13
\$\begingroup\$

The artificer's "Spell-Storing Item" feature says:

... you store a spell in it, choosing a 1st- or 2nd-level spell from the artificer spell list that requires one action to cast... [TCOE pg. 13]

Each of the artificer specialists has a supplemental set of spells which says:

These spells count as artificer spells for you... [TCOE pg. 14, 15, 17, & 19]

If your specialist spells "count as artificer spells for you," does that mean they're now included in your artificer spell list, so may be eligible to be used with the spell-storing item? Or because the text refers to the artificer spell list, is only the base list eligible?

The following are the spells that would be allowed in the first interpretation but not in the second:

  • Alchemist: Ray of Sickness, Flaming Sphere, Melf's Acid Arrow
  • Armorer: Magic Missile, Thunderwave, Mirror Image, Shatter
  • Artillerist: Thunderwave, Scorching Ray, Shatter
  • Battle Smith: Heroism, Warding Bond
\$\endgroup\$
18
+50
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, specialist spells are Artificer class spells for that character.

The whole sentence is:

These spells count as artificer spells for you, but they don’t count against the number of artificer spells you prepare.

There are no additional caveats on the sentence that would exclude them from being artificer spells in a particular context. It's not "counts as artificer spells except for..." If they are artificer spells, they're on the class spell list. If you were to write down a list of all the spells the character has access to, the character's artificer spell list, you'd include them, wouldn't you?

More evidence comes from the Bard section of the Sage Advice Compendium:

Which spell scrolls can bards understand — spells from the bard list only, or spells from the bard list plus spells from Magical Secrets?

A bard can use any spell scroll that has a bard spell on it — including spells gained from the Magical Secrets feature, which are treated as bard spells for that character.

Spell Scrolls says:

A spell scroll bears the words of a single spell, written in a mystical cipher. If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible.

In short, a bard spell is a bard spell, no matter how it became one. There is no difference between "bard spells" and "spells on the bard list" for a character that gains them via Magical Secrets. Likewise, there is no difference between "artificer spells" and "spells on the artificer list" for a character that gains them via a subclass.

Why is Warlock worded differently?

Cleric Domain Spells, Druid Circle Spells, Paladin Oath Spells, and so on are automatically known-and/or-prepared spells as well. The Warlock has different wording because the spells become available for selection, but are not automatically known. A warlock must pick them off the list as part of the normal level-up process - they're added to the list of choices.

...lets you choose from an expanded list of spells when you learn a warlock spell. The following spells are added to the warlock spell list for you.

\$\endgroup\$
0
1
\$\begingroup\$

No, the artificer cannot store their specialist spells.

You've found the crux of why they can't already. No where in the specialist spells feature does it say they are added to the artificer spell list, so they aren't eligible for the Spell-Storing Item feature. Compare this to something like the extended spell list of a warlock's patrons, where the feature says:

The [patron] lets you choose from an expanded list of spells when you learn a warlock spell. The following spells are added to the warlock spell list for you. [PHB p.108, 109, & 110]

There's no subclass that uses the same wording of ERLW, but that's because for most subclasses that have extra spells (Cleric domains, Circle of Land Druids, Paladin Oaths) have a default part in the main class saying, "If you gain "a subclass" spell that doesn't appear on the [class] spell list, the spell is nonetheless a [class] spell for you."

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's an intriguing wording difference. To prove this isn't just a style difference between the PHB and ERLW, is there another subclass in the PHB that uses the same wording that the artificers' specialties do? \$\endgroup\$ – gto Jun 15 '20 at 3:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @gto There's no subclass that uses the same wording of ERLW, but that's because for most subclasses that have extra spells (Cleric domains, Circle of Land Druids, Paladin Oaths) have a default part in the main class saying, "If you gain "a subclass" spell that doesn't appear on the [class] spell list, the spell is nonetheless a [class] spell for you." It's a styling change that I find weird in that the artificer doesn't have it said in the main class. \$\endgroup\$ – RallozarX Jun 15 '20 at 6:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Interesting, @RallozarX. I dug into these more at your prompting, and (by RAW) it does look like the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin subclasses' spells in the PHB are not added to their class list, while the Warlock's subclasses' are. (In addition, the new Ranger subclasses in XGtE get their own spells, too, and those match the Artificer's wording: "The spell counts as a ranger spell for you.") If you would add this to your answer, I think that would be enough to mark it "Accepted." I wonder if there's any mechanical consequence to the Warlock being different... \$\endgroup\$ – gto Jun 16 '20 at 6:10
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @gto I think it’s more that the existing mechanical differences prompts this wording. Warlocks get a small, fixed selection of known spells over their career, much like bards, and can choose these expanded selection spells - they don’t get them “for free” from this feature, but can get free extra spells from invocations. The other classes that get extra spells from a subclass - including the Artificer - gain access to their entire spell list and can choose any of them to prepare, but have the additional spells “always prepared” for free, whether they’re normally on their list or not. \$\endgroup\$ – Guybrush McKenzie Jun 16 '20 at 13:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @gto There's no need to apologize for accepting an answer of someone else. The community votes to what they agree with, and though I disagree with it this time, it only means I must be interpreting the text incorrectly. \$\endgroup\$ – RallozarX Jun 28 '20 at 22:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.