Ok here's my question. If you get a spell from one class let's say ranger ua swarmkeeper you get the mage hand cantrip. "When you cast it, the hand takes the form of swarming nature spirits."
Then you multiclass into arcane trickster and you get mage handa but with all the goodies. Would you be able to gain the same functions through arcane trickster but with your swarm?
Yes, swarmkeeper says "When you cast [mage hand], the hand takes the form of swarming nature spirits.", AT says "when you cast Mage Hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it:". AT says you can modify the form and function of the hand formed by the cantrip; swarmkeeper changes the shape of the hand, but the wording shows that it still classifies as the hand formed by the cantrip; therfore AT can still modifiy the form and function of the hand, even when the hand is a swarm.
Go ahead and teach your swarming nature spirits to pick pockets.
An excellent point, brilliantly explained. Just explain to me how you refer to a multiclass rule while following a rule which specifically tells you to not use multiclass rules?
No explanation? What a shock.
I'm not available 24/7 to answer all of your questions, sorry bud.
As for the question... The rule that tells you to act as a single class is specifically for the purpose of Spells Known and Prepared, and is not for any other purpose whatsoever. If you attempt to universally treat your character as a single class for every other possible reason, you've taken a wrong turn here. That section is the only section you treat yourself as single class for. Spells known/prepared.
You're not single class for class abilities. You're not single class for ability scores. You're not single class for spell slots. You're not single class for proficiencies, or anything else at all... You're only treating yourself as single class for Spells Known and Prepared. That's it. Only that.
You agree that you keep the ASI from Ranger in the example, yes? Even while pretending you're a single class wizard? Yes? Same for spell slots. Because Spell Slots and Class abilities like ASIs are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules.
Except for in the few cases, in some classes, where they actually are. Ala the Wizard that specifically references: "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table."
Absent that specific reference, spell slots, just like ASIs, are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules, and so the Spells Known/Prepared multiclass rules to treat yourself as single class for determining Spells Known/Prepared doesn't have any effect on your characters actual Ability Scores nor their Spell Slots.
Unless you do actually think the answer is 5. And, if you do, there is some new problems for you, like that the example specifically says it is 6. Examples seem to be RAW in your view, so that does create a problem for you there. Also, if you build that example character here in DDB, it is 6. So... I guess if you think DDB is wrong...
So are you a 5 or 6 guy? It is a little weird to go back and forth this much while you don't answer such a straightforward question.
If a Ranger 4/Wizard3 has a 16 INT, as a result of a ASI from the L4 Ranger ASI, does he prepare 5 wizard spells, or 6 wizard spells? And, why?
Answering this question demonstrates why my reading is the correct one.
And, I say that while simultaneously advocating that it isn't RAI. And should be errata'd. No one should actually expect to play it the way the text technically says to, it was clearly an oversight. They saved like 6 words from the printing of a few classes and hoped no one would notice.
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.
An excellent point, brilliantly explained. Just explain to me how you refer to a multiclass rule while following a rule which specifically tells you to not use multiclass rules?
No explanation? What a shock.
I'm not available 24/7 to answer all of your questions, sorry bud.
As for the question... The rule that tells you to act as a single class is specifically for the purpose of Spells Known and Prepared, and is not for any other purpose whatsoever. If you attempt to universally treat your character as a single class for every other possible reason, you've taken a wrong turn here. That section is the only section you treat yourself as single class for. Spells known/prepared.
You're not single class for class abilities. You're not single class for ability scores. You're not single class for spell slots. You're not single class for proficiencies, or anything else at all... You're only treating yourself as single class for Spells Known and Prepared. That's it. Only that.
You agree that you keep the ASI from Ranger in the example, yes? Even while pretending you're a single class wizard? Yes? Same for spell slots. Because Spell Slots and Class abilities like ASIs are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules.
Except for in the few cases, in some classes, where they actually are. Ala the Wizard that specifically references: "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table."
Absent that specific reference, spell slots, just like ASIs, are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules, and so the Spells Known/Prepared multiclass rules to treat yourself as single class for determining Spells Known/Prepared doesn't have any effect on your characters actual Ability Scores nor their Spell Slots.
Unless you do actually think the answer is 5. And, if you do, there is some new problems for you, like that the example specifically says it is 6. Examples seem to be RAW in your view, so that does create a problem for you there. Also, if you build that example character here in DDB, it is 6. So... I guess if you think DDB is wrong...
So are you a 5 or 6 guy? It is a little weird to go back and forth this much while you don't answer such a straightforward question.
If a Ranger 4/Wizard3 has a 16 INT, as a result of a ASI from the L4 Ranger ASI, does he prepare 5 wizard spells, or 6 wizard spells? And, why?
Answering this question demonstrates why my reading is the correct one.
And, I say that while simultaneously advocating that it isn't RAI. And should be errata'd. No one should actually expect to play it the way the text technically says to, it was clearly an oversight. They saved like 6 words from the printing of a few classes and hoped no one would notice.
Actually I do think that, in that specific instance, RAW would have you only prepare 5. I already said that it is more correct to say that you would roll back any ability score increases gained from other classes as far as RAW is concerned. I've already answered your question and not gone back and forth at all. Even though you pulled a stat increase out of thin air. It isn't in the example in the book, so how it can factor into a discussion on how the rules are written is absolutely beyond me.
Regardless, the spells known and prepared section says to learn and prepare spells as if you were single-classed.Meaning a character who is single class, not a character who has the single class rules for learning spells, but the multiclass rules for everything else, otherwise it would say "Prepare your spells individually for each class using the Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher section of that class.". If it said that, then it would exclude the single class rules for spell slots, but it doesn't. You're adding layers of specificity that simply are not present in the text.
But none of that changes the fact that "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." has a very specific meaning.
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as you would do if you were a single-classed member of that class."
So
What rules does a single classed sorcerer use to determine what spells they can learn?
"Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher"
Is that all of the single class rules that a single-class sorcerer would use?
"Yes."
Be honest!
"...no..."
So what else would they use?
"Spell Slots."
Excellent! They would use the Spell Slots section on page 101 which say-
"Page 164."
Now why would a single class character refer to the multiclass rules to determine how many spell slots they have?
"Because I already used those rules on my character sheet."
Oh good remembering! Well done! You have already used the multiclass rules to determine what spell slots you have.
"Yay!"
But how would a single-class character determine what spell slots they have?
"But I already have the spell slots! I've written them down on my multiclassed character sheet and everyth-OHHHHH. I get it now! I keep referring to multiclass rules when I have been specifically told to learn and prepare spells as if I was single-class!"
Hooray!
"But wouldn't that mean I have to ignore my Sorcerer ability score increase when determining how many Wizard spells I can prepare?"
Yeah, I've already said it does.
"Answer my question!"
I just did!
"Why aren't you answering!?"
I already did! A couple of times! Just because your example didn't prove your point, doesn't mean I didn't answer.
An excellent point, brilliantly explained. Just explain to me how you refer to a multiclass rule while following a rule which specifically tells you to not use multiclass rules?
No explanation? What a shock.
I'm not available 24/7 to answer all of your questions, sorry bud.
As for the question... The rule that tells you to act as a single class is specifically for the purpose of Spells Known and Prepared, and is not for any other purpose whatsoever. If you attempt to universally treat your character as a single class for every other possible reason, you've taken a wrong turn here. That section is the only section you treat yourself as single class for. Spells known/prepared.
You're not single class for class abilities. You're not single class for ability scores. You're not single class for spell slots. You're not single class for proficiencies, or anything else at all... You're only treating yourself as single class for Spells Known and Prepared. That's it. Only that.
You agree that you keep the ASI from Ranger in the example, yes? Even while pretending you're a single class wizard? Yes? Same for spell slots. Because Spell Slots and Class abilities like ASIs are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules.
Except for in the few cases, in some classes, where they actually are. Ala the Wizard that specifically references: "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table."
Absent that specific reference, spell slots, just like ASIs, are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules, and so the Spells Known/Prepared multiclass rules to treat yourself as single class for determining Spells Known/Prepared doesn't have any effect on your characters actual Ability Scores nor their Spell Slots.
Unless you do actually think the answer is 5. And, if you do, there is some new problems for you, like that the example specifically says it is 6. Examples seem to be RAW in your view, so that does create a problem for you there. Also, if you build that example character here in DDB, it is 6. So... I guess if you think DDB is wrong...
So are you a 5 or 6 guy? It is a little weird to go back and forth this much while you don't answer such a straightforward question.
If a Ranger 4/Wizard3 has a 16 INT, as a result of a ASI from the L4 Ranger ASI, does he prepare 5 wizard spells, or 6 wizard spells? And, why?
Answering this question demonstrates why my reading is the correct one.
And, I say that while simultaneously advocating that it isn't RAI. And should be errata'd. No one should actually expect to play it the way the text technically says to, it was clearly an oversight. They saved like 6 words from the printing of a few classes and hoped no one would notice.
Actually, ignore my previous post (except for the part where I point out that I already answered that I think that, RAW, you would roll back ability score increases), I've figured out where the true discrepancy lies, and why I'm blocking notifications from this thread.
Somebody says "Determine what spells you can learn as if you were single class."
You interpret "of a level you have spell slots for" as the determined level, job done, you've determined it. Most other people in this forum interpret it as the rule a single-class sorcerer uses to define the determined level, so they (and I, obvs) follow the rule as a single-class sorcerer would and get to a number, which we interpret as the determined level, job done, we've determined it.
Honestly, taken from that linguistic angle, everybody is correct, because language is super subjective. There isn't enough specificity in the language used in the phb to concretely classify it as either the determined level or the rule which defines the determined level. Of course, a word or phrase only has a particular meaning if a large enough group of people agrees it has that meaning, but this forum isn't necessarily a reliable cross-section of the population as a whole.
Actually, ignore my previous post (except for the part where I point out that I already answered that I think that, RAW, you would roll back ability score increases), I've figured out where the true discrepancy lies, and why I'm blocking notifications from this thread.
Somebody says "Determine what spells you can learn as if you were single class."
You interpret "of a level you have spell slots for" as the determined level, job done, you've determined it. Most other people in this forum interpret it as the rule a single-class sorcerer uses to define the determined level, so they (and I, obvs) follow the rule as a single-class sorcerer would and get to a number, which we interpret as the determined level, job done, we've determined it.
Honestly, taken from that linguistic angle, everybody is correct, because language is super subjective. There isn't enough specificity in the language used in the phb to concretely classify it as either the determined level or the rule which defines the determined level. Of course, a word or phrase only has a particular meaning if a large enough group of people agrees it has that meaning, but this forum isn't necessarily a reliable cross-section of the population as a whole.
We have reached a meeting of the minds at last! We're both reading it differently, yeah, but finally see how each other is reading it. I knew that the Int example was going to lead us to some sort of level of understanding.
To be consistent with your reading of the rules, yes, you would need to say that the answer is 5. And, to your credit... you do exactly that. This means your logic is, at least, consistent with itself. So I applaud you on that.
We do disagree of course, I think it is 6. And, we've both laid out our reasons for each of those answers. I think 'as a single class' is referring specifically and exclusively to spells known/prepared as that is the section it is found in, you think it applies to any and all class related attributes of any kind.
Your answer leads to a 5 prepared and a No you can't learn higher level spell RAW.
Mine leads to a prepare 6 and yes you can, technically, RAW, learn higher level spells for some classes. (Though obviously not RAI.)
And, curiously enough... what everyone actually uses is: Prepare 6 and no higher level. <--- And this is the only answer that isn't logically consistent with itself.
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.
Interestingly, your supposition leads you to not being able to prepare any spells when taken to its correct logical conclusion. You choose your spells before you get your MC spellslots in the MC rules, so no MC character has any spellslots when they are forced to choose their spells.
Oh wait... but your class spellcasting features are constructed differently and do tell you about your slots before making you select spells. If only there were some way to let those spellslots from our class spellcasting features guide our spell selections...
[REDACTED] Imagine trying to DM for someone that wants to make their character so overpowered that they want access to 3rd level Sorcerer spells with a level 2 Sorcerer. Plenty of references have been given to prove why your assertion is incorrect, you obviously want to be in the right and have decided to cherry pick only the things that work for you and not what is written. You want 3rd-level Sorcerer spells, then level a Sorcerer. People multiclassing and expecting to get all of the benefits from their combined levels are nuts. "I'm technically a 6th level Spellcaster so taking 1 level in Cleric gives me access to Heal." lol.
Notes: Please remain respectful and constructive in conversation.
He mentioned numerous times how he doesn't run the game that way and is just inquiring about the wording in the PHB. The wording can, and has proven to be by this thread, interpreted in different ways. With that being said, EVERYONE on this thread knows how it's SUPPOSED to be run, that's not what it was about.
Frankly, the whole thread wouldn't exist if the sorcerer portion of the handbook specifically referenced the sorcerer spell table in its prepare/learn section, which he mentioned in the thread, but I'm assuming you didn't read most of it and skipped to this page to spout a misinformed opinion.
The irony is that the quality debate of the thread actually pointed at the fact that no matter which interpretation of the vague portion of the rules you follow, you're doing a portion of it wrong whether it be including ASI's but not character level, or including character level but not the higher spell slots. I think this revelation proves that the RAW aren't specific enough since neither interpretation is logically consistent with how the game is actually run, showing that the players have had to take liberties to make it function as it does now.
The good thing about this particular vague rule is that there is a very clear and explicit example that clears up just about every single problem that intentional misreading leads to. Does the example mention ASIs? Does any classes' spellcasting feature mention ASIs?
The only reason this is a question (and has been several times on this forum) is that people don't want the example to be correct.
I think this thread has missed a very important fact here. WoTC is not perfect. They either made a confusing mistake by writing it the way they did, or OP is correct it is intended to do this and if that is the case they needed to word it better. As someone who has written an entire ttrpg with all rules from scratch...you do this sometimes. You want it mean a certain thing but because of the wording you have used in other spots it leads to confusion. It's a thing. Probably would have been easier to have a member of the WoTC design team just answer this guy's question with a we're sorry, we're not perfect.
I think this thread has missed a very important fact here. WoTC is not perfect. They either made a confusing mistake by writing it the way they did, or OP is correct it is intended to do this and if that is the case they needed to word it better. As someone who has written an entire ttrpg with all rules from scratch...you do this sometimes. You want it mean a certain thing but because of the wording you have used in other spots it leads to confusion. It's a thing. Probably would have been easier to have a member of the WoTC design team just answer this guy's question with a we're sorry, we're not perfect.
There's no evidence any member of WOTC's design team knows this web site exists, let alone this forum, let alone this thread.
I think this thread has missed a very important fact here. WoTC is not perfect. They either made a confusing mistake by writing it the way they did, or OP is correct it is intended to do this and if that is the case they needed to word it better. As someone who has written an entire ttrpg with all rules from scratch...you do this sometimes. You want it mean a certain thing but because of the wording you have used in other spots it leads to confusion. It's a thing. Probably would have been easier to have a member of the WoTC design team just answer this guy's question with a we're sorry, we're not perfect.
There's no evidence any member of WOTC's design team knows this web site exists, let alone this forum, let alone this thread.
I really wish they did have an account here. If they just answered the rules threads that go past 100 comments, they will settle the the least clear rules and not even answer as many questions as they do on twitter.
"Thus, each spellcasting class's description (except that of the warlock) includes a table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each character level."
Chapter 6: Multiclassing, Subsection: Spellcasting ; Subrule: 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.
Result:
When Multiclassing the table provided in the class's description determines what spells you know and can prepare and the number of spell slots of each level a character can use at each character level.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
"Thus, each spellcasting class's description (except that of the warlock) includes a table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each character level."
Chapter 6: Multiclassing, Subsection: Spellcasting ; Subrule: 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.
Result:
When Multiclassing the table provided in the class's description determines what spells you know and can prepare and the number of spell slots of each level can use at each character level.
The discussion in this thread mostly died down in 2020. Id rather it not start back up.
"Thus, each spellcasting class's description (except that of the warlock) includes a table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each character level."
Chapter 6: Multiclassing, Subsection: Spellcasting ; Subrule: 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.
Result:
When Multiclassing the table provided in the class's description determines what spells you know and can prepareand the number of spell slots of each level a character can use at each character level.
What you know and prepare is based on the individual class.
The spell slots are determined by the multiclass rules.
Otherwise the sentence would have read something like: "You determine what spells you know andcan prepareand the number of spell slots you get for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."
"Thus, each spellcasting class's description (except that of the warlock) includes a table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each character level."
Chapter 6: Multiclassing, Subsection: Spellcasting ; Subrule: 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.
Result:
When Multiclassing the table provided in the class's description determines what spells you know and can prepareand the number of spell slots of each level a character can use at each character level.
What you know and prepare is based on the individual class.
The spell slots are determined by the multiclass rules.
Otherwise the sentence would have read something like: "You determine what spells you know andcan prepareand the number of spell slots you get for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."
"You determine what spells you know andcan prepareand the number of spell slots you get for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." That sentence makes no sense, because one could choose to use the multiclass table. Yet Chpt 10 specifically tells you the class's description has a table that is used specifically for how many actual spell slots of each spell level one has at a specific character class level.
Even you agree: "What you know and prepare is based on the individual class"
My opinion would be this: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each spellcasting class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class using the spellcasting class's description table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each individual class level."
bit wordy, feels redundant , not sure?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
What is even happening? Why are we ignoring the multiclass rule?:
Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
What is even happening? Why are we ignoring the multiclass rule?:
Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
I have no idea. That's what I was trying to point out in post #137.
What is even happening? Why are we ignoring the multiclass rule?:
Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.
I have no idea. That's what I was trying to point out in post #137.
to address both @DxJxC and @Farling : Not ignoring the Multiclass spell slots, the player in multiclassing still uses the spell slot table for the TOTAL player level. I am just addressing the point that chapter 10 of the rules directs you to the specific class description table you use as per the multiclass rules for known and prepared spells. [ Warlock is the only class without a table ]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, swarmkeeper says "When you cast [mage hand], the hand takes the form of swarming nature spirits.", AT says "when you cast Mage Hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it:". AT says you can modify the form and function of the hand formed by the cantrip; swarmkeeper changes the shape of the hand, but the wording shows that it still classifies as the hand formed by the cantrip; therfore AT can still modifiy the form and function of the hand, even when the hand is a swarm.
Go ahead and teach your swarming nature spirits to pick pockets.
I'm not available 24/7 to answer all of your questions, sorry bud.
As for the question... The rule that tells you to act as a single class is specifically for the purpose of Spells Known and Prepared, and is not for any other purpose whatsoever. If you attempt to universally treat your character as a single class for every other possible reason, you've taken a wrong turn here. That section is the only section you treat yourself as single class for. Spells known/prepared.
You're not single class for class abilities. You're not single class for ability scores. You're not single class for spell slots. You're not single class for proficiencies, or anything else at all... You're only treating yourself as single class for Spells Known and Prepared. That's it. Only that.
You agree that you keep the ASI from Ranger in the example, yes? Even while pretending you're a single class wizard? Yes? Same for spell slots. Because Spell Slots and Class abilities like ASIs are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules.
Except for in the few cases, in some classes, where they actually are. Ala the Wizard that specifically references: "Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table."
Absent that specific reference, spell slots, just like ASIs, are not determined in the Spells Known/Prepared section of the rules, and so the Spells Known/Prepared multiclass rules to treat yourself as single class for determining Spells Known/Prepared doesn't have any effect on your characters actual Ability Scores nor their Spell Slots.
Unless you do actually think the answer is 5. And, if you do, there is some new problems for you, like that the example specifically says it is 6. Examples seem to be RAW in your view, so that does create a problem for you there. Also, if you build that example character here in DDB, it is 6. So... I guess if you think DDB is wrong...
So are you a 5 or 6 guy? It is a little weird to go back and forth this much while you don't answer such a straightforward question.
Answering this question demonstrates why my reading is the correct one.
And, I say that while simultaneously advocating that it isn't RAI. And should be errata'd. No one should actually expect to play it the way the text technically says to, it was clearly an oversight. They saved like 6 words from the printing of a few classes and hoped no one would notice.
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.
Actually I do think that, in that specific instance, RAW would have you only prepare 5. I already said that it is more correct to say that you would roll back any ability score increases gained from other classes as far as RAW is concerned. I've already answered your question and not gone back and forth at all. Even though you pulled a stat increase out of thin air. It isn't in the example in the book, so how it can factor into a discussion on how the rules are written is absolutely beyond me.
Regardless, the spells known and prepared section says to learn and prepare spells as if you were single-classed. Meaning a character who is single class, not a character who has the single class rules for learning spells, but the multiclass rules for everything else, otherwise it would say "Prepare your spells individually for each class using the Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher section of that class.". If it said that, then it would exclude the single class rules for spell slots, but it doesn't. You're adding layers of specificity that simply are not present in the text.
But none of that changes the fact that "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." has a very specific meaning.
The dictionary definition of "as if" is "as it would be if" or "as one would do if", so we can rephrase it as
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as you would do if you were a single-classed member of that class."
So
What rules does a single classed sorcerer use to determine what spells they can learn?
"Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher"
Is that all of the single class rules that a single-class sorcerer would use?
"Yes."
Be honest!
"...no..."
So what else would they use?
"Spell Slots."
Excellent! They would use the Spell Slots section on page 101 which say-
"Page 164."
Now why would a single class character refer to the multiclass rules to determine how many spell slots they have?
"Because I already used those rules on my character sheet."
Oh good remembering! Well done! You have already used the multiclass rules to determine what spell slots you have.
"Yay!"
But how would a single-class character determine what spell slots they have?
"But I already have the spell slots! I've written them down on my multiclassed character sheet and everyth-OHHHHH. I get it now! I keep referring to multiclass rules when I have been specifically told to learn and prepare spells as if I was single-class!"
Hooray!
"But wouldn't that mean I have to ignore my Sorcerer ability score increase when determining how many Wizard spells I can prepare?"
Yeah, I've already said it does.
"Answer my question!"
I just did!
"Why aren't you answering!?"
I already did! A couple of times! Just because your example didn't prove your point, doesn't mean I didn't answer.
Actually, ignore my previous post (except for the part where I point out that I already answered that I think that, RAW, you would roll back ability score increases), I've figured out where the true discrepancy lies, and why I'm blocking notifications from this thread.
Somebody says "Determine what spells you can learn as if you were single class."
You interpret "of a level you have spell slots for" as the determined level, job done, you've determined it. Most other people in this forum interpret it as the rule a single-class sorcerer uses to define the determined level, so they (and I, obvs) follow the rule as a single-class sorcerer would and get to a number, which we interpret as the determined level, job done, we've determined it.
Honestly, taken from that linguistic angle, everybody is correct, because language is super subjective. There isn't enough specificity in the language used in the phb to concretely classify it as either the determined level or the rule which defines the determined level. Of course, a word or phrase only has a particular meaning if a large enough group of people agrees it has that meaning, but this forum isn't necessarily a reliable cross-section of the population as a whole.
We have reached a meeting of the minds at last! We're both reading it differently, yeah, but finally see how each other is reading it. I knew that the Int example was going to lead us to some sort of level of understanding.
To be consistent with your reading of the rules, yes, you would need to say that the answer is 5. And, to your credit... you do exactly that. This means your logic is, at least, consistent with itself. So I applaud you on that.
We do disagree of course, I think it is 6. And, we've both laid out our reasons for each of those answers. I think 'as a single class' is referring specifically and exclusively to spells known/prepared as that is the section it is found in, you think it applies to any and all class related attributes of any kind.
Your answer leads to a 5 prepared and a No you can't learn higher level spell RAW.
Mine leads to a prepare 6 and yes you can, technically, RAW, learn higher level spells for some classes. (Though obviously not RAI.)
And, curiously enough... what everyone actually uses is: Prepare 6 and no higher level. <--- And this is the only answer that isn't logically consistent with itself.
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.
Interestingly, your supposition leads you to not being able to prepare any spells when taken to its correct logical conclusion. You choose your spells before you get your MC spellslots in the MC rules, so no MC character has any spellslots when they are forced to choose their spells.
Wow, intentional misunderstanding is easy.
Oh wait... but your class spellcasting features are constructed differently and do tell you about your slots before making you select spells. If only there were some way to let those spellslots from our class spellcasting features guide our spell selections...
Too bad we're stuck preparing no spells.
[REDACTED] Imagine trying to DM for someone that wants to make their character so overpowered that they want access to 3rd level Sorcerer spells with a level 2 Sorcerer. Plenty of references have been given to prove why your assertion is incorrect, you obviously want to be in the right and have decided to cherry pick only the things that work for you and not what is written. You want 3rd-level Sorcerer spells, then level a Sorcerer. People multiclassing and expecting to get all of the benefits from their combined levels are nuts. "I'm technically a 6th level Spellcaster so taking 1 level in Cleric gives me access to Heal." lol.
He mentioned numerous times how he doesn't run the game that way and is just inquiring about the wording in the PHB. The wording can, and has proven to be by this thread, interpreted in different ways. With that being said, EVERYONE on this thread knows how it's SUPPOSED to be run, that's not what it was about.
Frankly, the whole thread wouldn't exist if the sorcerer portion of the handbook specifically referenced the sorcerer spell table in its prepare/learn section, which he mentioned in the thread, but I'm assuming you didn't read most of it and skipped to this page to spout a misinformed opinion.
The irony is that the quality debate of the thread actually pointed at the fact that no matter which interpretation of the vague portion of the rules you follow, you're doing a portion of it wrong whether it be including ASI's but not character level, or including character level but not the higher spell slots. I think this revelation proves that the RAW aren't specific enough since neither interpretation is logically consistent with how the game is actually run, showing that the players have had to take liberties to make it function as it does now.
The good thing about this particular vague rule is that there is a very clear and explicit example that clears up just about every single problem that intentional misreading leads to. Does the example mention ASIs? Does any classes' spellcasting feature mention ASIs?
The only reason this is a question (and has been several times on this forum) is that people don't want the example to be correct.
I think this thread has missed a very important fact here. WoTC is not perfect. They either made a confusing mistake by writing it the way they did, or OP is correct it is intended to do this and if that is the case they needed to word it better. As someone who has written an entire ttrpg with all rules from scratch...you do this sometimes. You want it mean a certain thing but because of the wording you have used in other spots it leads to confusion. It's a thing. Probably would have been easier to have a member of the WoTC design team just answer this guy's question with a we're sorry, we're not perfect.
There's no evidence any member of WOTC's design team knows this web site exists, let alone this forum, let alone this thread.
I really wish they did have an account here. If they just answered the rules threads that go past 100 comments, they will settle the the least clear rules and not even answer as many questions as they do on twitter.
Chapter 10: Spellcasting, Subsection: Spell Slots
"Thus, each spellcasting class's description (except that of the warlock) includes a table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each character level."
Chapter 6: Multiclassing, Subsection: Spellcasting ; Subrule: 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.
Result:
When Multiclassing the table provided in the class's description determines what spells you know and can prepare and the number of spell slots of each level a character can use at each character level.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The discussion in this thread mostly died down in 2020. Id rather it not start back up.
What you know and prepare is based on the individual class.
The spell slots are determined by the multiclass rules.
Otherwise the sentence would have read something like: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare and the number of spell slots you get for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare and the number of spell slots you get for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." That sentence makes no sense, because one could choose to use the multiclass table. Yet Chpt 10 specifically tells you the class's description has a table that is used specifically for how many actual spell slots of each spell level one has at a specific character class level.
Even you agree: "What you know and prepare is based on the individual class"
My opinion would be this: "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each spellcasting class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class using the spellcasting class's description table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each individual class level."
bit wordy, feels redundant , not sure?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
What is even happening? Why are we ignoring the multiclass rule?:
I have no idea. That's what I was trying to point out in post #137.
to address both @DxJxC and @Farling : Not ignoring the Multiclass spell slots, the player in multiclassing still uses the spell slot table for the TOTAL player level. I am just addressing the point that chapter 10 of the rules directs you to the specific class description table you use as per the multiclass rules for known and prepared spells. [ Warlock is the only class without a table ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.