D&D 5E Spell Preparation: Leaving Slots Open

[El Mahdi]

The "When..." is definitive. It has no qualifier. When you prepare spells, you do the entire amount. So no slots should be empty save to screw yourself. When you want to change, it has to be a long rest. A natural reading of the "When..." text I overlooked. That means one time between long rests. Oh well, it wouldn't have been that great an advantage, though I do prefer the fiction of preparing a spell when needed rather than all at once.

Nooooooooooooo!

Don't give up!!!

I'm on your side now!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Page 58 of the PHB.

"You prepare the list of cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. When you do so, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

The whole list is prepared at once. It doesn't say "choose up to a number of cleric spells." It doesn't say you've got a capacity, and can partially fill that capacity. If you're a 20th level cleric but only want to prepare a single spell, Cure Wounds, well too bad--you must choose 20 total spells (+wis mod).

ok, so we are reading the same thing. However, and for those of us who contend its not so cut and dry, further down in the example:

"With a Wisdom of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination." [emphasis mine]

It says "can include" not "must include". So I think its fair to say its not so cut and dry. As Crawford would put it, the RAW might be everything at one time, but the RAI might be you can leave empty ones to be filled later.

*sigh* And here I thought maybe I'd be able to cut this whole thing off at the pass. I covered both of these arguments, literally with the identical "important text" referenced. Both of them are valid interpretations of that section, and since neither one is an explicit statement, it is up to personal preference (DM whim empowerment!) which implication you favor; there are perfectly valid arguments for ignoring the potential implications of both lines. (Specifically, to defuse Zarathustran's argument, there was no "up to" in the playtest docs, yet those documents explicitly stated that you could prepare some later in the day; and to defuse Jrowland's argument, the removal of the explicit "you can prepare some later in the day" text implies that that is no longer a valid interpretation.)

The text, as I said, is silent. It does not explicitly forbid, nor does it explicitly permit. Implication is an incredibly unreliable guide, and perfectly rational arguments can be made to justify both perspectives. The only factor which can conclusively decide this case, despite it being rather important to play and balance, is DM preference...

The "When..." is definitive. It has no qualifier. When you prepare spells, you do the entire amount. So no slots should be empty save to screw yourself. When you want to change, it has to be a long rest. A natural reading of the "When..." text I overlooked. That means one time between long rests. Oh well, it wouldn't have been that great an advantage, though I do prefer the fiction of preparing a spell when needed rather than all at once.

...which means I think, Celtavian, if you like the "prepare as needed, up to maximum" interpretation, go with it. When the rules are silent, even in an unfortunately important area, it's up to you (as DM) to figure it out. It sounds to me like you already have figured out what you want, so make the unilateral decision and be done with it. If, at a later time, you find that that choice results in things you didn't want, amend your decision. There is no shame in deciding that a prior decision was unwise and trying to correct it, as long as it's all done above board.

I'm struck by how... easy this discussion is. The 5E ethos of "rulings not rules" has apparently taken hold.

In 3e, I think this topic would have much more vehemence and passion about the "right" interpretation. Here, the discussion's tone is pleasantly theoretical, with the consensus being "play the way you want to play."

I'd say, bravo to the 5E team. It's working!

...are we reading the same thread? The rather vehement and repeated proclamation that this is "house ruling" and "obviously" goes against the intent of the rules doesn't strike me as a climate of "do what you want, there is no right answer."

 

[CapnZapp]

The "When..." is definitive. It has no qualifier. When you prepare spells, you do the entire amount. So no slots should be empty save to screw yourself. When you want to change, it has to be a long rest. A natural reading of the "When..." text I overlooked. That means one time between long rests. Oh well, it wouldn't have been that great an advantage, though I do prefer the fiction of preparing a spell when needed rather than all at once.

There really is no reason why you should give up on partial preparation just because it isn't in the rules.

The rule is fine. It's your house.

*shrug*

 

[CapnZapp]

*sigh* And here I thought maybe I'd be able to cut this whole thing off at the pass. I covered both of these arguments, literally with the identical "important text" referenced. Both of them are valid interpretations of that section, and since neither one is an explicit statement, it is up to personal preference (DM whim empowerment!) which implication you favor; there are perfectly valid arguments for ignoring the potential implications of both lines. (Specifically, to defuse Zarathustran's argument, there was no "up to" in the playtest docs, yet those documents explicitly stated that you could prepare some later in the day; and to defuse Jrowland's argument, the removal of the explicit "you can prepare some later in the day" text implies that that is no longer a valid interpretation.)

The text, as I said, is silent. It does not explicitly forbid, nor does it explicitly permit. Implication is an incredibly unreliable guide, and perfectly rational arguments can be made to justify both perspectives. The only factor which can conclusively decide this case, despite it being rather important to play and balance, is DM preference...



...which means I think, Celtavian, if you like the "prepare as needed, up to maximum" interpretation, go with it. When the rules are silent, even in an unfortunately important area, it's up to you (as DM) to figure it out. It sounds to me like you already have figured out what you want, so make the unilateral decision and be done with it. If, at a later time, you find that that choice results in things you didn't want, amend your decision. There is no shame in deciding that a prior decision was unwise and trying to correct it, as long as it's all done above board.



...are we reading the same thread? The rather vehement and repeated proclamation that this is "house ruling" and "obviously" goes against the intent of the rules doesn't strike me as a climate of "do what you want, there is no right answer."

Just saying that if you open the door to implication, you can read anything and everything into the rules.

I'm saying that the 5e rules language wasn't built to withstand that kind of rules lawyerism.

This means that it's incredibly easy to interpret the rules a certain way. And for your home table, that's a good thing.

It's when you take the discussion to the forums you need to be very aware that... expansive interpretations... might not fly with others, especially if you take to the threads to build some kind of community consensus that your generous interpretation is in fact not generous at all and instead objectively reasonable to everybody.

No vehemence. Just trying to be a voice of logic.

Cheers

 

[Celtavian]

I'm trying to keep house rules to a minimum. I wrote a lot of house rules in Pathfinder/3E I grew weary of keeping track of a large house rules document as more books came out and I had to modify to keep up with new rules. Since it offers no great advantage, might not be worth it to change. Though by convention, I will still allow someone to fill the new slot they gain when leveling. We've been doing this without worrying about the rule as was our custom in 3E.

 

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

Wouldn't this grant the Wizard's superior Ritual Casting to other classes? If that caster could access all the spells of any particular level they can cast, it would seem a substantial power up to those classes. Sure, they'd need to prepare it first, then cast it as a ritual, but it'd certainly worth a preparation slot.

 

[Li Shenron]

As I said there is nothing to indicate you can't fill a prepared spell later such as when you gain a level without taking a long rest.

I don't think this is a very good argument. There are thousands of things the game doesn't say you can't do, but that doesn't mean you can.

The only clear text is that once a spell is prepared, it can't be changed until a long rest.

If it was really so 'clear', then why did it feel clear to me since the start the opposite? That the prepared list is fixed, and changing the list requires a long rest. Adding something on a list is changing the list.

5e is not 3e. As others have stressed: the list of prepared spells interacts with, but is different from spell slots. The rules says that the complete list of spells is prepared all at once. There is a mechanism for changing that complete list after a long rest, but no explicit mechanism for partial preparation / completing a partially-prepared list.

PS for folks coming from 3e: once that list of prepared spells is made, it stays "intact" until you change it. If you're not changing your list, there's no need to spend time re-preparing that same list each day. In other words: if your cleric is jumped in the morning, he's still got all his prepared spells available. There's no longer a requirement to take time to pray to "regain" spells.

Absolutely.

It is not a good idea to make assumptions on previous editions. I know it isn't easy to avoid, when the new edition comes in a ~1000 pages format! I hardly believe that people read all of it before starting the game. I personally haven't even managed to the read all the ~150 pages of Basic!!

But an effort should be made to read the new 5e rules with a fresh mind. Our new beginner players (starting their RPGing experience with 5e) never for a second thought that it was possible to prepare some spells later.

"With a Wisdom of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination." [emphasis mine]

It says "can include" not "must include". So I think its fair to say its not so cut and dry. As Crawford would put it, the RAW might be everything at one time, but the RAI might be you can leave empty ones to be filled later.

I believe that the RAI is to prepare all spells at once.

They removed the partial preparation option from the game after playtesting, because in previous editions it helped coping with the problem of 'wasting slots' if you prepared a spell the utility of which was circumstantial. In 5e most of such spells are Wizard rituals (no need to prepare). Clerics still need to prepare rituals, but they also wanted the choice of domain to give an edge with 'always prepared' domain spells. In any case the new spellcasting rules of 5e are such that you never really 'waste slots'. If you require all spells be prepared at once, you might 'waste a preparation' but it is a lesser problem, and they must have thought that partial preparation was an unneeded complication and/or an undeserved additional flexibility to characters who are already a lot more flexible than ever.

 

[MoonSong]

Wouldn't this grant the Wizard's superior Ritual Casting to other classes? If that caster could access all the spells of any particular level they can cast, it would seem a substantial power up to those classes. Sure, they'd need to prepare it first, then cast it as a ritual, but it'd certainly worth a preparation slot.

Funny thing, wizards clerics and druids are the only full prepared casters, all other three are stuck with whatever spells they pick at level up (and this is significantly less than what wizards get, at eleventh level a wizard has more spells prepared than a 20th level sorcerer knows), and only bards and tome warlocks are ritual casters too. Really this only makes wizards even stronger, not weaker. Unless the DM gets petty about it and takes the chance to get rid of the spellbook.

 

[CapnZapp]

I believe that the RAI is to prepare all spells at once.

Yes - but that's not all.

To arrive at a different RAW interpretation one needs to apply rules lawyerisms such as "if they wanted to prevent partial prep, they would have said so".

And for a 3e-style rulebook, such an approach would not have been out of line.

But this isn't 3e.

The 5e rulebook uses natural language. Not formal language.

So when I tell you "for your meal, please pick three dishes from the menu" in informal language there aren't all kinds of possible interpretations, there's only one. (There's no need to say pick three and only three. Nor do you need to add three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three.)

Sure, you can come up with other explanations, but you're supposed to weed them out yourself - not expect the language itself to rule them out.

When we apply this to the passage about preparation in the PHB, the book essentially tells us "choose 12" or whatever number that applies.

In real life, I can use such "sloppy phrasing" because if you aren't sure, you will simply ask me to clarify. "Do I really need to choose all twelve right away?". That's what "natural language" means - it's the language you use in everyday conversations, where anything unclear is resolved through further talk.

But the PHB can't talk back at you.

In 3e, you should expect the PHB to come up with any clarifications, if they apply. And - super importantly - that if it stays silent, that you did not miss anything. You weren't the PHB's friend. Anytime the PHB missed something, you were right to pounce on that "loophole".

But in 5e, you should simply use the most likely interpretation, given a trustful, non-adversarial atmosphere.

If the book tells us to choose 12 without further elaboration, this means that whenever RAW is important (which it isn't at your home game), you simply "choose 12" in the simplest sense of that term. Which obviously does not include choosing nine now and three later.

Moreover, you should not assume two different paragraphs were written by the same person in the same state of mind. The fact that the subsequent paragraph says "can" instead of "must" is a weakness in the eyes of the lawyer, but you don't exploit weaknesses among friends.

That particular choice of wording is likely only a nod to the fact that factors can make your character have a different number of spells. Or perhaps you can't but the writer didn't want to commit to stronger language. (A very common result when you're not writing stringent, iron-clad rules language, by the way)

But none of that matters. Where you go wrong is when you confront the writer of the first passage with the second passage. Which is what you did when you found the word "can" in that 2nd paragraph, and took it, and returned to the first paragraph.

You don't do that with your friends: "You just told me you were away for six hours, but yesterday you told me you didn't leave until two o'clock and I checked our train ticket: we met half past seven. That only leaves five and a half hour. You're inconsistent and probably hiding something. Tell me now! Confess!!"

No.

Instead, when you read "natural language", you expect kind-of-sloppy inexact phrasings that you interpret in the most straight-forward way possible. (My friend remembered wrong. Or he counted wrong. Or he sucks at keeping appointments. Or he is hiding something which is none of my business.)

So when the rules tell you to prepare 12 spells you do just that and nothing else.

At least when it's kind of important, which it has become... at least in this thread.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, the rules as written are pretty clear that you don't get to do partial prep.

That said, I don't see any issues with allowing it, aside from the overhead of adding house rules. It's a tradeoff: You get the flexibility to prepare the spell you need when you need it, but it takes several minutes to do so, and until you make that time investment you have less flexibility (due to having fewer spells prepared).