That's by design; Matt and WotC designed them to be only accessible to the two Dunamancy subclasses. But you can always homebrew them to be available to other spell lists.
i appreciate the reply and i get that you can homebrew the spells. but dont you think its a bit counter intuitive that paid content not be available when the system itself in the book (phb wizard spellcasting rules) should allow it?
the whole design of the wizard is reliant on its spellbook and the ability to "learn" and "copy" spells. I dont see why its locked off for that philosophy of the games design.
By that logic, in the show, caleb should not have access to gift of alacrity and fortunes favor.
now in the market place logic, if one simply buys the spells and not the class, that means they do not have access to those spells without work. I just think limitations in a game where its supposed to have us willing to break them doesnt make sense.
The specific rules of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount's Dunamancy spells override the more general rule of wizards copying spells. These spells aren't on the wizard spell list, but the graviturgist and chronurgist spell lists, which are the wizard spell list +. It's much like how the wizard can't copy spell scrolls for spells that appear on the bard, cleric, ranger or paladin lists, but not on the wizard spell lists. Some subclasses can have expanded spell lists, but this doesn't change the spell list of the base class.
By that logic, in the show, caleb should not have access to gift of alacrity and fortunes favor.
Remember that Matt, like any DM can, uses homebrew in his game. Just as it recommends in the book, he has homebrewed the spells to work slightly differently in Caleb's case than they do in the general case. Critical Role should not be held up as an example of how the rules do work, only as how Matt chooses to implement them. He has worked with Wizards of the Coast to design the dunamancy spells in a certain way, which may not 100% match with how he runs them in his own games.
now in the market place logic, if one simply buys the spells and not the class, that means they do not have access to those spells without work. I just think limitations in a game where its supposed to have us willing to break them doesnt make sense.
I agree there is some degree of work involved if you want to buy and use just the spells. But fortunately the work is quite minimal thanks to the homebrew tools:
From the creations menu, select Create Spell
From the top menu, find the spell you want to make available and select Create
Remove 'COPY_OF_' from the name
Scroll down to the area below description
In the field marked 'Available for class(es)', remove the current subclasses
Add in the classes you want to make this duplicate available for (Sorcerer, Bard etc)
Additional option, if you want to make the spell available for other wizard schools but not have a duplicate appear, uses the subclasses rather than just 'wizard'
This will help avoid duplications.
This method is in general a quick and easy way to add new spells to other classes. I've done it a lot to expand my Bard player's spell list.
This is exceptionally frustrating. If a wizard happens to find these spells they still can't add them to their spellbook without creating homebrew copies of these spells. That's honestly a pretty trash experience to enforce on DMs and Players.
They're enforcing the same rules that apply to other spells; a non-dunamancy wizard can't learn bard, wizard or cleric spells for example, without homebrew, and the same is true for the dunamancy spells.
Honestly disagree that enforcing this at a code level was the right decision. A DM should trust their players to not include spells that may not be allowed for them.
The way it is written in the Wildemount suggests that a wizard may still learn these wizard spells if they find them. I don't think that should require creating homebrew duplicates of the spells. There seems to be a great deal of feedback suggesting the same throughout the forums and it's not surprising.
WotC probably said that they had to be restricted to specifically those subclasses, most likely because that publication is not AL legal. They act the same way that the extra spells you get added to your character’s list when you pick a subclass for Clerics and Warlocks. Those spells are on your spell list, but still not on the “Cleric Spell List” or “Warlock Spell List.” In this case, those spells are available for those subclasses, but still do not appear on the “Wizard Spell List.”
DDB is contractually obligated by law to implement things EXACTLY as they appear in WotC publications. You don’t like it, and I understand that. But if they do it any other way WotC can sue DDB into bankruptcy and then where would we be? We’d all be up 💩’s creek without a paddle.
Fortunately you can change all of that for the minimal investment of less than 2 minutes per spell, exactly as Davedamon graciously took the time to explain to you. In fact, to include the pictures for you and everything, with two different options for how to do it, it probably took him longer to educate you than it will for you to implement those alterations for your own use according to the houserule you are implementing to make those generic Wizard spells.
Considering the confusion that happens for many a third-class caster who accidentally picks a spell from a school they shouldn't, because DDB doesn't have a way to tell an Arcane Trickster 'no, you can't pick a transmutation spell as your new spell this level,' being restrictive in who automatically has access to these spells is probably the best solution. Those who do want to use these spells in a situation outside of a campaign set in Wildemount would need DM approval and discussion anyway, and are provided with a solution that literally takes less than a minute per spell to implement. Hopefully there will be more options as they increase flexibility on the back end, but this method of implementation works the best for new players or new DDB users who don't yet have a handle on what the rules (or your DM) allow versus what DDB as a service can implement.
WotC probably said that they had to be restricted to specifically those subclasses, most likely because that publication is not AL legal. They act the same way that the extra spells you get added to your character’s list when you pick a subclass for Clerics and Warlocks. Those spells are on your spell list, but still not on the “Cleric Spell List” or “Warlock Spell List.” In this case, those spells are available for those subclasses, but still do not appear on the “Wizard Spell List.”
DDB is contractually obligated by law to implement things EXACTLY as they appear in WotC publications. You don’t like it, and I understand that. But if they do it any other way WotC can sue DDB into bankruptcy and then where would we be? We’d all be up 💩’s creek without a paddle.
Fortunately you can change all of that for the minimal investment of less than 2 minutes per spell, exactly as Davedamon graciously took the time to explain to you. In fact, to include the pictures for you and everything, with two different options for how to do it, it probably took him longer to educate you than it will for you to implement those alterations for your own use according to the houserule you are implementing to make those generic Wizard spells.
If the consequences were as severe as you make it out to be, why are the bladesinger and battlerager not locked to the races their books state? they have the same restrictions as these spells, but it causes no issues to have them unrestricted as they are. A DM saying "no you can't have that option" is much easier than having to duplicate the spells through homebrew
WotC probably said that they had to be restricted to specifically those subclasses, most likely because that publication is not AL legal. They act the same way that the extra spells you get added to your character’s list when you pick a subclass for Clerics and Warlocks. Those spells are on your spell list, but still not on the “Cleric Spell List” or “Warlock Spell List.” In this case, those spells are available for those subclasses, but still do not appear on the “Wizard Spell List.”
DDB is contractually obligated by law to implement things EXACTLY as they appear in WotC publications. You don’t like it, and I understand that. But if they do it any other way WotC can sue DDB into bankruptcy and then where would we be? We’d all be up 💩’s creek without a paddle.
Fortunately you can change all of that for the minimal investment of less than 2 minutes per spell, exactly as Davedamon graciously took the time to explain to you. In fact, to include the pictures for you and everything, with two different options for how to do it, it probably took him longer to educate you than it will for you to implement those alterations for your own use according to the houserule you are implementing to make those generic Wizard spells.
If the consequences were as severe as you make it out to be, why are the bladesinger and battlerager not locked to the races their books state? they have the same restrictions as these spells, but it causes no issues to have them unrestricted as they are. A DM saying "no you can't have that option" is much easier than having to duplicate the spells through homebrew
Most likely those two Subcasses are not restricted because DDB’s software is incapable of restricting subclasses to specific races. Obviously they can do it with Feats, but go play around with the homebrew generator and you will find that there is no “prerequisite” field for subclasses. The homebrew generator we have available to us is the same system the devs use, only we don’t get admin access. Someone at DDB said to someone at WotC “Hey, our software can’t actually do that.” And someone over at WotC said they would accept it in that case. Clearly the software exists to limit who can cast which spells, so they would not have been given the same leeway in this instance.
And again, homebrewing alternative versions of those spells to allow other Wizards access to those spells to accommodate your houserule would take less than 2 minutes per spell, and if you play a pen-and-paper game, it’s as yeast as saying “yes, you can take those spells,” so what’s the big deal? Quite frankly, any DM too lazy to spend about 10 minutes total to edit a handful of spells is too lazy to run a game. DMing takes work, this would be the least of it. If this is the biggest thing people have to complain about, what the heck are you gonna do when real life happens to you?
WotC probably said that they had to be restricted to specifically those subclasses, most likely because that publication is not AL legal. They act the same way that the extra spells you get added to your character’s list when you pick a subclass for Clerics and Warlocks. Those spells are on your spell list, but still not on the “Cleric Spell List” or “Warlock Spell List.” In this case, those spells are available for those subclasses, but still do not appear on the “Wizard Spell List.”
DDB is contractually obligated by law to implement things EXACTLY as they appear in WotC publications. You don’t like it, and I understand that. But if they do it any other way WotC can sue DDB into bankruptcy and then where would we be? We’d all be up 💩’s creek without a paddle.
Fortunately you can change all of that for the minimal investment of less than 2 minutes per spell, exactly as Davedamon graciously took the time to explain to you. In fact, to include the pictures for you and everything, with two different options for how to do it, it probably took him longer to educate you than it will for you to implement those alterations for your own use according to the houserule you are implementing to make those generic Wizard spells.
If the consequences were as severe as you make it out to be, why are the bladesinger and battlerager not locked to the races their books state? they have the same restrictions as these spells, but it causes no issues to have them unrestricted as they are. A DM saying "no you can't have that option" is much easier than having to duplicate the spells through homebrew
Most likely those two Subcasses are not restricted because DDB’s software is incapable of restricting subclasses to specific races. Obviously they can do it with Feats, but go play around with the homebrew generator and you will find that there is no “prerequisite” field for subclasses. The homebrew generator we have available to us is the same system the devs use, only we don’t get admin access. Someone at DDB said to someone at WotC “Hey, our software can’t actually do that.” And someone over at WotC said they would accept it in that case. Clearly the software exists to limit who can cast which spells, so they would not have been given the same leeway in this instance.
And again, homebrewing alternative versions of those spells to allow other Wizards access to those spells to accommodate your houserule would take less than 2 minutes per spell, and if you play a pen-and-paper game, it’s as yeast as saying “yes, you can take those spells,” so what’s the big deal? Quite frankly, any DM too lazy to spend about 10 minutes total to edit a handful of spells is too lazy to run a game. DMing takes work, this would be the least of it. If this is the biggest thing people have to complain about, what the heck are you gonna do when real life happens to you?
Dndbeyond launched 2 years after SCAG was released, there was plenty of time to implement such a restriction if they felt it was necessary to adhere to RAW. Racial limits don't seem like they would be any harder to implement than class or subclass limits, but I'm not a programmer so I could be wrong.
You are right in that it doesn't take much effort to duplicate them into homebrew, but there is also nothing to indicate they are so limited when you purchase them either, I would be frustrated if I bought only the spells and then found out I had to homebrew them to work.
Should magic missile be available to all clerics? Should Vampiric Touch? Should all Druids get Gentle Repose? What about all the other spells that are Domain/Circle dependent? Or those available currently only to certain Warlock subclasses? If the dunamancy spells were available to all wizards automatically on DDB, it would be entirely inconsistent with subclass specific spells from other classes.
I for one don’t want them to make them automatically available to all wizards. I work mostly with newer players, who wouldn’t know those spells are off limits in my campaigns. Especially since there is no way to filter by source from the character sheet. If I decide to give one of my wizard player access to one or more of these spells, it’s easy enough to homebrew a version of it that gives them access.
Dndbeyond launched 2 years after SCAG was released, there was plenty of time to implement such a restriction if they felt it was necessary to adhere to RAW. Racial limits don't seem like they would be any harder to implement than class or subclass limits, but I'm not a programmer so I could be wrong.
DDB had probably already been in development for about 3 years before it launched. Basic websites take time, this took years.
What you are suggesting would have required them to put an a entirely new field, “prerequisites” into every subclass so that 2 of them could use it. That would take a lot of coding for only a minimal outcome. It would take more work than people realize.
I definitely agree with the logic of the spells being subclass specific, but this is a good example that this service is still growing, because obviously you shouldn't HAVE to make homebrew versions of the same spells just to make them available to more classes, that should just be an option that you check on the spell in your campaign. Certainly they intend to do that someday, but I'd place that behind other features, like the virtual table top, in a ranking of importance.
This is similar to not being able to just make common non-magical weapons or not being able to fully customize the base stats of existing weapons. It's frustrating, but ultimately not a deal breaker. And it's an example that the homebrew stuff can't fix everything on the site, you still have to track some stuff personally if you wanna get specific.
Making homebrew versions is pretty easy in this example though, since all you have to do is use the existing spell as the template and you can add as many classes as you like. But I've certainly been frustrated trying to solve other problems with the homebrew tool.
If the answer is “You can just homebrew it.” Why did I not just bootleg the spells and skip buying the product completely? It’s dumb that all wizards can’t choose the spells in the app, period.
If the answer is “You can just homebrew it.” Why did I not just bootleg the spells and skip buying the product completely? It’s dumb that all wizards can’t choose the spells in the app, period.
Well, if your issue is with RAW then complaining to DND Beyond won’t help because they didn’t write the rules. People should be complaining to WotC instead as they are the publishers of the game, DDB just runs a website and sells digital books. It’s akin to complaining at Barnes & Noble because the 3rd Kingkiller book isn’t out yet.
Is anyone else running into the problem where the dunamancy spells are not available for other schools of magic?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersHi there,
this is correct, as per the rules in the sourcebook. Please take a look at these threads!
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/bugs-support/59558-support-thread-explorers-guide-to-wildemount
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/60437-modifying-official-spells-for-your-private
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
That's by design; Matt and WotC designed them to be only accessible to the two Dunamancy subclasses. But you can always homebrew them to be available to other spell lists.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
i appreciate the reply and i get that you can homebrew the spells. but dont you think its a bit counter intuitive that paid content not be available when the system itself in the book (phb wizard spellcasting rules) should allow it?
the whole design of the wizard is reliant on its spellbook and the ability to "learn" and "copy" spells. I dont see why its locked off for that philosophy of the games design.
By that logic, in the show, caleb should not have access to gift of alacrity and fortunes favor.
now in the market place logic, if one simply buys the spells and not the class, that means they do not have access to those spells without work. I just think limitations in a game where its supposed to have us willing to break them doesnt make sense.
The specific rules of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount's Dunamancy spells override the more general rule of wizards copying spells. These spells aren't on the wizard spell list, but the graviturgist and chronurgist spell lists, which are the wizard spell list +. It's much like how the wizard can't copy spell scrolls for spells that appear on the bard, cleric, ranger or paladin lists, but not on the wizard spell lists. Some subclasses can have expanded spell lists, but this doesn't change the spell list of the base class.
Remember that Matt, like any DM can, uses homebrew in his game. Just as it recommends in the book, he has homebrewed the spells to work slightly differently in Caleb's case than they do in the general case. Critical Role should not be held up as an example of how the rules do work, only as how Matt chooses to implement them. He has worked with Wizards of the Coast to design the dunamancy spells in a certain way, which may not 100% match with how he runs them in his own games.
I agree there is some degree of work involved if you want to buy and use just the spells. But fortunately the work is quite minimal thanks to the homebrew tools:
Additional option, if you want to make the spell available for other wizard schools but not have a duplicate appear, uses the subclasses rather than just 'wizard'
This will help avoid duplications.
This method is in general a quick and easy way to add new spells to other classes. I've done it a lot to expand my Bard player's spell list.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
This is exceptionally frustrating. If a wizard happens to find these spells they still can't add them to their spellbook without creating homebrew copies of these spells. That's honestly a pretty trash experience to enforce on DMs and Players.
They're enforcing the same rules that apply to other spells; a non-dunamancy wizard can't learn bard, wizard or cleric spells for example, without homebrew, and the same is true for the dunamancy spells.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Honestly disagree that enforcing this at a code level was the right decision. A DM should trust their players to not include spells that may not be allowed for them.
The way it is written in the Wildemount suggests that a wizard may still learn these wizard spells if they find them. I don't think that should require creating homebrew duplicates of the spells. There seems to be a great deal of feedback suggesting the same throughout the forums and it's not surprising.
WotC probably said that they had to be restricted to specifically those subclasses, most likely because that publication is not AL legal. They act the same way that the extra spells you get added to your character’s list when you pick a subclass for Clerics and Warlocks. Those spells are on your spell list, but still not on the “Cleric Spell List” or “Warlock Spell List.” In this case, those spells are available for those subclasses, but still do not appear on the “Wizard Spell List.”
DDB is contractually obligated by law to implement things EXACTLY as they appear in WotC publications. You don’t like it, and I understand that. But if they do it any other way WotC can sue DDB into bankruptcy and then where would we be? We’d all be up 💩’s creek without a paddle.
Fortunately you can change all of that for the minimal investment of less than 2 minutes per spell, exactly as Davedamon graciously took the time to explain to you. In fact, to include the pictures for you and everything, with two different options for how to do it, it probably took him longer to educate you than it will for you to implement those alterations for your own use according to the houserule you are implementing to make those generic Wizard spells.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Considering the confusion that happens for many a third-class caster who accidentally picks a spell from a school they shouldn't, because DDB doesn't have a way to tell an Arcane Trickster 'no, you can't pick a transmutation spell as your new spell this level,' being restrictive in who automatically has access to these spells is probably the best solution. Those who do want to use these spells in a situation outside of a campaign set in Wildemount would need DM approval and discussion anyway, and are provided with a solution that literally takes less than a minute per spell to implement. Hopefully there will be more options as they increase flexibility on the back end, but this method of implementation works the best for new players or new DDB users who don't yet have a handle on what the rules (or your DM) allow versus what DDB as a service can implement.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
If the consequences were as severe as you make it out to be, why are the bladesinger and battlerager not locked to the races their books state? they have the same restrictions as these spells, but it causes no issues to have them unrestricted as they are. A DM saying "no you can't have that option" is much easier than having to duplicate the spells through homebrew
Most likely those two Subcasses are not restricted because DDB’s software is incapable of restricting subclasses to specific races. Obviously they can do it with Feats, but go play around with the homebrew generator and you will find that there is no “prerequisite” field for subclasses. The homebrew generator we have available to us is the same system the devs use, only we don’t get admin access. Someone at DDB said to someone at WotC “Hey, our software can’t actually do that.” And someone over at WotC said they would accept it in that case. Clearly the software exists to limit who can cast which spells, so they would not have been given the same leeway in this instance.
And again, homebrewing alternative versions of those spells to allow other Wizards access to those spells to accommodate your houserule would take less than 2 minutes per spell, and if you play a pen-and-paper game, it’s as yeast as saying “yes, you can take those spells,” so what’s the big deal? Quite frankly, any DM too lazy to spend about 10 minutes total to edit a handful of spells is too lazy to run a game. DMing takes work, this would be the least of it. If this is the biggest thing people have to complain about, what the heck are you gonna do when real life happens to you?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dndbeyond launched 2 years after SCAG was released, there was plenty of time to implement such a restriction if they felt it was necessary to adhere to RAW. Racial limits don't seem like they would be any harder to implement than class or subclass limits, but I'm not a programmer so I could be wrong.
You are right in that it doesn't take much effort to duplicate them into homebrew, but there is also nothing to indicate they are so limited when you purchase them either, I would be frustrated if I bought only the spells and then found out I had to homebrew them to work.
Should magic missile be available to all clerics? Should Vampiric Touch? Should all Druids get Gentle Repose? What about all the other spells that are Domain/Circle dependent? Or those available currently only to certain Warlock subclasses? If the dunamancy spells were available to all wizards automatically on DDB, it would be entirely inconsistent with subclass specific spells from other classes.
I for one don’t want them to make them automatically available to all wizards. I work mostly with newer players, who wouldn’t know those spells are off limits in my campaigns. Especially since there is no way to filter by source from the character sheet. If I decide to give one of my wizard player access to one or more of these spells, it’s easy enough to homebrew a version of it that gives them access.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
DDB had probably already been in development for about 3 years before it launched. Basic websites take time, this took years.
What you are suggesting would have required them to put an a entirely new field, “prerequisites” into every subclass so that 2 of them could use it. That would take a lot of coding for only a minimal outcome. It would take more work than people realize.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I definitely agree with the logic of the spells being subclass specific, but this is a good example that this service is still growing, because obviously you shouldn't HAVE to make homebrew versions of the same spells just to make them available to more classes, that should just be an option that you check on the spell in your campaign. Certainly they intend to do that someday, but I'd place that behind other features, like the virtual table top, in a ranking of importance.
This is similar to not being able to just make common non-magical weapons or not being able to fully customize the base stats of existing weapons. It's frustrating, but ultimately not a deal breaker. And it's an example that the homebrew stuff can't fix everything on the site, you still have to track some stuff personally if you wanna get specific.
Making homebrew versions is pretty easy in this example though, since all you have to do is use the existing spell as the template and you can add as many classes as you like. But I've certainly been frustrated trying to solve other problems with the homebrew tool.
Tell them about it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If the answer is “You can just homebrew it.” Why did I not just bootleg the spells and skip buying the product completely? It’s dumb that all wizards can’t choose the spells in the app, period.
Why? They are complying with RAW.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, if your issue is with RAW then complaining to DND Beyond won’t help because they didn’t write the rules. People should be complaining to WotC instead as they are the publishers of the game, DDB just runs a website and sells digital books. It’s akin to complaining at Barnes & Noble because the 3rd Kingkiller book isn’t out yet.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting