Tasha's Cauldron of Everything - Artificer classes is missing

[Tapiritzin]

Hola, I have Tasha's Cauldron of Everything module loaded, but in the list of classes only the Expert, Spellcaster and Warrior are available. Where is the Artificer?

41273

Please, advice.
- T

[Imagix]

You sure it's not in the Player's portion of Tasha's?

Edit: Yep. Just upgraded my desktop machine to look. You need to load the Player's portion of Tasha's to use the Artificer.

[Tapiritzin]

You sure it's not in the Player's portion of Tasha's?

Thanks for your replay.
It is, but I was expecting it will also be available for the DM, right? I just load the DM modules for other products, like Xanathar's and DMG, and the player's options are displayed.

[Imagix]

I believe they’re getting better at splitting to two parts so that players can just load their part, the DM loads both, and there’s no maintenance headache on trying to keep both parts updated with bugs in the artificer stuff (for example).

[Zacchaeus]

The primary reason why classes, races etc only appear in the players module is to avoid duplication. With both open you'd have two classes, races etc for each entry. This was causing confusion (and a lot of complaints) so now only the players book has the actual class listed under the class tab. All of the information on the class is in the reference manual for the DM module (and the player's one) but you can't create the class from the DM module. I would go back and remove this information for previously issued material but that would then break any characters created using the DM versions of the class, race etc.

[Tapiritzin]

I see, it makes more sense now. Thanks for clarifying.

[BSmooter]

I'm not active here, but this is the first I'm hearing that I, as DM, should be loading the Player's version of anything. Are you saying I should go back and load all Player's versions of all works? I have every core book, expansion book, and fifty or so modules. All 5e.

[LordEntrails]

I'm not active here, but this is the first I'm hearing that I, as DM, should be loading the Player's version of anything. Are you saying I should go back and load all Player's versions of all works? I have every core book, expansion book, and fifty or so modules. All 5e.
No, that is not what is being said. Do you as DM need to create a character? 99% of the time the answer is no, so you don't need to load the player versions. Also be aware some of the other products the DM version has 100% of the content so you wouldn't need it even then.

Best practice always is to just load things when you need them. And unload them when you don't. FG will prompt you to load something that you follow a link to if its not already loaded, so no need to pre-emptively load books.

[BSmooter]

Thank you for the prompt clarification. It does appear that OP is not seeing the Class listed at all, however, not just during PC creation; Am I missing something?

[Zacchaeus]

Thank you for the prompt clarification. It does appear that OP is not seeing the Class listed at all, however, not just during PC creation; Am I missing something?
As noted above the class is listed only in the players module and not in the DM one. The OP agrees this is the case in post #3.

[BSmooter]

That's understood. Here's the sequence I'm seeing:
1) OP can't see ArtClass
2) Consolidated responses: It's in Player's version only; From now on some material is split into Player-only to avoid redundancies. It's not needed unless DM needs to create a PC
3) OP isn't looking at building a PC in his screengrab; OP just can't view the Class at all
4) So the question remains: Not during PC-building, but in general, is it visible? It's said a few different ways that it's in the reference, but not during building. Yet the screengrab seems to disagree... Does the screengrab actually show a PC being built and I'm looking at it wrong?

[LordEntrails]

Maybe it depends on the DM? I can't recall the last time I looked at class details outside of teaching a character creation class. And then when I did, 6-10 months ago?, I got to the class entry by clicking on the link from a character sheet and then letting FG open the needed module.

Maybe if you layout the use case folks could give a better answer to how they handle things?

But, regardless, remember that changing to add the player material back into the GM version of things would then result in complaints about duplicate entries etc.

[BSmooter]

Not trying to argue the merits, just gain clarity because there are two and maybe three claim discrepancies in the overall thread.

That said, for any DM needing to understand a Class without also owning the physical book or having a membership to another service...One would surely want to use the purchased material on FG, and splitting that is problematic in that a reader would have no way to know looking at one that it's included in the other. I guess you'd have to, like OP, read about material elsewhere then 'catch' that it's missing?

So beyond DMing a session, where there might be user-scenarios, I know many do want to have their FG material as a simple reference; Indeed offering an ebook equivalent format for purchased content, particularly on mobile, is I see one of the most common requests.

[Zacchaeus]

I think it is just a matter of a small misunderstanding. Complete details of the Artificer class is in the DM version of Tasha’s. It is in the reference section and the DM can read all about the class fully. What the DM cannot do with only the DM module open is build a character. That is only available from the player version - which also has the complete description of the class in the reference section.

[Jiminimonka]

Is this an on-going process with PHB, DMG etc., so classes and player required stuff is being separated out, or just doing it for new material. I can understand why its better to split the book into DM and Player stuff.

[Zacchaeus]

Any modules produced over the last couple of years or so have split things this way. There is no intention to go back and change modules where classes, races etc were fully duplicated in both DM and player versions since this would break characters created with the DM versions.