If you're unwilling to accept the mods literally reporting back that they've been instructed that Xanathar's spells being excluded is intentional, that's on you.
For the record: I have received no such instruction. I plan to discuss this with the devs after the holiday break, but until then, I have no official answer here.
That said, I do typically need a rules basis before submitting a bug report. Hence the question: outside of the 2014 Artificer class itself -- i.e. this page in ERFTLW and this one in TCOE -- is there any rule in any book that would make these Artificer spells? If not, the logical conclusion would be that their exclusion is RAW.
I'm perfectly comfortable agreeing to disagree here. In my opinion (and from what I've observed), the new spell list only contains spells that have a 2024 version and any spell that doesn't, but was previously an Artificer spell, should be included.
...
Please provide me somewhere in print that would indicate that Xanathar spells should not be included, other than "they're missing from D&D Beyond".
If you're unwilling to accept the mods literally reporting back that they've been instructed that Xanathar's spells being excluded is intentional, that's on you. Stop taking up space that's meant for bug reports with opinions. All the other spells were fixed and are included, from all four other books that had them.
I'm engaging in good faith in a public forum meant for discussion. So, I don't think I will "stop taking up space", because you feel I should stop discussion things that I feel are not working correctly. I am perfectly within my rights to discuss this topic, the same as you or anyone else. I'm sorry you are not capable of responding to my points and instead feel the need to address me personally. I hope you have a terrific Thanksgiving if you observe the festival; or if not, I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Additionally, your assertion that "All the other spells were fixed" is patently incorrect. Vortex Warp is still missing, even though it was expressly mentioned as being fixed. Perhaps instead of being combative with other people, you should be more self-reflective.
Vortex Warp is fixed, what are you talking about?
And my point is that you're in the wrong spot. If you want to discuss how you feel it should be handled, as opposed to how it's officially being handled, make a thread in Feedback or something. That's not what this thread is for. It's not for discussion, it's for bug reports.
On my character sheet, I am now able to select Booming Blade, Lightning Lure, Arcane Vigor, and other spells listed that had to be added, but I still do not have the option of selecting Vortex Warp.
Check your sources and all. It's filed under 2014 Expanded Rules. Definitely shows up if you both have that enabled and have access to the Strixhaven book.
If you're unwilling to accept the mods literally reporting back that they've been instructed that Xanathar's spells being excluded is intentional, that's on you.
For the record: I have received no such instruction. I plan to discuss this with the devs after the holiday break, but until then, I have no official answer here.
That said, I do typically need a rules basis before submitting a bug report. Hence the question: outside of the 2014 Artificer class itself -- i.e. this page in ERFTLW and this one in TCOE -- is there any rule in any book that would make these Artificer spells? If not, the logical conclusion would be that their exclusion is RAW.
Hello. Thank you for all the hard work you've been putting into making corrections the past few days. We appreciate it!
I already posted my argument above, so no need to rehash. Thank you for letting us know you intend to bring it to devs next week. That's all I wanted to hear or confirm.
If you're unwilling to accept the mods literally reporting back that they've been instructed that Xanathar's spells being excluded is intentional, that's on you.
For the record: I have received no such instruction. I plan to discuss this with the devs after the holiday break, but until then, I have no official answer here.
That said, I do typically need a rules basis before submitting a bug report. Hence the question: outside of the 2014 Artificer class itself -- i.e. this page in ERFTLW and this one in TCOE -- is there any rule in any book that would make these Artificer spells? If not, the logical conclusion would be that their exclusion is RAW.
So you're going on the same basis that some of us have seen for bug reports. Might have been a mistake to label it definitively as "working as intended" then, definitely gives the impression you've received an official answer.
Side note: I'm trying to compile a list of every bug not yet fixed from this thread (with links to original posts) to bump everything to the front.
If you're unwilling to accept the mods literally reporting back that they've been instructed that Xanathar's spells being excluded is intentional, that's on you.
For the record: I have received no such instruction. I plan to discuss this with the devs after the holiday break, but until then, I have no official answer here.
That said, I do typically need a rules basis before submitting a bug report. Hence the question: outside of the 2014 Artificer class itself -- i.e. this page in ERFTLW and this one in TCOE -- is there any rule in any book that would make these Artificer spells? If not, the logical conclusion would be that their exclusion is RAW.
Hello. Thank you for all the hard work you've been putting into making corrections the past few days. We appreciate it!
I already posted my argument above, so no need to rehash. Thank you for letting us know you intend to bring it to devs next week. That's all I wanted to hear or confirm.
Yes, Thank you spamandtuna, we know it can be a thankless job being crowd-control for bug reporting.
On my character sheet, I am now able to select Booming Blade, Lightning Lure, Arcane Vigor, and other spells listed that had to be added, but I still do not have the option of selecting Vortex Warp.
Check your sources and all. It's filed under 2014 Expanded Rules. Definitely shows up if you both have that enabled and have access to the Strixhaven book.
Might have been a mistake to label it definitively as "working as intended" then, definitely gives the impression you've received an official answer.
I appreciate the candor!
The truth is not every subject requires a conversation with the devs to determine when something is working as intended, though. To borrow another example from this thread, a few people have reported being unable to select Dragonmark feats through Human's Versatile feature, which allows players to choose an Origin feat. Nowhere in the book are these identified as Origin feats (despite them serving a similar role), and in fact, the book outright states that its backgrounds are the only way to get these feats at level 1. Thus I can confidently state this is working as intended, without needing to bother the devs.
That seemed to me to be the same case with these spells: that the proof was in the RAW. Only after did it become clear how divided people's interpretations here were, which is why I'm now asking the devs for confirmation (once they're back from the holiday break).
So was it a mistake? Maybe. We'll find out next week. 😅
Might have been a mistake to label it definitively as "working as intended" then, definitely gives the impression you've received an official answer.
I appreciate the candor!
The truth is not every subject requires a conversation with the devs to determine when something is working as intended, though. To borrow another example from this thread, a few people have reported being unable to select Dragonmark feats through Human's Versatile feature, which allows players to choose an Origin feat. Nowhere in the book are these identified as Origin feats (despite them serving a similar role), and in fact, the book outright states that its backgrounds are the only way to get these feats at level 1. Thus I can confidently state this is working as intended, without needing to bother the devs.
That seemed to me to be the same case with these spells: that the proof was in the RAW. Only after did it become clear how divided people's interpretations here were, which is why I'm now asking the devs for confirmation (once they're back from the holiday break).
So was it a mistake? Maybe. We'll find out next week. 😅
That's entirely fair, and for most things it's definitely an agreeable point. I only think it would have been the right move here because there was already contention over it before any updates were made.
I came to the same reading, but clearly some people disagree. I think there could be a valid argument for adding them, but I don't know that the RAW supports it. It's part of why I mentioned above as well that homebrew copies can be made if a DM agrees that it should be available so that those spells can be added.
Ah well. Hope the message above helps, most of it was just quoting what was said, but all are linked to their original posts in case there might be context missed by formatting (and to link credit to those who submitted the reports first).
If Absorb Elements isn't on the 2024 Artificer Spell list simply because the original printing of the Spell didn't list the Artificer class. Than that's frankly BS. The Artificer class didn't exist at the time of its printing. 2024 Ranger has Absorb Elements (not on its PHP class list, but because EEPC listed it as 2014 Ranger Spell). In 2014 TCoE fixed this by adding Absord Elements to the Artifcer spell list. This should be enough to have it added.
If not then what's the process to get WoTC to update Errata to EEPC and Sage Advice to fix that issue?
If Absorb Elements isn't on the 2024 Artificer Spell list simply because the original printing of the Spell didn't list the Artificer class. Than that's frankly BS. The Artificer class didn't exist at the time of its printing. 2024 Ranger has Absorb Elements (not on its PHP class list, but because EEPC listed it as 2014 Ranger Spell). In 2014 TCoE fixed this by adding Absord Elements to the Artifcer spell list. This should be enough to have it added.
If not then what's the process to get WoTC to update Errata to EEPC and Sage Advice to fix that issue?
If you look at the more recent posts on the matter, the people in charge of decisions are out of the office and are going to be asked about it after the holiday weekend. The matter can't move until then.
If Absorb Elements isn't on the 2024 Artificer Spell list simply because the original printing of the Spell didn't list the Artificer class. Than that's frankly BS. The Artificer class didn't exist at the time of its printing. 2024 Ranger has Absorb Elements (not on its PHP class list, but because EEPC listed it as 2014 Ranger Spell). In 2014 TCoE fixed this by adding Absord Elements to the Artifcer spell list. This should be enough to have it added.
If not then what's the process to get WoTC to update Errata to EEPC and Sage Advice to fix that issue?
If you look at the more recent posts on the matter, the people in charge of decisions are out of the office and are going to be asked about it after the holiday weekend. The matter can't move until then.
I read them. Still said what I said to add another voice to an FAQ.
If Absorb Elements isn't on the 2024 Artificer Spell list simply because the original printing of the Spell didn't list the Artificer class. Than that's frankly BS. The Artificer class didn't exist at the time of its printing. 2024 Ranger has Absorb Elements (not on its PHP class list, but because EEPC listed it as 2014 Ranger Spell). In 2014 TCoE fixed this by adding Absord Elements to the Artifcer spell list. This should be enough to have it added.
If not then what's the process to get WoTC to update Errata to EEPC and Sage Advice to fix that issue?
If you look at the more recent posts on the matter, the people in charge of decisions are out of the office and are going to be asked about it after the holiday weekend. The matter can't move until then.
I read them. Still said what I said to add another voice to an FAQ.
Note that also this thread is for issues with the D&D Beyond implementation of the book, not the rules content of the book. The process of getting this spell included on the 2024 Artificer spell list would've most likely been completing the UA survey for the class
If you're unwilling to accept the mods literally reporting back that they've been instructed that Xanathar's spells being excluded is intentional, that's on you.
For the record: I have received no such instruction. I plan to discuss this with the devs after the holiday break, but until then, I have no official answer here.
That said, I do typically need a rules basis before submitting a bug report. Hence the question: outside of the 2014 Artificer class itself -- i.e. this page in ERFTLW and this one in TCOE -- is there any rule in any book that would make these Artificer spells? If not, the logical conclusion would be that their exclusion is RAW.
These spells are not on the spell lists on 2024 classes - eg. Wizard -, but still can be selected on these classes. If Artificers doesn't receive these spells than it breaks backward compatibility and would be another huge nerf in the designt process.
Anyway, thanks for your work and your open communication.
Note that also this thread is for issues with the D&D Beyond implementation of the book, not the rules content of the book. The process of getting this spell included on the 2024 Artificer spell list would've most likely been completing the UA survey for the class
Yeah, but IMHO many of us thought originally that missing spells were just az implementation bug not a questionable design choice. IIRC the UA class also stated that Artificer is backward compatible, so older, not updated spells are available for the class.
Regarding the Artificer Expanded Spells List. I guess I'm just confused about why spells like Booming Blade (and the rest of those now added) have now been (rightfully, IMO) recognised as a bug already when they were missing and have since been added, whereas spells like Absorb Elements (and the rest of those not added) have not...
I mean, Booming Blade (and others) originally appeared in SCAG in 2015, it did not appear in E:RftLW in 2019 but it did appear later in TCoE in 2020. SCAG obviously doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. E:RftLW doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell. Booming Blade wasn't added to the Artificer Spell List until TCoE and hasn't been mentioned as an Artificer Spell anywhere else.
Absorb Elements (and others) originally appeared in EEPC / PotA in 2015, it also appears in XGtE in 2017, and E:RftLW in 2019, and TCoE in 2020. EEPC and PotA obviously doesn't call out Absorb Elements as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. Likewise, XGtE doesn't either for the same reason. Unlike Booming Blade, which was NOT added to the Artificer in E:RftLW in 2019, Absorb Elements WAS added to the Artificer at this point. It also appears for Artificers in TCoE in 2020.
What is it about Booming Blade that passed the "We should add this to the list now" check, but Absorb Elements didn't pass the same check? Where is Booming Blade mentioned as an Artificer Spell outside of TCoE? The only difference I'm seeing is that Booming Blade (and others) originated in SCAG and were not added to XGtE or to E:RftLW, but were added to TCoE, whereas Absorb Elements (and others) originated in EEPC / PotA and were added to XGtE, and to E:RtLW, and to TCoE.
I am aware we are now waiting on the Devs to respond after the holidays, so I'm not expecting any turnaround this weekend, I'm just confused about the criteria for determining that Booming Blade's omission was in fact an error, but Absorb Elements omission was not...
Regarding the Artificer Expanded Spells List. I guess I'm just confused about why spells like Booming Blade (and the rest of those now added) have now been (rightfully, IMO) recognised as a bug already when they were missing and have since been added, whereas spells like Absorb Elements (and the rest of those not added) have not...
I mean, Booming Blade (and others) originally appeared in SCAG in 2015, it did not appear in E:RftLW in 2019 but it did appear later in TCoE in 2020. SCAG obviously doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. E:RftLW doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell. Booming Blade wasn't added to the Artificer Spell List until TCoE and hasn't been mentioned as an Artificer Spell anywhere else.
Absorb Elements (and others) originally appeared in EEPC / PotA in 2015, it also appears in XGtE in 2017, and E:RftLW in 2019, and TCoE in 2020. EEPC and PotA obviously doesn't call out Absorb Elements as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. Likewise, XGtE doesn't either for the same reason. Unlike Booming Blade, which was NOT added to the Artificer in E:RftLW in 2019, Absorb Elements WAS added to the Artificer at this point. It also appears for Artificers in TCoE in 2020.
What is it about Booming Blade that passed the "We should add this to the list now" check, but Absorb Elements didn't pass the same check? Where is Booming Blade mentioned as an Artificer Spell outside of TCoE? The only difference I'm seeing is that Booming Blade (and others) originated in SCAG and were not added to XGtE or to E:RftLW, but were added to TCoE, whereas Absorb Elements (and others) originated in EEPC / PotA and were added to XGtE, and to E:RtLW, and to TCoE.
I am aware we are now waiting on the Devs to respond after the holidays, so I'm not expecting any turnaround this weekend, I'm just confused about the criteria for determining that Booming Blade's omission was in fact an error, but Absorb Elements omission was not...
If you are in a pinch and need it fast. Create a home brew magic item (ring) and add the ability to cast X Spell. Subtract 1 from the list known/prepared on your Artificer so one open slot isn’t being used to keep it fair. Equip Homebrew item. Cast that spell from item on D&D beyond sheet. I did a “2024 Artificer Spell Ring” when I was testing the UA Artificer in my current campaign.
Regarding the Artificer Expanded Spells List. I guess I'm just confused about why spells like Booming Blade (and the rest of those now added) have now been (rightfully, IMO) recognised as a bug already when they were missing and have since been added, whereas spells like Absorb Elements (and the rest of those not added) have not...
I mean, Booming Blade (and others) originally appeared in SCAG in 2015, it did not appear in E:RftLW in 2019 but it did appear later in TCoE in 2020. SCAG obviously doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. E:RftLW doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell. Booming Blade wasn't added to the Artificer Spell List until TCoE and hasn't been mentioned as an Artificer Spell anywhere else.
Absorb Elements (and others) originally appeared in EEPC / PotA in 2015, it also appears in XGtE in 2017, and E:RftLW in 2019, and TCoE in 2020. EEPC and PotA obviously doesn't call out Absorb Elements as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. Likewise, XGtE doesn't either for the same reason. Unlike Booming Blade, which was NOT added to the Artificer in E:RftLW in 2019, Absorb Elements WAS added to the Artificer at this point. It also appears for Artificers in TCoE in 2020.
What is it about Booming Blade that passed the "We should add this to the list now" check, but Absorb Elements didn't pass the same check? Where is Booming Blade mentioned as an Artificer Spell outside of TCoE? The only difference I'm seeing is that Booming Blade (and others) originated in SCAG and were not added to XGtE or to E:RftLW, but were added to TCoE, whereas Absorb Elements (and others) originated in EEPC / PotA and were added to XGtE, and to E:RtLW, and to TCoE.
I am aware we are now waiting on the Devs to respond after the holidays, so I'm not expecting any turnaround this weekend, I'm just confused about the criteria for determining that Booming Blade's omission was in fact an error, but Absorb Elements omission was not...
The difference is that Booming Blade was reprinted in TCE, but Absorb Elements was not. The section on artificers does reference the spell, but only points to XGE for a description. Whether or not that is a good reason for their current decision, I don't know, but there is a difference.
Regarding the Artificer Expanded Spells List. I guess I'm just confused about why spells like Booming Blade (and the rest of those now added) have now been (rightfully, IMO) recognised as a bug already when they were missing and have since been added, whereas spells like Absorb Elements (and the rest of those not added) have not...
I mean, Booming Blade (and others) originally appeared in SCAG in 2015, it did not appear in E:RftLW in 2019 but it did appear later in TCoE in 2020. SCAG obviously doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. E:RftLW doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell. Booming Blade wasn't added to the Artificer Spell List until TCoE and hasn't been mentioned as an Artificer Spell anywhere else.
Absorb Elements (and others) originally appeared in EEPC / PotA in 2015, it also appears in XGtE in 2017, and E:RftLW in 2019, and TCoE in 2020. EEPC and PotA obviously doesn't call out Absorb Elements as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. Likewise, XGtE doesn't either for the same reason. Unlike Booming Blade, which was NOT added to the Artificer in E:RftLW in 2019, Absorb Elements WAS added to the Artificer at this point. It also appears for Artificers in TCoE in 2020.
What is it about Booming Blade that passed the "We should add this to the list now" check, but Absorb Elements didn't pass the same check? Where is Booming Blade mentioned as an Artificer Spell outside of TCoE? The only difference I'm seeing is that Booming Blade (and others) originated in SCAG and were not added to XGtE or to E:RftLW, but were added to TCoE, whereas Absorb Elements (and others) originated in EEPC / PotA and were added to XGtE, and to E:RtLW, and to TCoE.
I am aware we are now waiting on the Devs to respond after the holidays, so I'm not expecting any turnaround this weekend, I'm just confused about the criteria for determining that Booming Blade's omission was in fact an error, but Absorb Elements omission was not...
If you are in a pinch and need it fast. Create a home brew magic item (ring) and add the ability to cast X Spell. Subtract 1 from the list known/prepared on your Artificer so one open slot isn’t being used to keep it fair. Equip Homebrew item. Cast that spell from item on D&D beyond sheet. I did a “2024 Artificer Spell Ring” when I was testing the UA Artificer in my current campaign.
Wouldn't it just be easier to homebrew a copy of the spell itself and then add the new artificer as an available class?
Regarding the Artificer Expanded Spells List. I guess I'm just confused about why spells like Booming Blade (and the rest of those now added) have now been (rightfully, IMO) recognised as a bug already when they were missing and have since been added, whereas spells like Absorb Elements (and the rest of those not added) have not...
I mean, Booming Blade (and others) originally appeared in SCAG in 2015, it did not appear in E:RftLW in 2019 but it did appear later in TCoE in 2020. SCAG obviously doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. E:RftLW doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell. Booming Blade wasn't added to the Artificer Spell List until TCoE and hasn't been mentioned as an Artificer Spell anywhere else.
Absorb Elements (and others) originally appeared in EEPC / PotA in 2015, it also appears in XGtE in 2017, and E:RftLW in 2019, and TCoE in 2020. EEPC and PotA obviously doesn't call out Absorb Elements as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. Likewise, XGtE doesn't either for the same reason. Unlike Booming Blade, which was NOT added to the Artificer in E:RftLW in 2019, Absorb Elements WAS added to the Artificer at this point. It also appears for Artificers in TCoE in 2020.
What is it about Booming Blade that passed the "We should add this to the list now" check, but Absorb Elements didn't pass the same check? Where is Booming Blade mentioned as an Artificer Spell outside of TCoE? The only difference I'm seeing is that Booming Blade (and others) originated in SCAG and were not added to XGtE or to E:RftLW, but were added to TCoE, whereas Absorb Elements (and others) originated in EEPC / PotA and were added to XGtE, and to E:RtLW, and to TCoE.
I am aware we are now waiting on the Devs to respond after the holidays, so I'm not expecting any turnaround this weekend, I'm just confused about the criteria for determining that Booming Blade's omission was in fact an error, but Absorb Elements omission was not...
The difference is that Booming Blade was reprinted in TCE, but Absorb Elements was not. The section on artificers does reference the spell, but only points to XGE for a description. Whether or not that is a good reason for their current decision, I don't know, but there is a difference.
If that is the reason, then that's a bad reason. Both spells were originally printed in 2015 (different sources), one just happens to be reprinted in 2017 and then simply referenced in 2020, and that's not added to the new Artificer Spell List, whereas the other happened to be not reprinted or referenced in 2017, but later reprinted in 2020, and that is added to the new Artificer Spell List?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the Devs say, but if that's the logic, then it makes no sense and I'll just have to homebrew the spells onto the 2024 Artificer Spell List myself.
Regarding the Artificer Expanded Spells List. I guess I'm just confused about why spells like Booming Blade (and the rest of those now added) have now been (rightfully, IMO) recognised as a bug already when they were missing and have since been added, whereas spells like Absorb Elements (and the rest of those not added) have not...
I mean, Booming Blade (and others) originally appeared in SCAG in 2015, it did not appear in E:RftLW in 2019 but it did appear later in TCoE in 2020. SCAG obviously doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. E:RftLW doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell. Booming Blade wasn't added to the Artificer Spell List until TCoE and hasn't been mentioned as an Artificer Spell anywhere else.
Absorb Elements (and others) originally appeared in EEPC / PotA in 2015, it also appears in XGtE in 2017, and E:RftLW in 2019, and TCoE in 2020. EEPC and PotA obviously doesn't call out Absorb Elements as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. Likewise, XGtE doesn't either for the same reason. Unlike Booming Blade, which was NOT added to the Artificer in E:RftLW in 2019, Absorb Elements WAS added to the Artificer at this point. It also appears for Artificers in TCoE in 2020.
What is it about Booming Blade that passed the "We should add this to the list now" check, but Absorb Elements didn't pass the same check? Where is Booming Blade mentioned as an Artificer Spell outside of TCoE? The only difference I'm seeing is that Booming Blade (and others) originated in SCAG and were not added to XGtE or to E:RftLW, but were added to TCoE, whereas Absorb Elements (and others) originated in EEPC / PotA and were added to XGtE, and to E:RtLW, and to TCoE.
I am aware we are now waiting on the Devs to respond after the holidays, so I'm not expecting any turnaround this weekend, I'm just confused about the criteria for determining that Booming Blade's omission was in fact an error, but Absorb Elements omission was not...
If you are in a pinch and need it fast. Create a home brew magic item (ring) and add the ability to cast X Spell. Subtract 1 from the list known/prepared on your Artificer so one open slot isn’t being used to keep it fair. Equip Homebrew item. Cast that spell from item on D&D beyond sheet. I did a “2024 Artificer Spell Ring” when I was testing the UA Artificer in my current campaign.
Even easier, create a Homebrew Spell based on the spell missing from the new Artificer (such as Absorb Elements) and add it to the 2024 Artificer Spell List, then simply allow Homebrew in the Character Creator.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorFor the record: I have received no such instruction. I plan to discuss this with the devs after the holiday break, but until then, I have no official answer here.
That said, I do typically need a rules basis before submitting a bug report. Hence the question: outside of the 2014 Artificer class itself -- i.e. this page in ERFTLW and this one in TCOE -- is there any rule in any book that would make these Artificer spells? If not, the logical conclusion would be that their exclusion is RAW.
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/dnd
Check your sources and all. It's filed under 2014 Expanded Rules. Definitely shows up if you both have that enabled and have access to the Strixhaven book.
Hello. Thank you for all the hard work you've been putting into making corrections the past few days. We appreciate it!
I already posted my argument above, so no need to rehash. Thank you for letting us know you intend to bring it to devs next week. That's all I wanted to hear or confirm.
So you're going on the same basis that some of us have seen for bug reports. Might have been a mistake to label it definitively as "working as intended" then, definitely gives the impression you've received an official answer.
Side note: I'm trying to compile a list of every bug not yet fixed from this thread (with links to original posts) to bump everything to the front.
Yes, Thank you spamandtuna, we know it can be a thankless job being crowd-control for bug reporting.
Thank you. This is what I needed.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI appreciate the candor!
The truth is not every subject requires a conversation with the devs to determine when something is working as intended, though. To borrow another example from this thread, a few people have reported being unable to select Dragonmark feats through Human's Versatile feature, which allows players to choose an Origin feat. Nowhere in the book are these identified as Origin feats (despite them serving a similar role), and in fact, the book outright states that its backgrounds are the only way to get these feats at level 1. Thus I can confidently state this is working as intended, without needing to bother the devs.
That seemed to me to be the same case with these spells: that the proof was in the RAW. Only after did it become clear how divided people's interpretations here were, which is why I'm now asking the devs for confirmation (once they're back from the holiday break).
So was it a mistake? Maybe. We'll find out next week. 😅
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/dnd
That's entirely fair, and for most things it's definitely an agreeable point. I only think it would have been the right move here because there was already contention over it before any updates were made.
I came to the same reading, but clearly some people disagree. I think there could be a valid argument for adding them, but I don't know that the RAW supports it. It's part of why I mentioned above as well that homebrew copies can be made if a DM agrees that it should be available so that those spells can be added.
Ah well. Hope the message above helps, most of it was just quoting what was said, but all are linked to their original posts in case there might be context missed by formatting (and to link credit to those who submitted the reports first).
If Absorb Elements isn't on the 2024 Artificer Spell list simply because the original printing of the Spell didn't list the Artificer class. Than that's frankly BS. The Artificer class didn't exist at the time of its printing. 2024 Ranger has Absorb Elements (not on its PHP class list, but because EEPC listed it as 2014 Ranger Spell). In 2014 TCoE fixed this by adding Absord Elements to the Artifcer spell list. This should be enough to have it added.
If not then what's the process to get WoTC to update Errata to EEPC and Sage Advice to fix that issue?
If you look at the more recent posts on the matter, the people in charge of decisions are out of the office and are going to be asked about it after the holiday weekend. The matter can't move until then.
I read them. Still said what I said to add another voice to an FAQ.
Note that also this thread is for issues with the D&D Beyond implementation of the book, not the rules content of the book. The process of getting this spell included on the 2024 Artificer spell list would've most likely been completing the UA survey for the class
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
These spells are not on the spell lists on 2024 classes - eg. Wizard -, but still can be selected on these classes. If Artificers doesn't receive these spells than it breaks backward compatibility and would be another huge nerf in the designt process.
Anyway, thanks for your work and your open communication.
Yeah, but IMHO many of us thought originally that missing spells were just az implementation bug not a questionable design choice. IIRC the UA class also stated that Artificer is backward compatible, so older, not updated spells are available for the class.
Regarding the Artificer Expanded Spells List. I guess I'm just confused about why spells like Booming Blade (and the rest of those now added) have now been (rightfully, IMO) recognised as a bug already when they were missing and have since been added, whereas spells like Absorb Elements (and the rest of those not added) have not...
I mean, Booming Blade (and others) originally appeared in SCAG in 2015, it did not appear in E:RftLW in 2019 but it did appear later in TCoE in 2020. SCAG obviously doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. E:RftLW doesn't call out Booming Blade as an Artificer Spell. Booming Blade wasn't added to the Artificer Spell List until TCoE and hasn't been mentioned as an Artificer Spell anywhere else.
Absorb Elements (and others) originally appeared in EEPC / PotA in 2015, it also appears in XGtE in 2017, and E:RftLW in 2019, and TCoE in 2020. EEPC and PotA obviously doesn't call out Absorb Elements as an Artificer Spell as the Artificer didn't exist then. Likewise, XGtE doesn't either for the same reason. Unlike Booming Blade, which was NOT added to the Artificer in E:RftLW in 2019, Absorb Elements WAS added to the Artificer at this point. It also appears for Artificers in TCoE in 2020.
What is it about Booming Blade that passed the "We should add this to the list now" check, but Absorb Elements didn't pass the same check? Where is Booming Blade mentioned as an Artificer Spell outside of TCoE? The only difference I'm seeing is that Booming Blade (and others) originated in SCAG and were not added to XGtE or to E:RftLW, but were added to TCoE, whereas Absorb Elements (and others) originated in EEPC / PotA and were added to XGtE, and to E:RtLW, and to TCoE.
I am aware we are now waiting on the Devs to respond after the holidays, so I'm not expecting any turnaround this weekend, I'm just confused about the criteria for determining that Booming Blade's omission was in fact an error, but Absorb Elements omission was not...
If you are in a pinch and need it fast. Create a home brew magic item (ring) and add the ability to cast X Spell. Subtract 1 from the list known/prepared on your Artificer so one open slot isn’t being used to keep it fair. Equip Homebrew item. Cast that spell from item on D&D beyond sheet. I did a “2024 Artificer Spell Ring” when I was testing the UA Artificer in my current campaign.
The difference is that Booming Blade was reprinted in TCE, but Absorb Elements was not. The section on artificers does reference the spell, but only points to XGE for a description. Whether or not that is a good reason for their current decision, I don't know, but there is a difference.
Wouldn't it just be easier to homebrew a copy of the spell itself and then add the new artificer as an available class?
If that is the reason, then that's a bad reason. Both spells were originally printed in 2015 (different sources), one just happens to be reprinted in 2017 and then simply referenced in 2020, and that's not added to the new Artificer Spell List, whereas the other happened to be not reprinted or referenced in 2017, but later reprinted in 2020, and that is added to the new Artificer Spell List?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the Devs say, but if that's the logic, then it makes no sense and I'll just have to homebrew the spells onto the 2024 Artificer Spell List myself.
Even easier, create a Homebrew Spell based on the spell missing from the new Artificer (such as Absorb Elements) and add it to the 2024 Artificer Spell List, then simply allow Homebrew in the Character Creator.