TLDR: when you multiclass with different spellcaster class, does your spell slot all merge and are all consider part of all class? can a paladin/warlock use the warlock spell slot to divine smite even if divine smite specify that you need to use your PALADIN spell slots? does a sorcerer 19/warlock1 can beenfit from a rod of the pact keeper? etc...
For Example:
When you multiclass 4 spellcasters (Sorcerer1/wizard1/warlock1/paladin2) for example (I'm not trying to create a optimize character it's purely for example purposes.
My Sorcerer learn chromatic orb and shield
Wizard prepare mage armor, burning hand, sleep, jump
Warlock learn Hex and Armor of Agathys
Paladin prepare Cure wound, Bless, divine favor, searing smite and shield of faith
This character is consider as a warlock 1 spellcaster 3 so he have
He got:
6 spell level 1 (4 from spellcaster3 and 2 from warlock)
2 spell level 2
On a short rest he regain 2 spell level 1 and with arcane recovery he can regain 1 spell level 1
So for ability that require a class spell, like paladin divine smite require a PALADIN spell slot. can he divine smite with a spell level 2? does the warlock spell slot that are kept separatly from the the other since they are regained on a short rest can be used for divine smite?
If I get a Rod of the Pact keeper
While holding this rod, you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells
QwertyAzerty wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Yes, some DMs may choose to ignore the most direct interpretation of the rules, relying instead upon a personal favorite that adds complexity for no reason.
Yes, those DMs might also ignore the very direct guidance we're offered on how the rules interact.
No, there's nothing you can really do about it if you have the misfortune of being seated at one of their tables, other than walk away.
No, this isn't a conversation that I'm interested in having again.
I disagree that it is RAW**. The section on p.164 is specifically talking about spellcasting. It explicitly calls out having Pact Magic and Spellcasting class abilities, and details how *those two* abilities intereact. It does not preclude or restrict other uses for the spell slots.
The Paladin ability just says you can use a Spell Slot** for Divine Smite. The section on p.164 does not apply.
**NOTE: There is one issue, in that the Paladin ability does state "Paladin" spell slots. But the problem is there is no such thing as "Paladin Spell Slots", nor Wizard Spell Slots, nor Warlock Spell Slots. As far as I can tell, that is the only place in the PHB that gives class ownership to a spell slot. So I would treat that as a typo, similar to the third bullet from Grappler.
My assumption is supported by multiple responses from Crawford stating that the "paladin" usage was an error, and that the slots gained via Pact Magic can be used for Smites.
There are only Spell Slots and Pact Magic Slots.
There is no such thing as Paladin Spell Slots. It is my belief that this entry was simply an editing oversight after they had finalized the multiclass rules (in much the same way that Invocations fail to mention "levels in the Warlock class" despite all other similar features using such language).
Remember - different parts of the rules were finalized at different times, and minor changes in language may be overlooked, and not corrected in the final print.
The ruling by JC is contrary to what it states on p164, in that Spell Slots =/= Pact Magic Slots, yet despite this - JC considers them the same thing for the purpose of class features. While this may be RAI, it was certainly not represented in the RAW.
While i don't remember all the details, and not sure if I can track down the discussion.... I seem to remember a thread awhile back that talked about being able to learn a spell as a wizard, and cast it as either a wizard or warlock (assuming both classes) if it was on both spell lists.
IOW, you could prepare Hold Person as a Wizard, and cast it as a Warlock Spell, utilizing your Rod. As I recall, there was Dev support for this. (The thread was about someone wanting to cast it as both a warlock and wizard spell simultaneously....which was not allowed.)
That is not correct. Spells are tied to the class that you gain them from.
A sorcerer/wizard which learns fireball as a wizard spell cannot cast it as a sorcerer spell. If they know the spell from both classes, they can cast it as either a sorcerer spell (charisma spell, sorcerer class features) or as a wizard spell (Intelligence spell, wizard class features), but only if they both know the spell (sorcerer) and have it prepared for the day (wizard). If they know the spell, but have not prepared it - they cannot cast it as a wizard spell.
The same applies to a Wizard / Warlock. In order to gain the benefit of using a Rod you must cast the spell as a Warlock spell. To do that, you must know it as a Warlock spell (not simply have it on your class list).
On a related note, such a character could not also benefit from mixing the features of both classes. They could not for example cast it as a warlock spell (charisma), and benefit from the evoker class features and their magic rod (assuming of course they prepared the spell as a wizard). They would either need to cast it as a wizard spell (Intelligence, Wizard arcane focus, wizard class features) or as a warlock spell (charisma, warlock arcane focus, warlock class features).
SCROLLS are the only game element which cares if the spell is on your class list. All other game elements care if you personally know the spell (or have it prepared) as a member of X class.
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Sage Advice is not an official rules source for AL (it is highly recommended, but not official). DMs are the final arbiter of the rules at their table, and are the final authority when it comes to "situations the rules do not cover" - not JC.
JCs rulings provide developer insight into the RAI - but DMs are not required to make use of his rulings. In fact, the very first Sage Advice column clearly stated that it was not errata, and that DMs were free to disregard any/all of the advice presented within (although I forget the exact wording used).
QwertyAzerty wrote:
From "Philosophy Behind Rules and Rulings": (hat tip to theBreen for providing the links)
The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t.
In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Lets look at it this way.
You say the rules work one way.
I say the rules work another way.
Both Mearls and crawford have *repeatedly* said the rules work the same way I do. Yet you find it impossible to believe that you might be mistaken.....
PS. Have you yet found a rule referring to 'warlock spell slot' or 'wizard spell slot'?
Have you yet found a rule that distinguishes one spell slot from another? (As opposed to how you gain the slots?)
Have you yet found a reason why you are treating spell slots as different based on source, but you don't treat HP that way, nor money, nor proficiencies, etc?
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
My list is an official ruling as it is directly linked to from the AL FAQ. Said FAQ ruling is also cross-linked from my post
It was also adapted for a more recent FAQ ruling
by the admins - a ruling which listed the allowed creatures by spell/ability (eg. Conjure X or Rangers animal companion)
The lists are identical, just presented differently. In fact, there was a slight error in the FAQ entry (the pseudo dragon wasn't itallicized) which was recently fixed.
With that being said - if the list in the FAQ changes, it would be the official source.
Since sage advice on occasion deviates from the rules as written (or even diametrically oposes them) it cannot possibly be a different presentation of the same rules.
Our respective stances remain the same regardless. If anything the bag of tricks opened up by the Warlock spellslots interpretation clearly proves to me that JS (as he has always stated) expects a DM filtering the game for crazyess or the forming of a murder of warlocks darkening the sky . He, as expected and predicted, does not realize nor account for the fact that organized play has a lot more trouble filtering.
Good thing he does not have to account for OP since Sage Advice is often good advice, but still only advice 
(and no, still not letting one get by)
imaginaryfriend wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
The errata aren't "allowed rules" in AL but the errata are included in current printings of the PHB. But errata aren't AL legal. But they're in the PHB. 
BTW, I stopped playing AL because DMs were making a mockery of the "no houserules" rule. "I'm the DM and I interpret it differently" was all I got. If AL isn't willing to incorporate many Sage Advice clarifications into official rules (and remember, the stuff answered via Sage Advice tweets are the stuff that's most confusing) then I see little point in ever attempting to play AL again. It'll just be an exercise in frustration.
guachi wrote:
At least the DMs weren't dicks to me like you. I can't imagine such rank condescension is a great way to get people to play AL, either. Although I'd rather play with a DM who said "I don't follow Sage Advice" than one who was a condescending dick.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
guachi wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote: