Wizarding Rituals Are Weird (Especially When Multiclassing)

[doctorbadwolf]

So, there's not actually that much that gets weird in 5e when you multiclass, and for that I'm grateful, but spellcasting is the exception.

I came across an idea recently, that really shows how weird multiclassing can be, and it has to do with Wizards, spellbooks, rituals, and multiclassing spell slots.

It seems that, RAW, a wizard1/bard5, can add wizard spells up to level 3 with the ritual tag to their spellbook, and while they cannot prepare them, they can cast them as rituals.

Now, this isn't broken, power wise, but it also probably isn't the intention of the rules.

Relevant rules:

In the spellcasting section of the Wizard (I'm using dndbeyond, so I don't have page numbers) says,

You can cast a wizard spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell in your spellbook. You don’t need to have the spell prepared.

Nothing about needing to be able to cast it nomrally in order to cast it as a ritual, in fact, you explicitly don't need to prepare it, and only need to have it in your spellbook, which are the wizard's only measures of "being able to cast" a spell.

On adding spells to your spellbook, the rules say,

When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

As a level 6 multiclass caster with full spellcasting levels, you have 3rd level spell slots.

There is no text in the rules that contradicts this, therefor, you can add up to level 3 wizard spells, provided you find them and have the time and money, and while you can't prepare them, you can cast them as rituals.

Criticisms I've seen about this, from a RAW standpoint, rely on the text in the multiclassing section that says,

You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.

However, this does not effect what you can add to your spellbook, because it does not specifically say that it does, and thus the general rule stands.

You absolutely cannot gain higher level wizard spells when you level, but the text would have to specifically call out learning spells by finding them, and even though it uses a ranger/wizard as the example, it does not make any such distinction.

Just a fun little thing you can do by RAW, that isn't powerful enough to break anything, so I'd allow it as DM.

Bonus topic: The Ritual Caster feat is better for ritual casting spells from a given class than multiclassing into the class. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it is kinda weird, right? If you are a rogue4/wizard2, you can't learn rituals for wizards above level 1, but if you are a rogue6 with Ritual Caster, you can learn 3rd level rituals.

 

[Ristamar]

You're missing one crucial piece from the errata:

"Your Spellbook (p. 114). The spells copied into a spellbook must be of a spell level the wizard can prepare."

 

[5ekyu]

You're missing one crucial piece from the errata:

"Your Spellbook (p. 114). The spells copied into a spellbook must be of a spell level the wizard can prepare."

yeah DnDBeyond shows that clearly and also under multi-classing it says " You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. "

 

[doctorbadwolf]

yeah DnDBeyond shows that clearly and also under multi-classing it says " You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. "

The errata kills the idea, but the text you're quoting isn't relevant without the errata.

Not that it matters, since the errata exists.

Oh well, I'll still be allowing it in my games, if it ever comes up.

 

[5ekyu]

The errata kills the idea, but the text you're quoting isn't relevant without the errata.

Not that it matters, since the errata exists.

Oh well, I'll still be allowing it in my games, if it ever comes up.

The full text in dnd beyond does make it clear but even in place of that i would have ruled the multi-classing rule on spell-casting is the specific not the general.

Also, note you were not citing a specific rule allowing your wizard to learn higher level spelks or put them into your spellbook, merely running with the absence of a rule.

But as you say, a gm can allow anything.

Nowhere in the wizard does it ssy they cannot burn spell slots for paladin like smites even if they arent a paladin.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The full text in dnd beyond does make it clear but even in place of that i would have ruled the multi-classing rule on spell-casting is the specific not the general.

Also, note you were not citing a specific rule allowing your wizard to learn higher level spelks or put them into your spellbook, merely running with the absence of a rule.

But as you say, a gm can allow anything.

Nowhere in the wizard does it ssy they cannot burn spell slots for paladin like smites even if they arent a paladin.

Not comparable.

The rule, before the errata, stated that you can add spells to your book as long as they are of a level for which you have spell slots.

pre-errata, what you can add to your spellbook, and what you can prepare, while mostly overlapping, aren't the same thing. That is almost certainly why the errata even exists.

I wasn't running in the absence of a rule. There is no need for a rule saying you can add higher level spells, there is a rule saying that you can add spells to your spellbook so long as you have slots of that spell's level. That's it.

As for you ruling on which is general and which is specific, it doesn't actually matter, because the two don't contradict, until the errata comes into play.

 

[5ekyu]

Not comparable.

The rule, before the errata, stated that you can add spells to your book as long as they are of a level for which you have spell slots.

pre-errata, what you can add to your spellbook, and what you can prepare, while mostly overlapping, aren't the same thing. That is almost certainly why the errata even exists.

I wasn't running in the absence of a rule. There is no need for a rule saying you can add higher level spells, there is a rule saying that you can add spells to your spellbook so long as you have slots of that spell's level. That's it.

As for you ruling on which is general and which is specific, it doesn't actually matter, because the two don't contradict, until the errata comes into play.

The multi classing rule says the spelks you know and learn are limited by the individual class and the spellbook rule states the spellbook if the spells you know as a wizard except cantrips.
Mc spellcasting
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. "


"Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind."

Even your original post limited the spellbook by "if it is a level you can prepare".

You then went on to spevulate that since 3rd level spells are possible for the combined multi-class that made it possible.

But as the SPECIFIC RULE IN MC STATES "know" is determined for each class independent and is not governed by the multi-class slots.

Again, simple to see if one does not try and pretend "know" and "spellbook" are linked in the wizard spellbook rule itself.

You seem to have been wsnting to,pretend that "in spellbook" was an exception to the MC limit on know or prepare for each class individually, but its clear thats not the case.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The multi classing rule says the spelks you know and learn are limited by the individual class and the spellbook rule states the spellbook if the spells you know as a wizard except cantrips.
Mc spellcasting
"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. "


"Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind."

Even your original post limited the spellbook by "if it is a level you can prepare".

You then went on to spevulate that since 3rd level spells are possible for the combined multi-class that made it possible.

But as the SPECIFIC RULE IN MC STATES "know" is determined for each class independent and is not governed by the multi-class slots.

Again, simple to see if one does not try and pretend "know" and "spellbook" are linked in the wizard spellbook rule itself.

You seem to have been wsnting to,pretend that "in spellbook" was an exception to the MC limit on know or prepare for each class individually, but its clear thats not the case.

Wizards have spellbooks, they can put a spell in their book if it meets the requirement. That requirement changed, but before it did there was nothing stopping it.

And yes, I quoted the dndbeyond text without realising that it had been erratad to read differently from my phb that i'd been reading a few hours before.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I know the errata has cleared this up but I never read the multiclassing rules that way in the first place.


In the Wizard section, it says, "Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind."

In the multiclassing section, it says, "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 Wizard 1 / Bard 5 then your spellbook, which contains all the spells you know, can only contain spells that a Wizard 1 knows. A Wizard 1 can't know any level 3 spells therefore they can't put any level 3 spells in their spellbook. At least, that's the way I always read it.

 

[5ekyu]

Wizards have spellbooks, they can put a spell in their book if it meets the requirement. That requirement changed, but before it did there was nothing stopping it.

And yes, I quoted the dndbeyond text without realising that it had been erratad to read differently from my phb that i'd been reading a few hours before.

Whatever you want to spin go ahead but the point of your argument i was referring to is this...

"However, this does not effect what you can add to your spellbook, because it does not specifically say that it does, and thus the general rule stands. "

My,point was that the opening sentence in spellbook establishes the spellbook stores the spells you know.

Your argument hingedvon "spellbook" and "know" being separate as much as it did the level limits.

So, unless your argument was that a first level wizard alone could do the ritual trick without needing the 3rd level slots at all - which raises the question of why you bothered with the entire 3rd kevel slots part - the speelbook and spells you know mc already prevented it.