D&D 5E Spellprepared/known for multiclassed spellcaster

[Dausuul]

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?

Except that the example resolves the ambiguity. With the example, there is no possible doubt about how it's supposed to work. You calculate slots per your level in each individual class, then use that to determine spells known/prepared for that class.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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?

I agree that it could have been written more clearly. They give an example of what do you for spells known but not an example on how to calculate prepared spells. I had to have this argument with my roommate who insisted he should be able to prepare 9th level spells in the case of 1 cleric/19 wizard. It took us nearly an hour of discussing it and him rereading the example 3 or 4 times before he said "Alright...the more I look at it, the more I realize that what you are saying is very likely what they are TRYING to say in the book. However, it doesn't say that precisely."

And I agree...a simple example could have taken this situation from ambiguous to easy to understand. But, given that Jeremy Crawford has stated that is what he intended, the wording in the book is kind of moot.

 

[spectacle]

The rules could be written clearer, but they say exactly the same as the example. The multiclass rules says that you know/prepare spells as a single class caster. A single class caster will obviously not use the multi class spell progression table, since he only has one class. Thus he can't have any spell slots higher than what he can find in the spell table for his class using his levels in that class.

There really is only one correct way to interpret these rules, but I agree that the way the multiclass rules are written and how they interact with the rules for each class makes it easy to reach an incorrect interpretation if you're not concentrating hard. Remember that the 5E rules are written in English rather than legalese, so if it seems like the rules say something weird, it's generally a sign that you're not interpreting them how they're supposed to be

 

[Dausuul]

I agree that it could have been written more clearly. They give an example of what do you for spells known but not an example on how to calculate prepared spells. I had to have this argument with my roommate who insisted he should be able to prepare 9th level spells in the case of 1 cleric/19 wizard. It took us nearly an hour of discussing it and him rereading the example 3 or 4 times before he said "Alright...the more I look at it, the more I realize that what you are saying is very likely what they are TRYING to say in the book. However, it doesn't say that precisely."

And I agree...a simple example could have taken this situation from ambiguous to easy to understand. But, given that Jeremy Crawford has stated that is what he intended, the wording in the book is kind of moot.

I think the example is perfectly clear. Classes that know spells and classes that prepare spells both rely on spell slots to determine what you can know/prepare, so there is no reason why the example wouldn't apply to both. Why should they have to spell it out for every single class?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think the example is perfectly clear. Classes that know spells and classes that prepare spells both rely on spell slots to determine what you can know/prepare, so there is no reason why the example wouldn't apply to both. Why should they have to spell it out for every single class?

Because there are people like my roommate who are very literal minded. Our conversation consisted of:

"They have an example for how many spells you know. But they are talking about rangers who only know a certain number of spells per level. That makes sense to me. But you use spell slots to determine which spells you prepare. I have 9th level spell slots. Why can't I prepare 9th level spells?"

"Because you determine spells you can prepare as if you were single classed."

"That's not what the example says, it says if you are a ranger you only know lower level spells. Which makes sense, because under ranger it says you only know a certain number of spells based on your ranger level."

"But the sentence above says that you determine your spells you both know AND prepare as if you were single classed."

"But that's my point. You determine your prepared spells by the level of spell slots you have. Not your level. A 1st level cleric who has 9th level spell slots can still cast 9th level spells."

"He can CAST them but he can't PREPARE them."

"Why not? He has 9th level spell slots and under cleric it says the maximum level you can prepare is the highest level spell slot you have."

"But the text says you determine which spells you prepare as if you were single classed. So if you were a singled classed level 1 cleric, you would only have level 1 spell slots."

"But the text never says 'Determine the spells slots you'd have if you were a level 1 cleric then use that to determine the maximum level spell you can prepare'."

"I think that's what 'Determine your known and prepared spells as if you were a single classed member of your class' means."

"If they meant that, you'd think they would have WROTE that. Instead they give us an example of the number of known spells you get as a Ranger. That was wasn't ambiguous to begin with because under Ranger it even says you use your Ranger level to determine spells known. There's nothing under Cleric stating you use your Cleric level to determine the number of spells you can prepare."

"That's true. Because it doesn't need to. Multi-classing is an optional rule and the rest of the text is written without really taking multi-classing into account."

"Well, that's stupid. They could have easily written that somewhere so we didn't have to figure out what they meant."

 

[MG.0]

"Well, that's stupid. They could have easily written that somewhere so we didn't have to figure out what they meant."

At which point I would have asked him to write a coherent rule set for something as open ended as D&D in easy to read language with no ambiguity.

Then I would point out the common sense interpretation that says multiclassing grants you new class abilities, but you have to work upwards in your new class the same as your old. What would be the flipping point to give you the most powerful spells right off the bat? Especially given an example of how it works with another class? Combined spell slots are obviously a compromise to remove the need to track different slots for each class. I knew it was a hack the second I saw it. Literal is one thing, thick is another.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Then I would point out the common sense interpretation that says multiclassing grants you new class abilities, but you have to work upwards in your new class the same as your old. What would be the flipping point to give you the most powerful spells right off the bat? Especially given an example of how it works with another class? Combined spell slots are obviously a compromise to remove the need to track different slots for each class. I knew it was a hack the second I saw it. Literal is one thing, thick is another.

He hates when I refer to "common sense". He is convinced no such thing exists. Each time I'm convinced something is common sense, he or one of my other players makes the claim that they never would have read it that way had I not pointed it out to them. He said that having access to 9th level spells wasn't that powerful since you don't get any more slots. So, to him, it wasn't obvious at all.

I have a player in one of my other games that insists on reading everything super literally regardless of how powerful that turns out. We had a big argument about the Lucky feat and it's ability to turn disadvantage into SUPER advantage by letting you roll 3 dice and take the best of the 3 whenever you have disadvantage.

I thought that it made absolutely no sense to interpret it that way since the feat shouldn't become BETTER when you are suffering disadvantage. He said "But that's what it says in the book." The Sage ruled my way last year and changed his mind to allow Super Advantage more recently. Mainly because the Sage feels he shouldn't errata things with his ruling and the book is fairly clear that you get Super Advantage.

 

[MG.0]

He hates when I refer to "common sense". He is convinced no such thing exists. Each time I'm convinced something is common sense, he or one of my other players makes the claim that they never would have read it that way had I not pointed it out to them. He said that having access to 9th level spells wasn't that powerful since you don't get any more slots. So, to him, it wasn't obvious at all.

I have a player in one of my other games that insists on reading everything super literally regardless of how powerful that turns out. We had a big argument about the Lucky feat and it's ability to turn disadvantage into SUPER advantage by letting you roll 3 dice and take the best of the 3 whenever you have disadvantage.

I thought that it made absolutely no sense to interpret it that way since the feat shouldn't become BETTER when you are suffering disadvantage. He said "But that's what it says in the book." The Sage ruled my way last year and changed his mind to allow Super Advantage more recently. Mainly because the Sage feels he shouldn't errata things with his ruling and the book is fairly clear that you get Super Advantage.

I can understand the objection to "common sense" thing, but sheesh multiclassing lets you BEGIN advancing in another class, not start at the top. Anyone who couldn't see that I would suspect of being deliberately obtuse in an effort to power-game. I would never let a player argue a point like that in my games.

I don't get the issue with the Lucky feat you mention. It has no mention of disadvantage at all. It merely says you can spend one luck point to gain an extra d20 when making an attack roll, et. al. It's also clear from the feat that you can only spend 1 point per roll. It says nothing about advantage so I don't see that it would be connected to advantage/disadvantage in any way. If someone had disadvantage and rolled two dice and then decided to spend a luck point I would allow them a new roll that they could use in place of the lowest of the two already rolled. If instead, they already had advantage and didn't like either of the two dice they rolled they could also choose to spend a luck point to roll a third. Seems pretty straight forward to me.


Example with disadvantage:
Player rolls a 1 and a 20. Result is a 1. Player spends luck point and rolls a 5. He can choose 1 or 5.

Example with advantage:
Player rolls a 1 and a 15. Result is a 15. Player spends a luck point and rolls a 10. He can choose 15 or 10.

 

[seebs]

I do think the example makes it clear that you get to prepare spells based on the slot levels that would be available to a single-classed character of that level.

 

[KarinsDad]

"But the text never says 'Determine the spells slots you'd have if you were a level 1 cleric then use that to determine the maximum level spell you can prepare'."

"I think that's what 'Determine your known and prepared spells as if you were a single classed member of your class' means."

"If they meant that, you'd think they would have WROTE that. Instead they give us an example of the number of known spells you get as a Ranger.

Your roommate is purposely being obtuse. They did write that. Once you pointed out the relevant rule of "as a single class PC" which includes the rule "use the cleric table to determine spell slots" (and hence prepped spell levels), he should at that point realize that your interpretation is both RAI and RAW.

Is your roommate a power gamer?