Multiclass and Spells - how does it work?

[Daphne]

It doesn't say that in the Cleric section. So you wouldn't be fixing it.

Specific (Multiclassing rules) trumps general (Cleric section).

[LeonBH]

That point has been replied to already.

No, it hasn't been yet.

[SpamCreateWater]

Specific (Multiclassing rules) trumps general (Cleric section).

I edited my post and ended up replying to you there. But then just realised how confusing it would be

[Seafarer]

It's not a basic fact, so it doesn't need to be countered. It's an incorrect assumption of what it means to prepare spells as a single class cleric. That inherently means you do it of your cleric level, since a cleric only has cleric levels.

I believe this is an important point. toapat and SpamCreateWater, do you have any specific rebuttal to this reasoning? Or are you now going to claim that a single-classed cleric can have levels in other classes?

[bid]

Because it does not say that in the Cleric entry.

Of course it won't. The entire Classes chapter assumes you are single class.
And the MC block about SKaP repeats the same thing: "single-classed".


That silly definition of MCs spell known/prepared requires that you ignore the RAW block about MC spell known/prepared. You can't get more twisted than that.

[toapat]

I believe this is an important point. toapat and SpamCreateWater, do you have any specific rebuttal to this reasoning? Or are you now going to claim that a single-classed cleric can have levels in other classes?

Take a hypothetical lvl 9 ranger, with 3 1st level, 2 2nd level, and 1 3rd level spell known. On level up, you take a level of paladin. you gain all the benefits of a first level paladin, and lose your 1 3rd level spell slot. you now know a 3rd level spell of which you have 0 spell slots, meaning you cannot know the 3rd level spell. as the paladin does not contribute any spellcasting at this point, you cannot have this third level spell known, as according to the strict rules of the Spells Known clause of ranger, you can only know spells of which you have spell slots, Which are not defined as determined by the ranger casting table.

[thoroughlyS]

I believe toapat and I are on the same page in saying: clearly the designers want a cleric X/wizard Y to prepare cleric spells as a cleric of level X. However, the rules of the game only specify "prepare cleric spells as a cleric" and not "as a cleric of level X". I am of the opinion that the rule should be rewritten to be more direct.

From what I've seen in this thread so far, no one has sufficiently countered this basic fact. Any and all claims have either missed the point of what is being stated, or argue something different.

It's not a basic fact, so it doesn't need to be countered. It's an incorrect assumption of what it means to prepare spells as a single class cleric. That inherently means you do it of your cleric level, since a cleric only has cleric levels.

I believe this is an important point. toapat and SpamCreateWater, do you have any specific rebuttal to this reasoning? Or are you now going to claim that a single-classed cleric can have levels in other classes?

I wasn't explicitly asked, but because I was pointed to as "the best summation" and because I've tried to explain this twice now, I figure another attempt can't hurt.

• The "basic fact" SpamCreateWater alludes to is that the Spells Known and Prepared section does not mention levels (character OR class levels) in the rules text. Yes, it does mention class levels in the example text which follows, but people can often skip example text; I admitted to as much in an earlier post. This is the "incorrect assumption" Tanarii mentions.
• In addition, "as if you were a single-classed member of that class" can be taken to mean "in the same manner as a single-classed member of that class" (i.e. follow the rules for preparing spells in each class's description), and this is not a stretch to accomplish.
• When discussing learning or preparing spells, the class descriptions refer to the spell slots a character has and not the levels a character has. If you miss the example text, it would be logical to use the Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots by Level table, because the section on multiclassing explicitly says to "determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table".

I'd like to take a moment to reiterate that the discussion in this thread so far is not between "use character level" and "use class level". This discussion is between "it can be read as character level" and "no it can't". For transparency, I am in camp "it can be read as character level", specifically because I used to read it as "use character level".

It's an incorrect assumption of what it means to prepare spells as a single class cleric. That inherently means you do it of your cleric level, since a cleric only has cleric levels.

I'd like to zoom in on this statement, because I feel that it misrepresents the text. It doesn't "inherently mean" to use your class level, it can be inferred to mean that. Again - setting aside the example text - if I am preparing cleric spells for a cleric 2/sorcerer 3 "as if [I was] a single-classed member of that class", I could just as easily infer that I prepare as if I was a single-classed cleric with access to 3rd-level spell slots (determined using the multiclass spellcaster table). Given only the rules text, this is not an impossible conclusion to reach. However, once given the additional context from the example it becomes clear that this is not what the designers intended (as we can all agree).

[Vaz]

Take a hypothetical lvl 9 ranger, with 3 1st level, 2 2nd level, and 1 3rd level spell known. On level up, you take a level of paladin. you gain all the benefits of a first level paladin, and lose your 1 3rd level spell slot. you now know a 3rd level spell of which you have 0 spell slots, meaning you cannot know the 3rd level spell. as the paladin does not contribute any spellcasting at this point, you cannot have this third level spell known, as according to the strict rules of the Spells Known clause of ranger, you can only know spells of which you have spell slots, Which are not defined as determined by the ranger casting table.

You are talking ****. You don't lose a spell slot, because you don't have the spellcasting class feature with paladin, so it doesn't follow multiclassing spellcasting rules.

[thoroughlyS]

You are talking ****.

Vaz, you don't need to be so hostile. You can simply quote the rules text you are referring to (which has not yet been posted in this thread).

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.

[krugaan]

I wasn't explicitly asked, but because I was pointed to as "the best summation" and because I've tried to explain this twice now, I figure another attempt can't hurt.

• The "basic fact" SpamCreateWater alludes to is that the Spells Known and Prepared section does not mention levels (character OR class levels) in the rules text. Yes, it does mention class levels in the example text which follows, but people can often skip example text; I admitted to as much in an earlier post. This is the "incorrect assumption" Tanarii mentions.
• In addition, "as if you were a single-classed member of that class" can be taken to mean "in the same manner as a single-classed member of that class" (i.e. follow the rules for preparing spells in each class's description), and this is not a stretch to accomplish.
• When discussing learning or preparing spells, the class descriptions refer to the spell slots a character has and not the levels a character has. If you miss the example text, it would be logical to use the Multiclass Spellcaster: Spell Slots by Level table, because the section on multiclassing explicitly says to "determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table".

I'd like to take a moment to reiterate that the discussion in this thread so far is not between "use character level" and "use class level". This discussion is between "it can be read as character level" and "no it can't". For transparency, I am in camp "it can be read as character level", specifically because I used to read it as "use character level".

Yes, but it is eminently more correct to finish the instruction clause "as if you a singleclassed member of that class" in it's entirety, rather than going to the referenced area, then referring to a different area outside the calling clause, wouldn't it?

If I instructed you to that you had just completed a long rest, and to prepare spells as if you were a level 1 cleric, would you ask if you had levels in anything else?

[toapat]

You are talking ****. You don't lose a spell slot, because you don't have the spellcasting class feature with paladin, so it doesn't follow multiclassing spellcasting rules.

read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

[LeonBH]

Vaz, you don't need to be so hostile. You can simply quote the rules text you are referring to (which has not yet been posted in this thread).

Thanks for the quote. Also, most people here are hostile in arguments. It's sad but true.

read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

Please refer to the quoted rule by JSketchy.

[...] 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.

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.

In other words, the rule on Spells Known and Prepared doesn't apply until the MC'ed character is Paladin 2. Therefore, a Ranger 9/Paladin 2 is a 5th level caster, having two 3rd level spell slots. While a Ranger 9 still also has 3rd level slots.

[Seafarer]

read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

No, you are wrong.

In the Multiclass section, under Spellcasting: "Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below."

Ranger 9/paladin 1 doesn't have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class. You therefore don't use the multiclass Spellcasting rules.

EDIT: Oh, and I already quoted this rule earlier in the thread. Well done for not reading that.

[thoroughlyS]

Yes, but it is eminently more correct to finish the instruction clause "as if you a singleclassed member of that class" in it's entirety, rather than going to the referenced area, then referring to a different area outside the calling clause, wouldn't it?

If I instructed you to that you had just completed a long rest, and to prepare spells as if you were a level 1 cleric, would you ask if you had levels in anything else?

I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what your asking in your first question. As is my understanding, you think that I'm trying to parse the rules text in some awkward way to arrive at the "character level" conclusion. As I explained in the post you quoted:

The rule (in its entirety) "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." can be read as "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, using the same method that a single-classed member of that class would." And this interpretation - without the added context found in the example text - gives no indication to use your class level for determining spell slots. Using this interpretation:

If you instructed me to prepare spells as a 1st level cleric, I would ask where you are getting 1st level from when the rules text doesn't mention a level.

No, you are wrong.

...

EDIT: Oh, and I already quoted this rule earlier in the thread. Well done for not reading that.

Bold = wrong. A ranger 1 doesn't have the Spellcasting class feature, so the multiclass Spellcasting rules don't apply. A paladin 9/ranger 1 has the same spell slots as a paladin 9.

You did not quote the rule. You make a statement (yes, one that aligns with the rules), but you do not reference the rules in anyway. This could easily just be seen as your interpretation, which could be just as unfounded as toapat's.

[Vaz]

I'm not being hostile, I'm saying he's talking ****. I'm not being aggressive, volatile, or anything like that. I'm calling out nonsense where I see it. Perhaps if people weren't talking nonsense so much, you wouldn't experience so much perceived hostility, whether it's there or not.

My friends and I call each other out on chatting utter ****, and saying 'nonsense' is no better because it means the same thing. Here is also an example of where you sidetrack from the pertinent question to address my percieved tone. Sort yourself out, and get on topic.

read the Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell slots rules. you always count Ranger and Paladin levels without exception, even though they do not yet have the Spellcasting Rule at first level. If this was the incorrect reading, Paladin and Ranger would have a similar exemption clause in the Spell Slots rule as Rogue and Fighter.

You mean the bit that tells you to only follow if they both have spellcasting. Sure. Did you mean to torpedo your own argument, or is there something we're all clearly missing?

[Tanarii]

I'd like to zoom in on this statement, because I feel that it misrepresents the text. It doesn't "inherently mean" to use your class level, it can be inferred to mean that.

Utter nonsense. As is your red text.

[thoroughlyS]

I'd like to zoom in on this statement, because I feel that it misrepresents the text. It doesn't "inherently mean" to use your class level, it can be inferred to mean that.

Utter nonsense. As is your red text.

Why exactly is that nonsensical?

A cleric 2/sorcerer 3 could be treated "as if [they] were a single-classed" cleric of level 2, but they could just as easily be treated "as if [they] were a single-classed" cleric of level 5, because if you don't read the example text it could go both ways. Yes, given that the example text clearly treats the example character as a 3rd level wizard, it is easy to see the designers intent. That is why I agree that you prepare based on your class levels. However, the purpose of this thread was to determine how people are misinterpreting the rules. All I have done is laid forth the logic that I operated under before realizing that the example text contradicted my initial understanding.

[krugaan]

Thank you SO much, mghamster, for this thread.

WHAT IS DEAD CAN NEVER DIE!

[LeonBH]

The rule (in its entirety) "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." can be read as "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, using the same method that a single-classed member of that class would." And this interpretation - without the added context found in the example text - gives no indication to use your class level for determining spell slots

I like how you reason, particularly because you're taking the flames directed at you in stride.

When you said "it can be read", do you mean "it can mistakenly be read" or "it can be correctly read"? Because if your stand is that someone can read the rule incorrectly, I don't think there is debate there. But if you're saying it is a correct interpretation that multi classed characters prepare spells using their total character level, that is an issue.

[thoroughlyS]

I like how you reason, particularly because you're taking the flames directed at you in stride.

I just sent my response as a private message, because Vaz is right, we shouldn't be derailing the thread.

When you said "it can be read", do you mean "it can mistakenly be read" or "it can be correctly read"? Because if your stand is that someone can read the rule incorrectly, I don't think there is debate there. But if you're saying it is a correct interpretation that multi classed characters prepare spells using their total character level, that is an issue.

I'm saying "it can be mistakenly read". I'm clarifying exactly the way in which it can be misinterpreted (from experience), because the first post asks:

How does this all work, and what's actually going on here. Are the spell Multiclass really nonsensical, as some claim? Or do they make perfect sense and these people just misunderstanding how the rules work?

And I'm just answering that the rules make sense, but are easily misinterpreted (especially if you don't read the example text).

[Tanarii]

Why exactly is that nonsensical?

Your attempt at semantics that doesn't materially affect the meaning of what I said in the case of what I quoted.

And in the case of the red text, it's a lack of understanding that that's not how English works.

Now, if you're saying that's the problem, that the red text is in fact the nonsense being exhibited, then sure, it's a good example of the nonsense being exhibited.

[toapat]

In other words, the rule on Spells Known and Prepared doesn't apply until the MC'ed character is Paladin 2. Therefore, a Ranger 9/Paladin 2 is a 5th level caster, having two 3rd level spell slots. While a Ranger 9 still also has 3rd level slots.

you literally have to ignore the golden rule's existence for your argument to work at all.

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.

this rule calls out explicitly when it is effect in explicit detail including when these classes count for the function of multiclassing.

Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes. 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 general section header is overridden by the spell slots consideration of the rule set because spell slots determine an exception to the general rule by its own precision. Paladins/Rangers are not spellcasters before lvl 2 but are still always considered while calculating caster level.

[Vaz]

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

Jesus wept. You wear velcro don't you?

[Seafarer]

The general section header is overridden by the spell slots consideration of the rule set because spell slots determine an exception to the general rule by its own precision. Paladins/Rangers are not spellcasters before lvl 2 but are still always considered while calculating caster level.

...you what?

The section header calls out the specific circumstance in which you use the rules under the "Spells Known and Prepared" and "Spell Slots" headings, and then reiterates that, if that specific condition does not apply, you use the general rules.

To make an analogy, you are arguing that my fighter should be able to teleport 30 feet because misty step is an exception to the general rules of movement - you're citing a specific rule that doesn't apply to trump a general rule that does.

[krugaan]

I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what your asking in your first question. As is my understanding, you think that I'm trying to parse the rules text in some awkward way to arrive at the "character level" conclusion. As I explained in the post you quoted:

The rule (in its entirety) "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class." can be read as "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, using the same method that a single-classed member of that class would." And this interpretation - without the added context found in the example text - gives no indication to use your class level for determining spell slots.

The point is, even red text included, if you do the rule in it's entirety, execute the rule without going back to consult an entirely different section of the book (i.e. the multiclassing rules for slots, which is a separate subsection...), then the Spams / Toalots language change is irrelevant.

The PHB is instructing you to prepare spells for your class as a class with a certain level (the individual level of each class). You pretend you're a single level class, and prepare spell accordingly. For cleric, the only limits are maximum spell slot (determined by level), and your wis modifier (which, along with level, determine how many spells you may prepare).

As an aside, I'm surprised this isn't brought up either, since there is no explicit source for these "temporary" stats. The obvious reason is that it's blindingly obvious that the stats for this theoretical single classed character are based on the character it's derived from.

Your character someDude is a sorc 19 / cleric 1.

someDude.prepareSpells(list, 13, cleric, 1); // fills the cleric list
someDude.prepareSpells(list2, 20, sorc, 19);

function prepareSpells takes (a list of known spells, a caster stat, a class, and a level) and returns (a list of prepared spells). The function DOES NOT REFERENCE THE SUPEROBJECT someDude, only the temporary object created by the barebones description given. Getting the "max level spell slot" for someDude simply does not happen, because the function completes in it's entirety with the object provided.

The instant argument against this is "well, humans aren't computers". The rejoinder is "then, why are you insisting on the ridiculous level of interpretation that you are suggesting?"

If you instructed me to prepare spells as a 1st level cleric, I would ask where you are getting 1st level from when the rules text doesn't mention a level.

I'm just instructing you to do it.

I understand that you think that the level you pass the function is not clear. That's ... somewhat debatable.

What toalot is arguing is different (actually, I'm not even sure who's arguing what, at this point). They're arguing that, when you go to prepare spells as a cleric, your slots are determined by the multiclass spellslots section (for a variety of reasons).

[toapat]

you're citing a specific rule that doesn't apply to trump a general rule that does.

how about you go read the very first codified rule of 5E dnd and read what you just said.

Multiclassing: Spellcasting: defines a general parameter for its usage, Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell Slots defines exact parameters of its usage

[Vaz]

how about you go read the very first codified rule of 5E dnd and read what you just said.

Multiclassing: Spellcasting: defines a general parameter for its usage, Multiclassing: Spellcasting: Spell Slots defines exact parameters of its usage

No, because then that ignores the specifically applicable rule that you don't have multiple spellcasting characters.

Does a Fighter or rogue multiclass lose access to spells until it takes a none spell advancing Archetype? Does your carer know you're using a keyboard without their supervision? You've got to be that monumentally stunted to even consider what your insinuating is any where near what the words say, and it is only by ignoring the entirety of the rule.

That is like me picking up this quote 'the Fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action' and saying 'sweet, look guys I have a way to play infinite attacks, there's no maximum limit for the fighter'.

Arrested development indeed.

[toapat]

Does a Fighter or rogue multiclass lose access to spells until it takes a none spell advancing Archetype?

Paladins and Rangers do not have an exception to the calculation, Fighters and Rogues are explicitly exempt from the calculation by requiring that they first be Eldrich Knights Or Arcane Tricksters.

Because that exception exists, and such an exception is not defined for Paladins and Rangers despite first level paladins and rangers lacking spellcasting, the rule is by its own definition is in effect regardless of what the general rule says.

[Vaz]

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below

Do you need it trepanning into you?

[toapat]

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below

Do you need it trepanning into you?

do you understand the meaning, intent, definition, and function of "Specific Trumps General"

do you understand how an enumerated list of defined application parameters is more specific than "If 2+ Spellcasting classes, use these rules"

Because you are not providing discussion or counterargument, you are ignoring how the natural priority of specificity defines them.