Yeah, Thunderclap is fine. It's available to pick on D&D Beyond.
All fair - I was going based on the 2014 Expanded Rules Spells that weren't included when filtered for "2014 Expanded Rules" (since XGtE is 2014 Expanded Rules, not Core Rules). Thunderclap 2024 is included, but the Legacy 2014 Thunderclap is not (which is not a big deal as nothing changed about the spell)
The full list of "Missing" spells: Create Bonfire Frostbite Magic Stone Absorb Elements Catapult Snare Pyrotechnics Skywrite Catnap Flame Arrows Tiny Servant Elemental Bane Skill Empowerment Transmute Rock
Might be worth noting that the only spell that can currently be added to a 2024 Artificer that has the "Legacy" tag is Summon Construct, despite the fact that this, too, has a 2024 version on the Base Class Spell List. All other Expanded Rules spells that have a Legacy-tagged version, the 2024 Artificer cannot add the Legacy version, only the reprinted/updated version. Other Classes, such as 2024 Wizard, can add either the Legacy version of the Expanded Rules spells, or the new/reprinted version of those spells. So the Artificer is not currently getting the same treatment as the other 2024 Classes.
Also worth noting that Booming Blade and the SCAG/TCoE Spells that have been added to the 2024 Artificer are under the "2014 Expanded Rules" filter, just like Absorb Elements and the EEPC/XGtE spells are under the same filter, but the latter have not (yet) added to the 2024 Artificer. Some "2014 Expanded Rules" spells are currently being treated as "2014 Core Spells", but ONLY for the 2024 Artificer.
I'm still a little bummed at the lack of Artificer synergy with Heroes of Faerun's spells and the lack of Artificer in Creative Commons to give 3rd-parties access to it, but I'll take this victory.
Cheers to Spam for making sure the message & sincerity was clear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I'm still a little bummed at the lack of Artificer synergy with Heroes of Faerun's spells and the lack of Artificer in Creative Commons to give 3rd-parties access to it, but I'll take this victory.
Cheers to Spam for making sure the message & sincerity was clear.
Agreed, and I fear that will be an issue with later expansions also. Will the devs have time revise the artificer spell list every time when a new expansion arrive? Are Faerun spells are working as intended (eg. none of them classifies as artificer spells), or artificer were simply forgotten in the developement process?
I'm still a little bummed at the lack of Artificer synergy with Heroes of Faerun's spells and the lack of Artificer in Creative Commons to give 3rd-parties access to it, but I'll take this victory.
Cheers to Spam for making sure the message & sincerity was clear.
Agreed, and I fear that will be an issue with later expansions also. Will the devs have time revise the artificer spell list every time when a new expansion arrive? Are Faerun spells are working as intended (eg. none of them classifies as artificer spells), or artificer were simply forgotten in the developement process?
The lack of any of the Heroes of Faerun spells being included on the Artificer list is definitely working as written. Those spells (being new to the new source book) have never been tagged as Artificer spells (unlike the Xanathar spells), and so they would have been needed to be tagged in the Heroes of Faerun book itself as 'Artificer', and they weren't. (Whether they were forgotten or intentionally not included, only the design team could answer.)
They would need to officially publish it somewhere to change that.
That said, you can always have a conversation with your DM and they can decide to house rule it, you can then make a homebrew version of any spell and give it the Artificer tag to then add it to your spell list. But officially, none of those are Artificer spells.
I'm still a little bummed at the lack of Artificer synergy with Heroes of Faerun's spells and the lack of Artificer in Creative Commons to give 3rd-parties access to it, but I'll take this victory.
Cheers to Spam for making sure the message & sincerity was clear.
Agreed, and I fear that will be an issue with later expansions also. Will the devs have time revise the artificer spell list every time when a new expansion arrive? Are Faerun spells are working as intended (eg. none of them classifies as artificer spells), or artificer were simply forgotten in the developement process?
The lack of any of the Heroes of Faerun spells being included on the Artificer list is definitely working as written. Those spells (being new to the new source book) have never been tagged as Artificer spells (unlike the Xanathar spells), and so they would have been needed to be tagged in the Heroes of Faerun book itself as 'Artificer', and they weren't. (Whether they were forgotten or intentionally not included, only the design team could answer.)
They would need to officially publish it somewhere to change that.
That said, you can always have a conversation with your DM and they can decide to house rule it, you can then make a homebrew version of any spell and give it the Artificer tag to then add it to your spell list. But officially, none of those are Artificer spells.
I’m still in the same place on this, even after thinking it through a bit more.
I’m genuinely open to the idea that leaving these spells off the Artificer list was intentional — but I keep coming back to the question of whether the current process can actually catch every cross-book interaction like this.
Maybe it was a conscious “these don’t go on the Artificer list” call. But from the outside, it feels at least as likely that there was never really an Artificer pass on this batch of spells because they were written for a different product by a different team.
Spells like Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi, Conjure Constructs, and Cacophonic Shield all sit right in the middle of what Artificers already do: constructs, crafting support, thunder damage. None of them would look out of place on the class list.
That’s why my worry isn’t just about these three spells specifically, but about the pattern behind them. If there isn’t a clear step in the pipeline where someone asks “do any of these new spells belong on the Artificer list as well?”, then these odd gaps are going to keep happening. And to be honest, I’m not really convinced this particular gap exists because of a strong, deliberate design principle — it looks a lot more like a side effect of how the books are being made and the limited bandwidth to keep every class list perfectly in sync.
And my doubts aren’t just about this one Faerûn supplement, either — I’m worried the same thing will crop up again with spells in future books over the next few years. Is there actually anyone whose job it is to look at new, thematically appropriate spells and say, “this should be added to the Artificer list”?
I'm still a little bummed at the lack of Artificer synergy with Heroes of Faerun's spells and the lack of Artificer in Creative Commons to give 3rd-parties access to it, but I'll take this victory.
Cheers to Spam for making sure the message & sincerity was clear.
Agreed, and I fear that will be an issue with later expansions also. Will the devs have time revise the artificer spell list every time when a new expansion arrive? Are Faerun spells are working as intended (eg. none of them classifies as artificer spells), or artificer were simply forgotten in the developement process?
The lack of any of the Heroes of Faerun spells being included on the Artificer list is definitely working as written. Those spells (being new to the new source book) have never been tagged as Artificer spells (unlike the Xanathar spells), and so they would have been needed to be tagged in the Heroes of Faerun book itself as 'Artificer', and they weren't. (Whether they were forgotten or intentionally not included, only the design team could answer.)
They would need to officially publish it somewhere to change that.
That said, you can always have a conversation with your DM and they can decide to house rule it, you can then make a homebrew version of any spell and give it the Artificer tag to then add it to your spell list. But officially, none of those are Artificer spells.
I’m still in the same place on this, even after thinking it through a bit more.
I’m genuinely open to the idea that leaving these spells off the Artificer list was intentional — but I keep coming back to the question of whether the current process can actually catch every cross-book interaction like this.
Maybe it was a conscious “these don’t go on the Artificer list” call. But from the outside, it feels at least as likely that there was never really an Artificer pass on this batch of spells because they were written for a different product by a different team.
Spells like Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi, Conjure Constructs, and Cacophonic Shield all sit right in the middle of what Artificers already do: constructs, crafting support, thunder damage. None of them would look out of place on the class list.
That’s why my worry isn’t just about these three spells specifically, but about the pattern behind them. If there isn’t a clear step in the pipeline where someone asks “do any of these new spells belong on the Artificer list as well?”, then these odd gaps are going to keep happening. And to be honest, I’m not really convinced this particular gap exists because of a strong, deliberate design principle — it looks a lot more like a side effect of how the books are being made and the limited bandwidth to keep every class list perfectly in sync.
And my doubts aren’t just about this one Faerûn supplement, either — I’m worried the same thing will crop up again with spells in future books over the next few years. Is there actually anyone whose job it is to look at new, thematically appropriate spells and say, “this should be added to the Artificer list”?
The lack of access to 3rd-party material due to Artificer not being added to the OGL is gonna hurt, too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I’m still in the same place on this, even after thinking it through a bit more.
I’m genuinely open to the idea that leaving these spells off the Artificer list was intentional — but I keep coming back to the question of whether the current process can actually catch every cross-book interaction like this.
Maybe it was a conscious “these don’t go on the Artificer list” call. But from the outside, it feels at least as likely that there was never really an Artificer pass on this batch of spells because they were written for a different product by a different team.
Spells like Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi, Conjure Constructs, and Cacophonic Shield all sit right in the middle of what Artificers already do: constructs, crafting support, thunder damage. None of them would look out of place on the class list.
That’s why my worry isn’t just about these three spells specifically, but about the pattern behind them. If there isn’t a clear step in the pipeline where someone asks “do any of these new spells belong on the Artificer list as well?”, then these odd gaps are going to keep happening. And to be honest, I’m not really convinced this particular gap exists because of a strong, deliberate design principle — it looks a lot more like a side effect of how the books are being made and the limited bandwidth to keep every class list perfectly in sync.
And my doubts aren’t just about this one Faerûn supplement, either — I’m worried the same thing will crop up again with spells in future books over the next few years. Is there actually anyone whose job it is to look at new, thematically appropriate spells and say, “this should be added to the Artificer list”?
I'd even try to make a case for Backlash. But regardless, these spells have never been Artificer spells, so there's no good argument that they are Artificer spells the mods should add now.
It doesn't really serve much to speculate on the reason why the Artificer was not taken into consideration for this book, but it pretty clearly was not.
The argument to be made would be asking the devs to reconsider if intentional (or consider for the first time, if not intentional), looking at these spells and determining if any of them should be added. But this would be a revision, which makes it different from the situation with the Xanathar spells (which were the focus of this thread).
I think it warrants discussion and deserves a thread all its own, and I personally would be in favor of taking a review. But I'm just a consumer, and I have no power here. If one of my players wanted to be an Artificer, I'd probably have a conversation as to whether or not they wanted to add the ones here that make sense for the class.
I’m still in the same place on this, even after thinking it through a bit more.
I’m genuinely open to the idea that leaving these spells off the Artificer list was intentional — but I keep coming back to the question of whether the current process can actually catch every cross-book interaction like this.
Maybe it was a conscious “these don’t go on the Artificer list” call. But from the outside, it feels at least as likely that there was never really an Artificer pass on this batch of spells because they were written for a different product by a different team.
Spells like Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi, Conjure Constructs, and Cacophonic Shield all sit right in the middle of what Artificers already do: constructs, crafting support, thunder damage. None of them would look out of place on the class list.
That’s why my worry isn’t just about these three spells specifically, but about the pattern behind them. If there isn’t a clear step in the pipeline where someone asks “do any of these new spells belong on the Artificer list as well?”, then these odd gaps are going to keep happening. And to be honest, I’m not really convinced this particular gap exists because of a strong, deliberate design principle — it looks a lot more like a side effect of how the books are being made and the limited bandwidth to keep every class list perfectly in sync.
And my doubts aren’t just about this one Faerûn supplement, either — I’m worried the same thing will crop up again with spells in future books over the next few years. Is there actually anyone whose job it is to look at new, thematically appropriate spells and say, “this should be added to the Artificer list”?
I'd even try to make a case for Backlash. But regardless, these spells have never been Artificer spells, so there's no good argument that they are Artificer spells the mods should add now.
It doesn't really serve much to speculate on the reason why the Artificer was not taken into consideration for this book, but it pretty clearly was not.
The argument to be made would be asking the devs to reconsider if intentional (or consider for the first time, if not intentional), looking at these spells and determining if any of them should be added. But this would be a revision, which makes it different from the situation with the Xanathar spells (which were the focus of this thread).
I think it warrants discussion and deserves a thread all its own, and I personally would be in favor of taking a review. But I'm just a consumer, and I have no power here. If one of my players wanted to be an Artificer, I'd probably have a conversation as to whether or not they wanted to add the ones here that make sense for the class.
You want to make it, or should I?
Because I'm all for that discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thunderclap is on the Artificer Spell list too. Or am I wrong?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThunderclap is indeed available, since the spell list in the 2024 class says it is.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/efota/the-artificer#CantripsLevel0ArtificerSpells
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/dnd
Yeah, Thunderclap is fine. It's available to pick on D&D Beyond.
All fair - I was going based on the 2014 Expanded Rules Spells that weren't included when filtered for "2014 Expanded Rules" (since XGtE is 2014 Expanded Rules, not Core Rules). Thunderclap 2024 is included, but the Legacy 2014 Thunderclap is not (which is not a big deal as nothing changed about the spell)
The full list of "Missing" spells:
Create Bonfire
Frostbite
Magic Stone
Absorb Elements
Catapult
Snare
Pyrotechnics
Skywrite
Catnap
Flame Arrows
Tiny Servant
Elemental Bane
Skill Empowerment
Transmute Rock
Might be worth noting that the only spell that can currently be added to a 2024 Artificer that has the "Legacy" tag is Summon Construct, despite the fact that this, too, has a 2024 version on the Base Class Spell List. All other Expanded Rules spells that have a Legacy-tagged version, the 2024 Artificer cannot add the Legacy version, only the reprinted/updated version. Other Classes, such as 2024 Wizard, can add either the Legacy version of the Expanded Rules spells, or the new/reprinted version of those spells. So the Artificer is not currently getting the same treatment as the other 2024 Classes.
Also worth noting that Booming Blade and the SCAG/TCoE Spells that have been added to the 2024 Artificer are under the "2014 Expanded Rules" filter, just like Absorb Elements and the EEPC/XGtE spells are under the same filter, but the latter have not (yet) added to the 2024 Artificer. Some "2014 Expanded Rules" spells are currently being treated as "2014 Core Spells", but ONLY for the 2024 Artificer.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThese spells have been added!
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/dnd
Does that mean they were always meant to be on the list and it was just unclear from the writing?
Yes, thank you very much to clarify this with the devs! Cheers!
It would be another huge nerf otherwise.
Absorb Elements is safe.
We all made sure of that.
I'm still a little bummed at the lack of Artificer synergy with Heroes of Faerun's spells and the lack of Artificer in Creative Commons to give 3rd-parties access to it, but I'll take this victory.
Cheers to Spam for making sure the message & sincerity was clear.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorNo idea. I wasn't part of that discussion. 😅
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/dnd
Agreed, and I fear that will be an issue with later expansions also. Will the devs have time revise the artificer spell list every time when a new expansion arrive? Are Faerun spells are working as intended (eg. none of them classifies as artificer spells), or artificer were simply forgotten in the developement process?
Many thanks for following up with the Devs and getting an answer (and all the rest of the stuff you do)!
You are a hero
Also, mad respect to everyone who advocated for the clear logic! Good job team!!
The lack of any of the Heroes of Faerun spells being included on the Artificer list is definitely working as written. Those spells (being new to the new source book) have never been tagged as Artificer spells (unlike the Xanathar spells), and so they would have been needed to be tagged in the Heroes of Faerun book itself as 'Artificer', and they weren't. (Whether they were forgotten or intentionally not included, only the design team could answer.)
They would need to officially publish it somewhere to change that.
That said, you can always have a conversation with your DM and they can decide to house rule it, you can then make a homebrew version of any spell and give it the Artificer tag to then add it to your spell list. But officially, none of those are Artificer spells.
I’m still in the same place on this, even after thinking it through a bit more.
I’m genuinely open to the idea that leaving these spells off the Artificer list was intentional — but I keep coming back to the question of whether the current process can actually catch every cross-book interaction like this.
Maybe it was a conscious “these don’t go on the Artificer list” call.
But from the outside, it feels at least as likely that there was never really an Artificer pass on this batch of spells because they were written for a different product by a different team.
Spells like Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi, Conjure Constructs, and Cacophonic Shield all sit right in the middle of what Artificers already do: constructs, crafting support, thunder damage. None of them would look out of place on the class list.
That’s why my worry isn’t just about these three spells specifically, but about the pattern behind them. If there isn’t a clear step in the pipeline where someone asks “do any of these new spells belong on the Artificer list as well?”, then these odd gaps are going to keep happening. And to be honest, I’m not really convinced this particular gap exists because of a strong, deliberate design principle — it looks a lot more like a side effect of how the books are being made and the limited bandwidth to keep every class list perfectly in sync.
And my doubts aren’t just about this one Faerûn supplement, either — I’m worried the same thing will crop up again with spells in future books over the next few years. Is there actually anyone whose job it is to look at new, thematically appropriate spells and say, “this should be added to the Artificer list”?
The lack of access to 3rd-party material due to Artificer not being added to the OGL is gonna hurt, too.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I'd even try to make a case for Backlash. But regardless, these spells have never been Artificer spells, so there's no good argument that they are Artificer spells the mods should add now.
It doesn't really serve much to speculate on the reason why the Artificer was not taken into consideration for this book, but it pretty clearly was not.
The argument to be made would be asking the devs to reconsider if intentional (or consider for the first time, if not intentional), looking at these spells and determining if any of them should be added. But this would be a revision, which makes it different from the situation with the Xanathar spells (which were the focus of this thread).
I think it warrants discussion and deserves a thread all its own, and I personally would be in favor of taking a review. But I'm just a consumer, and I have no power here. If one of my players wanted to be an Artificer, I'd probably have a conversation as to whether or not they wanted to add the ones here that make sense for the class.
You want to make it, or should I?
Because I'm all for that discussion.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.