already in home brew with that example and therefore into DM fiat territory. Innate spellcasting doesn't even give access to 2nd level spells until 5th level in most cases and doesn't give access to casting those spells with spell slots in any case that I can think of.
Rav, it sounds like you agree that the RAI is clear, but you disagree that the example that is written in the PHB is RAW. I'll accept that your definition of what RAW is differs from my definition of what RAW is, that's been widely established between to two threads.
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).
These are interesting to compare.
Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher
You know two 1st-level spells of your choice from the sorcerer spell list.
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.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
The sorcerer is clearly worded differently, without the direct reference to the sorcerer class table for spell slots. The wizard, does have that reference.
This clearly demonstrates that the wizard and the sorcerer operate differently in this regard, because they carved out a specific additional clause in the rules for wizards that is absent from the sorcerer.
This really is one of those times when the RAI is so obvious and the RAW so exploitative that everyone out there defers to the RAI for how to do it. Everyone. Anyone trying to actually get the RAW in a game is generally just laughed at. But RAW is RAW. And this technically is RAW. This really is a case where an official errata is warranted tbh. If the rule said:
Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Sorcerer table.
Then this wouldn't even be a thing.
But only a pedant would need such an thing. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was responding to.
This really is one of those times when the RAI is so obvious and the RAW so exploitative that everyone out there defers to the RAI for how to do it. Everyone. Anyone trying to actually get the RAW in a game is generally just laughed at. But RAW is RAW. And this technically is RAW. This really is a case where an official errata is warranted tbh. If the rule said:
Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Sorcerer table.
Then this wouldn't even be a thing.
But only a pedant would need such an thing. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was responding to.
You... you know that in a thread about Rules As Written, on a D&D Rules & Mechanics forum... being called a pedant isn't the insult you probably think it is.
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.
This really is one of those times when the RAI is so obvious and the RAW so exploitative that everyone out there defers to the RAI for how to do it. Everyone. Anyone trying to actually get the RAW in a game is generally just laughed at. But RAW is RAW. And this technically is RAW. This really is a case where an official errata is warranted tbh. If the rule said:
Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Sorcerer table.
Then this wouldn't even be a thing.
But only a pedant would need such an thing. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was responding to.
You... you know that in a thread about Rules As Written, on a D&D Rules & Mechanics forum... being called a pedant isn't the insult you probably think it is.
When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level. You don't, however, receive the class's starting equipment, and a few features have additional rules when you're multiclassing: Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting.
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.
(I won't quote the example given, as it is for a ranger/wizard multiclass and the argument has been given that a ranger isn't a sorcerer, therefore there is no guarantee that sorcerers act the same in regard to learning spells.)
"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.
"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.
Both RAW and RAI you refer to the sorcerer table for the levels of sorcerer you have to determine what spell slots you have and, therefore, what sorcerer spells you can learn.
"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.
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.
"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 are correct that, when casting, you have a multiclass pool of spell slots that determines how many times you can cast spells, but it specifically says to learn and prepare spells as if you were a single-classed character. A single-classed character does not have the multiclass spell slots. No matter what. There is absolutely no way to have multiclass spell slots as a single-classed character. If you prepare/learn spells using your multiclass spell slots, you are not preparing/learning spells as if you are a single-classed character.
It doesn't matter that there is a separate section for multiclass spell slots, because you are preparing/learning spells as if you were single-class and, therefore, not multiclass. Or would you please tell me what you think "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? It's in the rules, it must have a function, so what does it mean?
From what I can tell, your interpretation goes
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, but I'm actually multiclassed paladin 6/sorcerer 3 so I have spell slots higher than what a sorcerer 3 would have, guess I can learn level 3 spells."
But that directly contradicts the first rule, which states that you determine what spells you know as if you were a single-classed member of that class.
"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.
Please direct me to the place where it says you never refer to the single class table for spell slots. Just because the rules say to "use the [multiclass] rules below", it doesn't mean you will never refer to the single-class table again, especially when the multiclass rules state specifically and unambiguously to prepare/learn spells as a single-class character.
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 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 are correct that, when casting, you have a multiclass pool of spell slots that determines how many times you can cast spells, but it specifically says to learn and prepare spells as if you were a single-classed character. A single-classed character does not have the multiclass spell slots. No matter what. There is absolutely no way to have multiclass spell slots as a single-classed character. If you prepare/learn spells using your multiclass spell slots, you are not preparing/learning spells as if you are a single-classed character.
It doesn't matter that there is a separate section for multiclass spell slots, because you are preparing/learning spells as if you were single-class and, therefore, not multiclass. Or would you please tell me what you think "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? It's in the rules, it must have a function, so what does it mean?
From what I can tell, your interpretation goes
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, but I'm actually multiclassed paladin 6/sorcerer 3 so I have spell slots higher than what a sorcerer 3 would have, guess I can learn level 3 spells."
But that directly contradicts the first rule, which states that you determine what spells you know as if you were a single-classed member of that class.
"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.
Please direct me to the place where it says you never refer to the single class table for spell slots. Just because the rules say to "use the [multiclass] rules below", it doesn't mean you will never refer to the single-class table again, especially when the multiclass rules state specifically and unambiguously to prepare/learn spells as a single-class character.
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?
That's actually a more elegant answer than I thought it was going to be at the start. Well done.
Also keep in mind that the rules actually say that you may have spell slots that are higher than the spells that you can cast while multiclassing.
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.
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.
From what I can tell, your interpretation goes
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, but I'm actually multiclassed paladin 6/sorcerer 3 so I have spell slots higher than what a sorcerer 3 would have,I have level 3 spell slots, guess I can learn level 3 spells."
Spell slots are not determined in the spells prepared/known, they are determined in the Spell Slots rules. Once determined, they are a number on the page, a value of the character. Where they came from has nothing at all to do with the spells known/prepared rules.
...except for the times when the class specifically calls out the table. Then it does matter.
And, just to reiterate... this is just the RAW that no one plays it as. Just use the RAI that everyone... everyone uses.
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.
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:
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 RAI does not support the exemption unless one only cherry picks the pieces that they like and ignores the rest.
Fixed
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.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As to your hypothetical, if it were a game feature that granted you a slot for which you couldn't normally learn spells, that feature would hypothetically tell you how it worked (and you'd likely still say it worked differently); whereas if it were a DM gift, the DM would hypothetically be responsible for explaining it to you -- that is the great thing about hypotheticals: you can hypothetically fix any problem in one with more hypotheticals.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersIf you're not sure how sorcerer multiclass spellcasting works, just create the character in the D&D Beyond character builder - it'll do the calculations for you on that for spells known per class, spell slots, spells prepared etc.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Wouldn't that be a nifty way to figure out the answer.
I will often quote relevant excerpts from the rules text, yes, even just a single line of it. Especially when discussing Rules As Written. When doing so, it is not always prudent to simply copypasta an entire wall of text. I recommend a similar approach when discussing RAW, quoting the actual text itself is often helpful so that the reader of your comment has the actual rules text right there in front of them and they don't need to go through the hassle of pulling it up to see what you're referring to. I especially recommend it for you, since having to go through the trouble of quoting a rules text might reduce the frequency that you just fabricate rules out of thin air.
This is a perfect example. See, here you go fabricating stuff out of thin air again. The Multiclass rules for Spells Known/Prepared nor the Sorcerer Spells known sections even use the word "table" a single time. Ctrl F that, you get zero results.
You wouldn't be as likely to push out this sort of misinformation if you would quote the rules text that you are pulling your "information" from.
Since in this case I need to highlight the absence of something you falsely claim exists, I'll need to quote the entire sections:
and
There are no references to class tables in either of these relevant rules sections.
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.
How long did it take to find a version of the sorcerer spellcasting feature that doesn't agree with any of the three (1,2,3) pages on DDB or the printed rulebooks?
It refers to the table right there in black and white. And again, take Stormknight up on his offer. Build the character.
I unblocked you just so I could see what convoluted “logic” upon which you were basing this argument. However it turns out that’s irrelevant after all. The reason being that in order for what you claim to be true, the following would have to be false:
Are you in fact claiming that a DDB Staff member is either lying or inept?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Huh, that's actually pretty interesting. Quote to the rescue! You're totally right. roll20 has a different text than other sources do. So yes, you are correct that it references the table.
It is, however, addressing specifically the Spells Known column alone, so the rest of the table isn't relevant to that excerpt. Meaning... Spell Slots are still determined by the multiclass rules superseding the class rules.
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.
I upvoted his answer? Not sure what you're going on about.
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.
These are interesting to compare.
The sorcerer is clearly worded differently, without the direct reference to the sorcerer class table for spell slots. The wizard, does have that reference.
This clearly demonstrates that the wizard and the sorcerer operate differently in this regard, because they carved out a specific additional clause in the rules for wizards that is absent from the sorcerer.
This really is one of those times when the RAI is so obvious and the RAW so exploitative that everyone out there defers to the RAI for how to do it. Everyone. Anyone trying to actually get the RAW in a game is generally just laughed at. But RAW is RAW. And this technically is RAW. This really is a case where an official errata is warranted tbh. If the rule said:
Then this wouldn't even be a thing.
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.
I challenge anyone to build a Wizard 4/sorcerer 4 or a Sorcerer 4/X 4 in DnDBeyond. If it's a full caster (non Warlock), it will have access to 3rd AND 4th level spell slots as an 8th level spellcaster, but won't be able to cast anything but 1st and 2nd level spells, just like the RAW example explains it. The example that is in the relevant section of choosing your spells. If it's a Half caster, it will be a 6th level caster, and a Third Caster will be a 5th level caster. Both of which have a third level spell slot. Neither will be able to know or prepare a third level spell. Just like the example. And any non caster will just be a 4th level caster.
Wizards are prepared casters and would naturally have different language than Sorcerers. Rangers are also known casters and oddly enough the spell slot language is exactly the same as Sorcerer. Funny how a Ranger 4/Wizard 3 can't even cast 2nd level spells (with access to a 3rd level slot mind you) but a Sorcerer 4/Wizard 3 is supposed to have access to 3rd level spells because the Sorcerer is so different from a Ranger. Bringing up the fact that the Ranger is a half caster won't help, because the character still has access to third level slots and has the same language as Sorcerer regarding needing a spell slot of the proper level to cast it.
As for giving a Sorcerer 4 or lower a 3rd level slot from a God, you're already in home brew with that example and therefore into DM fiat territory. Innate spellcasting doesn't even give access to 2nd level spells until 5th level in most cases and doesn't give access to casting those spells with spell slots in any case that I can think of.
Rav, it sounds like you agree that the RAI is clear, but you disagree that the example that is written in the PHB is RAW. I'll accept that your definition of what RAW is differs from my definition of what RAW is, that's been widely established between to two threads.
But only a pedant would need such an thing. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was responding to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You... you know that in a thread about Rules As Written, on a D&D Rules & Mechanics forum... being called a pedant isn't the insult you probably think it is.
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.
Well, for the pedants in the audience, there is an example to show you how exactly it works. Problem solved.
Or, as Stormknight said, just try it in the builder. It works.
Not an insult, just a descriptive.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
From pg. 164 of the phb:
(I won't quote the example given, as it is for a ranger/wizard multiclass and the argument has been given that a ranger isn't a sorcerer, therefore there is no guarantee that sorcerers act the same in regard to learning spells.)
"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.
"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.
Both RAW and RAI you refer to the sorcerer table for the levels of sorcerer you have to determine what spell slots you have and, therefore, what sorcerer spells you can learn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are correct that, when casting, you have a multiclass pool of spell slots that determines how many times you can cast spells, but it specifically says to learn and prepare spells as if you were a single-classed character. A single-classed character does not have the multiclass spell slots. No matter what. There is absolutely no way to have multiclass spell slots as a single-classed character. If you prepare/learn spells using your multiclass spell slots, you are not preparing/learning spells as if you are a single-classed character.
It doesn't matter that there is a separate section for multiclass spell slots, because you are preparing/learning spells as if you were single-class and, therefore, not multiclass. Or would you please tell me what you think "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? It's in the rules, it must have a function, so what does it mean?
From what I can tell, your interpretation goes
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, but I'm actually multiclassed paladin 6/sorcerer 3 so I have spell slots higher than what a sorcerer 3 would have, guess I can learn level 3 spells."
But that directly contradicts the first rule, which states that you determine what spells you know as if you were a single-classed member of that class.
Please direct me to the place where it says you never refer to the single class table for spell slots. Just because the rules say to "use the [multiclass] rules below", it doesn't mean you will never refer to the single-class table again, especially when the multiclass rules state specifically and unambiguously to prepare/learn spells as a single-class character.
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?
That's actually a more elegant answer than I thought it was going to be at the start. Well done.
Also keep in mind that the rules actually say that you may have spell slots that are higher than the spells that you can cast while multiclassing.
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.
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.
Spell slots are not determined in the spells prepared/known, they are determined in the Spell Slots rules. Once determined, they are a number on the page, a value of the character. Where they came from has nothing at all to do with the spells known/prepared rules.
...except for the times when the class specifically calls out the table. Then it does matter.
And, just to reiterate... this is just the RAW that no one plays it as. Just use the RAI that everyone... everyone uses.
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.
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:
Fixed
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.
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.