Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Technical & Gameplay Problems Exploits: Multiclass System is Fundamentally broken

That passage isnt about learning your spells outside of lvl up, its about how they prepare spells and wizards prepare any spells they can get it the spellbook so long as they get the slots to cast it.

To be fair i think that both of you are right. I´ll try to explain why as I just rechecked the PhB:

- As far as multiclassing is concerned, according to PhB if you have a char level 4 ranger/level 3 wizard you will have up to 4 level 1 spell slots, 3 level 2 spell slots and 2 level 3 spell slots, but, you obviously don´t know any spells of that level from any of those classes while leveling, since you didn´t reach the proper level.

- However, in the page 164-165 doesn´t specify the spells learnt from scrolls, so, we come back to each classes explanation for that as Derpie mentioned, and according to that, if you are a wizard and have spell slots of certain level, you can learn scrolls from that level.

- As the spell slots combine between caster levels, and as a wizard particularly, you could indeed learn from scrolls the same level spells as the level of your maximun spell slot, but you won´t learnt them "naturally" when leveling up.

It´s kind of tricky actually, but since the multiclass section doesn´t talk about scrolls, we must guide ourselves with the classes rule section.

Honestly at this point Wotc should just delete wizards from DnD entirely and let sorcerer's memorize scrolls.

For whatever reason they very clearly hold a grudge against the class and the intelligence stat.

This seems like a fair and measured take on the subject.

I get not liking the mechanic, but is there some actual rule that disputes this? I mean disputes it in a calm and analytic manner, free of aggression?

You again?

We get it, you hate wizards, because they are not ultimate powerhouse they used to be in one of the previous editions.

However, you are complaining about problems with 5e, which you really haven’t played from what I read. Instead of asking for Larian to make the wizard so strong it can solo a game by itself, why wont you play other games instead? Like Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous or something.

I have already explained why Wizards are good in 5e and how Larian changed rules a lot, so I am not going to repeat myself here.

Anyway, sorcerer being able to learn any spells by taking a dip into wizard is not how it would work in 5e. The two classes are supposed to be different.

Wizards are supposed to be a bit like magic toolbox, allowing them to prepare for any situation and change spells on a daily basis. They sacrifice some power for much more utility.

Sorcerer are the opposite. They are like magic hammers. Very powerful, but also limited. Metamagic is supposed to make up for lack of utility.

In tabletop top version 9/10 I would take Wizard for stuff like ritual casting, detect magic, etc. However BaldursGate3 uses Arcana for vast majority of skill checks. This combined with nova builds and rule changes makes them weaker than sorcerer.

PHB Pg 114, 2nd paragraph

“Copying a Spell into the Book. 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.”

PHB pg 164, spellcasting, 2nd paragraph

“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. If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1 st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As a 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can
be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.

PHB Pg 114, 2nd paragraph

“Copying a Spell into the Book. 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.”

PHB pg 164, spellcasting, 2nd paragraph

“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. If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1 st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As a 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can
be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.

Isn't this saying that you can "prepare" spells based on your individual level... meaning that a 3rd lvl wizard with a 16 Int can *prepare* 6 spells.

And you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level you can prepare...

And you have the higher level slots...

So doesn't that just mean you can *prepare* spells you know up to the amount of spells you can prepare? In the example case, six spells. Of whatever level you have a slot for?

I don't see anything in that passage saying you can't copy a spell into your spellbook if you have a high enough slot level to cast it. Not trying to be difficult. It just doesn't seem as clear cut as I think you're presenting it.

“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. If you are a ranger 4/wizard 3, for example, you know three 1 st-level ranger spells based on your levels in the ranger class. As a 3rd-level wizard, you know three wizard cantrips, and your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd-level spells. If your Intelligence is 16, you can prepare six wizard spells from your spellbook.

I keep trying to show you this paragraph copied - word for word from Pg 164 of the PHB to show you that you cannot learn a spell from a scroll for Wizard for a spell level you don't have as a Wizard. A Level 1 Wizard could learn all the first level spells they want as a Wizard. They could not learn 2nd level or up spells.

So a 4 Ranger/3 Wizard could learn all the 1st and 2nd level spell scrolls for Wizard, but could only prepare Six Wizard spells if your Int was 16.

There are a lot of conversations that back this up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/mkh8km/can_i_cast_prepared_wizard_spells_with_higher/

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/73032-multiclass-wizard-spells#:~:text=Because%20the%20Wizard%20and%20Sorcerer,level%20spell%20slot%20to%20use.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/quest...pellbook-as-a-sorcerer-wizard-multiclass

https://www.enworld.org/threads/cou...everything-unique-about-a-wizard.678509/

To say otherwise is to deeply misunderstand the differences in how Wizards and Sorcerers understand spells.

Let's start with "What spells you know" - A spell you know is one you copied into your spellbook. So in this case you can copy spells into your spellbook based on your level in that class. So you "determine" what "spells you know" based on the level you have in the class you want to "know" the spell in. This is determined "as if you were a single member of that class"

Does that help?

I suppose it's not as clear cut on the first reading alone.

To put simply, you prepare spells separately, but combine spell slots together.

So a level 10 character, 6 paladin, 4 sorcerer would go like this:

A) Spell slots: Paladin is a half caster, so he gets 6x0.5 levels of full caster like Wizard. This combined with 4 levels of sorcerer gets him to level 7 spell slots. Aka:

4 level 1 spell slots
3 level 2 spell slots
3 level 3 spell slots
1 level 4 spell slot.

B) Spells prepared/known:

Paladin gets only access to level 2 spells he can prepare. In this case, with CHARISMA of +5, he can prepare grand total of 8 spells.

Sorcerer also gets same treatment, but you have to refer to their own seperate class, which gives him 5 spells known across spells of levels 1 and 2, same as Paladin.

Neither of the classes gets access to level 3 or higher spells, meaning they cant use them or prepare them. They can only upcast lower level spells using higher spell slots.

The same works for Wizard. A level 3 Wizard cant learn fireball, but they can cast a spell from the scroll, assuming they pass Int check equal to 10 + spell level.

I had the impression that was talking about the spells you received when you went up a level, as opposed to "known" in the broader sense.

But I can certainly see your interpretation. It's a strong position when it comes to rules as written. I don't know that I would be inclined to argue further. I'd accept that as being almost certainly the intention behind the rules as written.

Meaning the higher level slots available would be there solely for upcasting lower level spells.

*

Just to be clear, I've never gotten into 5e, so outside of BG3, I know next to nothing about it. I'm one of those people who never cared too much how true the game was to the book, but I recognize that others feel differently. Strongly so, sometimes, it appears.

I appreciate that. Again, I am just quoting the rules as written for multiplayer guidelines in the PHB for 5e. The way this is written assumes that the player would understand that these rules would be fundamental to the classes involved and that there are certain aspects of your class which are immutable.

That Sorcerers get a limited spell list to work with that they can create highly bursty damage with metamagic, or more casting is considered an "immutable" facet of the class.

That Wizards get a wide range of spells to choose from that they can't apply metamagic to, or can't cast as often is considered an "immutable" facet of that class.

The few times people have brought this up the community has overwhelmingly said "No, you can't do that - here are the rules as written"

Doesn't matter anyway, you don't need the extra spells from multiclassing to wizard for anything.

I kept to 12 sorc levels, much prefer the extra feat. +2 Cha and ethel hair for 20, Spell Sniper and War Caster.

This is a post in Gameplay problems that focuses on a broken aspect of the game. Your response is off-topic. I would invite you to keep your opinions in the appropriate threads.

Actually my point was the fact that there is nothing broken about it. You give up a feat to be able to do this, and the impact to gameplay is minor at best.

It would seem to be working as intended.

If you don't like it then don't multiclass. Very easy and simple solution.

And that has proven to be wrong on every point. That you elevate ignorance to virtue is immaterial to the discussion, and frankly not my problem. I would invite you to not "contribute" further.

Proven by whom? Pretty much no one in this thread agrees with you, and even showed that it is allowed in pnp rules.

I and others are allowed to disagree with what you consider to be 'broken' when in fact it is not.

But in any case, the sooner you distance yourself from expecting video games to follow pnp 100% accurately, the easier it will be for you to accept. None of the dnd based video games are 100% accurate to the source material, kind of like the Witcher series on Netflix to the books, expecting this to happen will just continue to further disappoint you.

But technically anything in pnp can also have 'homebrew' rules right? So what does it matter to you if other players chose to make an 11 sorc / 1 wizard and memorize all the spells they want in their single player game?

Wouldn't it be simplest to just contact Larian's support and ask if they intended for this to work like this or not instead of attacking other people here? If they say yes, then there's really no point in continuing any further.

You have expressed your opinion and I have provided facts. That you have steadfastly ignored those facts, and the quoted RAW from the PHB is fully expected from what I have seen.

You have failed to respond with any new information, or any facts, or make any arguments in good faith - and unfortunate side effect of not taking the time to self-improve, read, grow or experience new things in a lifetime.

Here is what I am going to do though and it's an extra-ordinary step that I have not taken in a long time. I am going to go ahead and block you. It's clear you have nothing to contribute and you have a need for attention that borders on obsessive - and I just don't want to be a part of that.

ta-ta then.