I pre-ordered this book, and had early access to Eberron: Forge of the Artificer. As of today, whenever I attempt to access it, the site brings me to the preorder page.
I believe this is due to the fact that until the 27th, I had a D&D Beyond subscription given as a free trial, which I did not renew.
Is this intentional?
Early access only applies to active subscriptions. It's not a one-time unlock, it's continuous access.
Re: Absorb Elements and other Xanathar's spells. Everything that I've seen and read regarding the 2024 ruleset indicated that these rules are meant to be backwards compatible, and that for anything that wasn't updated, you're freely allowed to continue using older content. And in the Artificer UA, it states "The list includes only spells from the Player’s Handbook and this article. If you have Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, your Artificer can continue to use the class’s spells in that book."
To me, this would seem to indicate that the spells on the Forge of the Artificer spell list only contains spells that were updated for 2024, and that we should still be allowed to use any older content that was available to the 2014 Artificer, and I believe that would even include the Xanathar spells, even if that book was released prior to the 2014 Artificer. Those spells still showed up on the official 2014 Artificer spell list once the class was released. It seems really strange that they would overrule their previous statement regarding 2024 updates being backwards compatible just because the original source book for that set of spells predates the Artificer spell list.
I'm also personally sad that they didn't consider any of the new Heroes of Faerun spells for the Artificer, but I do understand why they don't show up as options -- nothing in that source book or anywhere the Artificer has ever been released has ever included them (obviously). I wish they would reconsider that point, especially since Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi practically screams 'Artificer'. But I understand why those are left out. I do not understand why Xanathar spells would be left out just because they weren't included in the Forge of the Artificer spell list, which only draws from spells that were created or updated for the 2024 rules. These things are said to be backwards compatible, and those Xanathar spells were always included in the Artificer spell list starting with its introduction. (I know this has been discussed in this thread and 'answered', but I feel like it deserves more discussion and reconsideration.)
Re: Absorb Elements and other Xanathar's spells. Everything that I've seen and read regarding the 2024 ruleset indicated that these rules are meant to be backwards compatible, and that for anything that wasn't updated, you're freely allowed to continue using older content. And in the Artificer UA, it states "The list includes only spells from the Player’s Handbook and this article. If you have Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, your Artificer can continue to use the class’s spells in that book."
To me, this would seem to indicate that the spells on the Forge of the Artificer spell list only contains spells that were updated for 2024, and that we should still be allowed to use any older content that was available to the 2014 Artificer, and I believe that would even include the Xanathar spells, even if that book was released prior to the 2014 Artificer. Those spells still showed up on the official 2014 Artificer spell list once the class was released. It seems really strange that they would overrule their previous statement regarding 2024 updates being backwards compatible just because the original source book for that set of spells predates the Artificer spell list.
I'm also personally sad that they didn't consider any of the new Heroes of Faerun spells for the Artificer, but I do understand why they don't show up as options -- nothing in that source book or anywhere the Artificer has ever been released has ever included them (obviously). I wish they would reconsider that point, especially since Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi practically screams 'Artificer'. But I understand why those are left out. I do not understand why Xanathar spells would be left out just because they weren't included in the Forge of the Artificer spell list, which only draws from spells that were created or updated for the 2024 rules. These things are said to be backwards compatible, and those Xanathar spells were always included in the Artificer spell list starting with its introduction. (I know this has been discussed in this thread and 'answered', but I feel like it deserves more discussion and reconsideration.)
-The official book release doesn't have the same text about the spell list, so that's not a point that has any impact. That line was for playtesting. -"Backwards compatible" gets thrown around a lot, but people still to this day fail to realize that was talking only about features which haven't been updated and adventure modules. The spell list has been updated, so the old one is irrelevant to 2024 from start to finish. -Tasha's spells were included because it came out after Artificer and added to the list, Xanathar's is the ONLY book not included. The devs have the option to release errata in the future to include those spells. -Opinions on the matter don't override RAW, and the decision to exclude the spells has come down from official sources (as noted by the exclusion being ruled as Working As Intended). However, if your DM allows the spells anyway, you can make a homebrew copy of the spell and include the 2024 Artificer so it can be selected.
Re: Absorb Elements and other Xanathar's spells. Everything that I've seen and read regarding the 2024 ruleset indicated that these rules are meant to be backwards compatible, and that for anything that wasn't updated, you're freely allowed to continue using older content. And in the Artificer UA, it states "The list includes only spells from the Player’s Handbook and this article. If you have Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, your Artificer can continue to use the class’s spells in that book."
To me, this would seem to indicate that the spells on the Forge of the Artificer spell list only contains spells that were updated for 2024, and that we should still be allowed to use any older content that was available to the 2014 Artificer, and I believe that would even include the Xanathar spells, even if that book was released prior to the 2014 Artificer. Those spells still showed up on the official 2014 Artificer spell list once the class was released. It seems really strange that they would overrule their previous statement regarding 2024 updates being backwards compatible just because the original source book for that set of spells predates the Artificer spell list.
I'm also personally sad that they didn't consider any of the new Heroes of Faerun spells for the Artificer, but I do understand why they don't show up as options -- nothing in that source book or anywhere the Artificer has ever been released has ever included them (obviously). I wish they would reconsider that point, especially since Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi practically screams 'Artificer'. But I understand why those are left out. I do not understand why Xanathar spells would be left out just because they weren't included in the Forge of the Artificer spell list, which only draws from spells that were created or updated for the 2024 rules. These things are said to be backwards compatible, and those Xanathar spells were always included in the Artificer spell list starting with its introduction. (I know this has been discussed in this thread and 'answered', but I feel like it deserves more discussion and reconsideration.)
-The official book release doesn't have the same text about the spell list, so that's not a point that has any impact. That line was for playtesting. -"Backwards compatible" gets thrown around a lot, but people still to this day fail to realize that was talking only about features which haven't been updated and adventure modules. The spell list has been updated, so the old one is irrelevant to 2024 from start to finish. -Tasha's spells were included because it came out after Artificer and added to the list, Xanathar's is the ONLY book not included. The devs have the option to release errata in the future to include those spells. -Opinions on the matter don't override RAW, and the decision to exclude the spells has come down from official sources (as noted by the exclusion being ruled as Working As Intended). However, if your DM allows the spells anyway, you can make a homebrew copy of the spell and include the 2024 Artificer so it can be selected.
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.
I understand what you're saying -- this is the nature of the reality since those spells were left off -- but that said, WotC also left out other spells incorrectly, accidentally (and those have been remedied). My argument is their exclusion should not be accepted as being indicative that they shouldn't be considered backwards compatible, only that the spells that were left off don't have a 2024 equivalent, and the only reason they were left off is because the spell list contains exclusively 2024 spells. To me, that's not an indication that we shouldn't be able to use them, based on consistency everywhere else -- ie all the other 2024 classes.
I've already conceded in my original post that I fully understand your position. I'm saying that I disagree with your interpretation and conclusion, and I have provided ample evidence to support my opinion and position in my plea to reconsider removing spells from the Artificer class -- spells that have always existed on the Artificer spell list since its 5th edition inception, and that I believe were not included only because they are spells without a 2024 version.
There is nothing in anything that they've released in the 2024 5th edition rule books that would indicate to me that they've officially changed their minds regarding backwards compatibility, aside from these spells missing from D&D Beyond. And if that is your only argument, I would like to point out that all of the expanded spells were missing initially, including some that were new to 2024 and included on the Forge spell list, like Arcane Vigor, that had to be added post release. Which indicates that they are fallable (understandable, being human) and that they're willing to make corrections.
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".
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Items reported that aren't reported fixed, to compile them all in one spot. Tested where it was unclear if the bug was still active, except the third-party compatibility one far below (I don't have the Gunslinger or GH:PP). Also didn't bring forward duplicates. (Morgrave Chartacters was mentioned at least three times.)
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).
Is the Digital version of this purchaseable apart from the Ultimate Bundle outside of the US?
I've tried to buy the Digital version which I can only do through the US Marketplace as the Rest of the World storefront doesn't have an option to buy anything other than the Ultimate Bundle. It also says at the bottom of the RotW page that if you only want the Digital version to go to DND Beyond and DND Beyond sends you to the US Marketplace to buy the Digital version.
My bank details are all checked and fine and a prior transaction for a free digital product just over a week ago worked through the US Marketplace so I'm not sure what other reason there would be for an error in processing my order. The US Marketplace portal also doesn't allow me to save my payment details so I'm assuming this is because I'm outside the US (Australia).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Early access only applies to active subscriptions. It's not a one-time unlock, it's continuous access.
Re: Absorb Elements and other Xanathar's spells. Everything that I've seen and read regarding the 2024 ruleset indicated that these rules are meant to be backwards compatible, and that for anything that wasn't updated, you're freely allowed to continue using older content. And in the Artificer UA, it states "The list includes only spells from the Player’s Handbook and this article. If you have Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, your Artificer can continue to use the class’s spells in that book."
To me, this would seem to indicate that the spells on the Forge of the Artificer spell list only contains spells that were updated for 2024, and that we should still be allowed to use any older content that was available to the 2014 Artificer, and I believe that would even include the Xanathar spells, even if that book was released prior to the 2014 Artificer. Those spells still showed up on the official 2014 Artificer spell list once the class was released. It seems really strange that they would overrule their previous statement regarding 2024 updates being backwards compatible just because the original source book for that set of spells predates the Artificer spell list.
I'm also personally sad that they didn't consider any of the new Heroes of Faerun spells for the Artificer, but I do understand why they don't show up as options -- nothing in that source book or anywhere the Artificer has ever been released has ever included them (obviously). I wish they would reconsider that point, especially since Deryan’s Helpful Homunculi practically screams 'Artificer'. But I understand why those are left out. I do not understand why Xanathar spells would be left out just because they weren't included in the Forge of the Artificer spell list, which only draws from spells that were created or updated for the 2024 rules. These things are said to be backwards compatible, and those Xanathar spells were always included in the Artificer spell list starting with its introduction. (I know this has been discussed in this thread and 'answered', but I feel like it deserves more discussion and reconsideration.)
-The official book release doesn't have the same text about the spell list, so that's not a point that has any impact. That line was for playtesting.
-"Backwards compatible" gets thrown around a lot, but people still to this day fail to realize that was talking only about features which haven't been updated and adventure modules. The spell list has been updated, so the old one is irrelevant to 2024 from start to finish.
-Tasha's spells were included because it came out after Artificer and added to the list, Xanathar's is the ONLY book not included. The devs have the option to release errata in the future to include those spells.
-Opinions on the matter don't override RAW, and the decision to exclude the spells has come down from official sources (as noted by the exclusion being ruled as Working As Intended). However, if your DM allows the spells anyway, you can make a homebrew copy of the spell and include the 2024 Artificer so it can be selected.
Essentially, but TCoE Artificer can get plenty of armors.
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.
I understand what you're saying -- this is the nature of the reality since those spells were left off -- but that said, WotC also left out other spells incorrectly, accidentally (and those have been remedied). My argument is their exclusion should not be accepted as being indicative that they shouldn't be considered backwards compatible, only that the spells that were left off don't have a 2024 equivalent, and the only reason they were left off is because the spell list contains exclusively 2024 spells. To me, that's not an indication that we shouldn't be able to use them, based on consistency everywhere else -- ie all the other 2024 classes.
I've already conceded in my original post that I fully understand your position. I'm saying that I disagree with your interpretation and conclusion, and I have provided ample evidence to support my opinion and position in my plea to reconsider removing spells from the Artificer class -- spells that have always existed on the Artificer spell list since its 5th edition inception, and that I believe were not included only because they are spells without a 2024 version.
There is nothing in anything that they've released in the 2024 5th edition rule books that would indicate to me that they've officially changed their minds regarding backwards compatibility, aside from these spells missing from D&D Beyond. And if that is your only argument, I would like to point out that all of the expanded spells were missing initially, including some that were new to 2024 and included on the Forge spell list, like Arcane Vigor, that had to be added post release. Which indicates that they are fallable (understandable, being human) and that they're willing to make corrections.
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.
-
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.
Thank you for the answer!
Items reported that aren't reported fixed, to compile them all in one spot. Tested where it was unclear if the bug was still active, except the third-party compatibility one far below (I don't have the Gunslinger or GH:PP). Also didn't bring forward duplicates. (Morgrave Chartacters was mentioned at least three times.)
There is no +1 to the armor weapon on the character sheet.
Under Charm of Dhakaan: "Stagger ing Smite" and no tooltip
-Spell has no tags to link and generate tooltip, spacing error fixed
When I choose BattleSmith - I do not have the Steel Defender stats in my action section anymore. It was nice to have this before.
-Not sure if this is a bug or if it's just excluded in the 2024 version, copying it forward
In the stat block of the Sivis Scribe, (in the book and in the monster listing) under Spellcasting, the text "1/Day:" contains a superfluous space between the a and y of Day
In the Sharn Inquisitives chapter the Boromar Smuggler / Boromar Underboss statblocks are placed in the Daask paragraph, not into the Boromar paragraph Edit: it is similar with Daask stablocks, statblocks are all over the place
Also, for Magic Item Plans (Artificer Level 2+) list, it shows as Weapon, +1 but in the drop down in the character builder requires you to choose a specific weapon. Is that just for ease? Can I just change it the next LR to another weapon? There's no notation under Weapon, +1, so I just want clarification.
-Possibly in place because it has to call on actual items in the index, possibly the intent. Bringing it forward because of no answer.
It appears that Mark of Hospitality and Mark of Making do not fulfill the prerequisite to Potent Dragonmark
New artificer does not have the ability to take optional class features, which right now for 2024 is Circle Casting. This is the only option as of now I believe, but could become a problem in the future.
Potent Dragonmark does not grant the spells as always prepared.
When selecting battlesmith and artillerist, the option to choose a different tool proficiency does not provide a drop down when it is available. The option to choose another proficiency appears as intended when a character already has the overlapping tool proficiency from species, background, or feat. It just doesn't provide any options.
-Testing Alchemist, it also just removes the proficiency from the background. This is incorrect behavior.
Changeling character sheet doesn't show/implement Advantage on Charisma skills.
-Additionally shows "No Choice Made" when there's no choice to make.
When using character builder, under species Changeling and Khoravar do not add "Creature Type" ("You're a Fey" and "You're a Humanoid" respectively) like all other species selections.
-Note: It DOES show up on the character sheet. Bug is limited to builder only.
There is a spelling error in the section Morgrave Expeditions. The first subsection title is "MORGRAVE CHARTACTERS", should be "MORGRAVE CHARACTERS".
Didn't see anyone else mention this: the Boon of Siberys does not let you increase an ability score above 20. If you have an ability score at 20, it does not show up in the selection menu to increase, despite the feat being in line with all other Epic Boons in letting you increase an ability score by 1 to a max of 30.
Potent dragonmark isnt increasing the ability scores on any dragonmarked heir
Improved Arsenal adds a +1 to damage but not to hit
Battle Smith's Arcane Jolt has a broken tooltip under Restorative Energy: "You can use this energy modifier:int@min1 - Unknown value modifier type: min1 time(s) per Long Rest, but you can do so no more than once per turn."
Can't choose Heavy Crossbow option. (Repeating Shot)
I just did some experimenting, and when I select "Charisma" or "Intelligence" as the stat that Mark of Detection uses, "Detect Magic" and "Detect Poison and Disease" show up, but when I select "Wisdom" as the stat, they don't.
The tooltip for Spell-Storing item now *reads* twice Int mod, but only has Int mod pips for ticking off charges.
Some partner content Feats still don't show up, I guess the prerequisites are also the problem here. I've noticed it with Gun-Mage Adept (The Gunslinger Class) and Lightning Caster (Grim Hollow: Player's Guide)
With the armorer subclass it says you can use your int for attacks and damage, not must. I have a belt of hill giant strength and the armorer weapons seem to only use int
When multi-classing fighter, with the archery fighting style, the Armorer Artificer using the the Infiltrator Armor lightning gauntlets aren't getting the ranged attack bonus.
The "Potent Dragonmark" feat doesn't give you the Spell Slot it says it grants.A fair amount of rare and non-curse shields and armor just aren't listed as options despite other third party and options appearing despite appearing on the TCOE Artificer. Below are some examples. Pariahs Shield (Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica -GGR) Heavy Golem Armor (The Griffon's Saddlebag -TGS) Battering Shield (Explorer's Guide to Wildmount -EGW) Mizzium Armor (GGR)
-Adamantine Armor from the DMG is on this list as well, it's not just expanded and partnered content
-
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).
Is the Digital version of this purchaseable apart from the Ultimate Bundle outside of the US?
I've tried to buy the Digital version which I can only do through the US Marketplace as the Rest of the World storefront doesn't have an option to buy anything other than the Ultimate Bundle. It also says at the bottom of the RotW page that if you only want the Digital version to go to DND Beyond and DND Beyond sends you to the US Marketplace to buy the Digital version.
My bank details are all checked and fine and a prior transaction for a free digital product just over a week ago worked through the US Marketplace so I'm not sure what other reason there would be for an error in processing my order. The US Marketplace portal also doesn't allow me to save my payment details so I'm assuming this is because I'm outside the US (Australia).
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.