D&D 5E Spellprepared/known for multiclassed spellcaster

[Vael]

Think of it as an order of operations issue. A cleric X/Wixard Y defines their spells prepared as if they were a Xth level Cleric and a Yth level Wizard. After you determine spells prepared, you then determine your spell slots, which would be X + Y on the multiclass spell slot table.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Think of it as an order of operations issue. A cleric X/Wixard Y defines their spells prepared as if they were a Xth level Cleric and a Yth level Wizard. After you determine spells prepared, you then determine your spell slots, which would be X + Y on the multiclass spell slot table.

If we're going to play this computationally, under the rules as written, your order of operations would result in an undefined term error, since the level of spells you can prepare is clearly contingent on your spell slots.

Again, it's a bad habit to try to shoehorn the rules as written into saying something they don't. It's far healthier to acknowledge, "They say this, but that's stupid, so we're going to play it some other way."

 

[MG.0]

Again, it's a bad habit to try to shoehorn the rules as written into saying something they don't. It's far healthier to acknowledge, "They say this, but that's stupid, so we're going to play it some other way."

Agreed.

Despite the debate on wording, does anyone -- anyone -- at all honestly believe a 20th level character who multiclasses should get the maximum spell level available to his new 1st level class? If you do...well I have no words.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Agreed.

Despite the debate on wording, does anyone -- anyone -- at all honestly believe a 20th level character who multiclasses should get the maximum spell level available to his new 1st level class? If you do...well I have no words.

To be fair, that is kind of how it works in 4E.

Kind of.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be fair, that is kind of how it works in 4E.

Kind of.

It'd mean re-training an old feat to retro-actively multi-class before taking your 20th level feat as Adept Power and trading in your brand-spanking-new Paragon Daily for a 19th level or lower daily from the MC, so, yeah, kinda.

Of course, it's not like a pair of feats is all that analogous to 3e-style modular MCing, anyway, even if they were nominally 'multi-class' feats, so it's no reason to think 5e is so whacked as to let a Cleric19/Wiz1 learn Wish. Cast Magic Missile with a 9th level slot, sure, but not Wish.

#RulingsNotRules

 

[MG.0]

To be fair, that is kind of how it works in 4E. Kind of.

Wow, another reason to avoid 4th. I thought I'd seen most of them.

 

[Vael]

If we're going to play this computationally, under the rules as written, your order of operations would result in an undefined term error, since the level of spells you can prepare is clearly contingent on your spell slots.

Um, no, a fifth level cleric has third level spell slots and then prepares 3rd level cleric spells. And a 7th level wizard has access to 4th level spell slots, and therefore 4th level wizard spells. Then, you overwrite and have the spell slots of a 12th level multiclass caster. This is how the example is written, and how the order is in the book.

 

[KarinsDad]

If we're going to play this computationally, under the rules as written, your order of operations would result in an undefined term error, since the level of spells you can prepare is clearly contingent on your spell slots.

The spell slots from the normal single class table, not the spell slots from the multiclass table.

Sorry, but this argument has no merit.

"Preparing as if" does not mean "preparing as if but with this one table exception".

In other words, there is no error. The logic is sound, it's the people who want to bypass the spell preparation rules of a single class PC who are ignoring the base rule.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Wow, another reason to avoid 4th. I thought I'd seen most of them.

That was largely a joke. As Tony Vargas said, the situation is not really analogous. Spells scale so differently in 4E that evaluating the multiclassing system based on 3E/5E preconceptions -- or vice versa -- is only going to mess you up. To make a long story short: this isn't what's problematic about 4E multiclassing.

The spell slots from the normal single class table, not the spell slots from the multiclass table.

That's what you want it to say. Hell, it's what I want it to say (kind of). But nowhere do the written rules actually make this distinction. They only refer to the spell slots "you have". Even if you don't fully agree with me that these rules imply the opposite of what you claim, can we at least agree that they are highly ambiguous and should have been written more clearly?

 

[KarinsDad]

That's what you want it to say. Hell, it's what I want it to say (kind of). But nowhere do the written rules actually make this distinction. They only refer to the spell slots "you have". Even if you don't fully agree with me that these rules imply the opposite of what you claim, can we at least agree that they are highly ambiguous and should have been more clear?

Actually, the rules do make the distinction.

See my earlier post.

Rule #3. Single class Clerics use the Cleric table to determine the spell slots that they use to prepare spells. They do not use the multiclass table for spell slots. If you are preparing spells "as per a single class PC", you follow the single class PC rules.

It really is explicit and it really is clear. People are just ignoring that rule to come up with this convoluted interpretation.