D&D 5E D&D Beyond Will Delist Two Books On May 17th

D&D Beyond will be permanently removing Volo’s Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes on May 17th in favor of the upcoming Monsters of the Multiverse book, which largely compiles and updates that material.

As per the D&D Beyond FAQ for Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse:

Can I still buy Volo’s Guide to Monsters or Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes on D&D Beyond?
Starting on May 16, you can acquire the streamlined and up-to-date creatures and character race options, as well as a plethora of exciting new content, by purchasing Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse. On May 17, Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes will be discontinued from our digital marketplace.

If you already own these two books you will still have access to your purchases and any characters or encounters you built with them. They won’t be removed from your purchased sourcebooks. Therefore, if you want the "fluff" and tables in those two tomes in D&D Beyond, you need to purchase them soon.

This is the first time books have been wholesale delisted from the D&D Beyond Platform rather than updated (much like physical book reprints are with errata and changes).

There’s no word from WotC on whether physical books will be discontinued and be allowed to sell out.

 

[Parmandur]

just to be clear, you don't think there are ANY rules on what an elf is, or what a Fighter is then?

The actual game rules are in Part 2 of the PHB: the stuff you mention are not there, they are all modular options appended to thecore mechanics. Are there rules for an Elf? Sure, there is an Elf module. But you can remove the Elf rules and replace them with those from Tasha's and nothing in Part 2 actually changes. They could remove and rewrite every Race, Class, Spell, Feat, Background, and piece of Equipment..without touching the actual rules.

 

[Parmandur]

Heh, just realized something else. Any versions of VGTM and MTOF that get posted on the DM Guild will likely be the last versions, which means that lore they cut as "errata"? Probably gone forever in digital form.

On the other hand, they are not just putting in Monsters of the Multiverse as errata, which would eliminate the old versions entirely.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The actual game rules are in Part 2 of the PHB: the stuff you mention are not there, they are all modular options appended to thecore mechanics. Are there rules for an Elf? Sure, there is an Elf module. But you can remove the Elf rules and replace them with those from Tasha's and nothing in Part 2 actually changes. They could remove and rewrite every Race, Class, Spell, Feat, Background, and piece of Equipment..without touching the actual rules.

okay I guess that if they rewrite the fighter to have all the 4e options that would be not a new edition... its the strangest position I have seen but by your way of thinking you are correct. but that is still not going to make the 2014 and 2024 editions compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

I would not like teh short rest to go (I would prefer it be MORE important) but I have no reason to believe you are not correct... but I do wonder how the "It isn't really a rule" crowd feel about short rests going bye bye

Replacing Short Rests with Prof bonus centered powers helps tables play according to rules assumptions, so it us legitimately a core rule change (unlike replacing all the Raves or Classes), but probably for ghe better on balance. It became apparent a few years ago that people thought that Long Rest powered Classes and Raves were better because they weren't giving Monks, Warlocks and such sufficient Short Rests. Conflate a rest into a rest, problem solved.

 

[Blue]

AL is an odd fringe use case, since they don't even allow everything from 5E as is. And a DM can already say "no, I don't like those options, because Reasons" anytime. Neither takes away from full compatibility. And yes, it is just like saying that pre-errata spells will work just fine, because they do. 5E is a modular, exceptions based system. Races, Classes, Spells, Monsters are all, always, exceptions to the rules. That's what full compatibility is.

Please look up the definition of FULL compatibility. I have no arguement to make, it has already been made and is correct.

 

[Retreater]

Everything's going to be de-listed in a couple years anyway when 6e hits. No biggie.

 

[Parmandur]

I doubt it, but it's possible. And yes, even then, it wouldn't be at all a big deal. Literally just a rule that says that when you gain an ability that refers to a short rest, you can choose to instead gain uses of that ability equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest, and there is no tension, no breaking, no problem.

The fact that Short Rests seem to have dissapefrom new options entirely and been replaced with a mathematically equal iption...seems more probable than not. But I expect that would be the biggest change we're looking st, if it happens.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Replacing Short Rests with Prof bonus centered powers helps tables play according to rules assumptions, so it us legitimately a core rule change (unlike replacing all the Raves or Classes), but probably for ghe better on balance.

I don;t know if it will be better or worse for balance (my gut says neutral on balance) but I will see how it plays out.

It became apparent a few years ago that people thought that Long Rest powered Classes and Raves were better because they weren't giving Monks, Warlocks and such sufficient Short Rests. Conflate a rest into a rest, problem solved.

I find this odd. I see Monk and Fighters are weak arguments all the time (both being short rest so up your arguments allye (although prfx action surge scares me)
however I also hear rogue (I can't put my finger on a SR recharge ability) are weak just better then the other two.
I hear VERY RAREly warlocks are weak (in fact I would say as often as bard and druid) but they ARE short rest.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

okay I guess that if they rewrite the fighter to have all the 4e options that would be not a new edition... its the strangest position I have seen but by your way of thinking you are correct. but that is still not going to make the 2014 and 2024 editions compatible.

It's not strange at all, it's objectively correct. Those are the core rules. The Fighter is an option that sits on top of the core rules.

This is just...how the game is constructed.

Yes, if they replaced the fighter entirely, it would not in any way indicate a new edition, it would indicate an optional variant fighter (most likely) or an update to an individual player option (less likely but possible), neither of which would mean anything to how cover works or how movement is counted when using a grid.

 

[Blue]

it wont be fully compatible... it can't be.

I agree with you, which is why I called out that they claimed it would be. Though I also have two people replying to this thread insisting that it is fully compatible. So shrug