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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Can you post your 1-2 page errata somewhere that lets folks use a 2e PHB at a 5e table? I'd love to see it!

sure thing it was super simple.

take the profs of weapons and those are his profs. take his class HD and make them (I think it was 10d4+11 but not 100% without looking it up) make that his HD so he would have 37ish hp
I took his 2e AC (I want to say it was -3) and flipped it by 10 so -3 was 13 better then a 10 so it became a 23 and just transfer each spell as a special ability (this took less then 30 mins at the time) ignoring name and just righting effect (so fireball is a spread that fill x volume and deals 10d6 damage, magic missile auto hits 5 missile each at 1d4+1, stone skin negates 1d4+11 hits) then plug into my excel sheet to calculate CR, and from there go back and add in prof using 5e cr for what his prof bonus is. his prof in spell craft became arcana history became history ancient history became expertise in history and I was done.

edit: whn I first thought up this joke character (that morphed into a seriuse and major NPC that I am now planning to bring back) I would have told you "I am going to spend a few hours one day and a few hours the next time and then after 3-5 hours decide if I am close enough to make this work or if it is worht the more time I am going to put into it..." grand total I doubt I spent an hour on him... infact I can guarantee you I have in 5e spent longer customizing a dragon that was not going to show up in the game but be NAME dropped and as such MIGHT need stats then I did this... and this was SOOOOOO worth it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You don't seem to get it. The new core is being made with compatibly in mind.

maybe maybe not. How ever no matter what is in mind and what they try to do what matters is what happens in play (and I am still betting on edition war and breaks... there will be exceptions but not many

They are not saying you can bring a book from a different system and make it work, just that if the old book is brought to a game using the new core and the DM says yes and it works (That's the important part), then it's compatible.

and I am saying that if the majority of DMs say no it doesn't matter what you say.

Your Dwarf Rogue Fighter will be useable by the new rules, as nothing it has contradicts the new rules. People saying it's not allowed has nothing to do with it not being compatible.

if you can't find a table that mixes the two (with rare exceptions) then the two are not mixing

2e and 5e are not compatible as you had to do work to convert stuff even if it was not much.

and you have to do work to make the mt dwarf fit (with what we know now)

Everything in 2e would require conversion work to work in 5e.

just like what I see coming here

Everything in the 2014 PHB should work no conversion required in a game using the 2024 PHB, which means it's compatible even if it feels different.

I am sure they want you to think so

 

[Parmandur]

okY... JUST THIS (above me is the 1e-2e math for you)

right now today I can not take a PHB+ tasha rogue to a table running just PHB without it messing up the math (I can aim for advantage).

if (as I susspect) the 2024 PHB has the PHB+Tasha rogue in it... that already breaks, just that 1 feature. AIM.

The 2014 base assumption is that the Rogue can get Advantage every turn. So no, nothing there changes anything even for Rogues, let alone for the fundamental math of the game.

now as I look at races it looks to me like no race gets +2 to 2 stats. The Mt Dwarf in the 2014 PHB does. if (as I susspect) the 2024 PHB has what we have seen in new books and UA that all races get +2 to any 1 stat and +1 to another, the Mt Dwarf breaks the math.

With Dwarves, people get confused by all the ribbons (which are balance neutral), but the folks who did the reverse engineering of the Race rules figured out that the Mountain dwarf fit with every other Rave (including by extension Tasha's) years ago.

if there are MORE changed (I susspect to background and spells and class at least) it may be worse. However if I walk up to a table in 2025 with my level 3 Mt Dwarf rogue 2/fighter 1 from the 2014 PHB i would be VERY suprised to not be told to update.

A given table may accept it or not, but fundamentally in the math of the game it would be compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

I think the rogue's steady aim feature in Tasha's is an interesting case. To me it feels much more like errata than a fundamental change - much like the Ranger being stealth re-written in Tasha's because the PHB version was a mess, the PHB rogue was missing something and steady aim is an attempt to put a fix in. So for me, that's not a class rewrite, that's errata. Though I can see others not thinking the same way.

Crawford would always repeat when people complained that a new Subclass would give Rogues easy advantage that the base assumption is the Rogue gets Advantage every time they attack. So not really a significant change.

 

[Parmandur]

That's at least how I recall the shift to 3.5e - technically compatible, but far different in fit and finish. I'm not arguing that 2024 characters are all going to be able to shoot lasers from their eyes at first level, but I do suspect that we're going to see material changes.

It might be helpful to think of accidental versus essential change. Some accidents (Rave and Class detaols) will change, but no essential change to the core structures.

 

[Parmandur]

well by those DMs mindsets it is most assuredly not compatible.

I don't care what people say about the math, or what press release WotC puts out... if most tables allow ONLY 2014 or 2024 but not both at the same table the games are not compatible.

Every table I play with will allow it, so it's compatible.

What data do you have on most tables...?

 

[Parmandur]

It's certainly relevant to whether or not people want to play your game.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with complete compatibility.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The 2014 base assumption is that the Rogue can get Advantage every turn. So no, nothing there changes anything even for Rogues, let alone for the fundamental math of the game.

I do think you mean it was INTENDED to allow rogues to always get advantage, not that it assumed... and either way that isn't what is in the book... when comparing the two builds there is a fundamental diffrence between able to get advantage (at 2nd level not first I think) and NOT doing so

With Dwarves, people get confused by all the ribbons

I forgot you know better then everyone.

(which are balance neutral), but the folks who did the reverse engineering of the Race rules figured out that the Mountain dwarf fit with every other Rave (including by extension Tasha's) years ago.

and yet it looks (so far based on what we have) that every race will have +2 to 1 stat and +1 to another. Maybe you are right (maybe not too) and the Mt dwarf will be unchanged...if not, that character is not compatible.

A given table may accept it or not, but fundamentally in the math of the game it would be compatible.

this isn't about A given table. It is about how the game is played across many tables (and how it is discussed on here, on reedit on tiktoc and at cons)
WotC may intend for it to be minor and it not end up that way
WotC may intend for it to be a major rewrite and just be spinning it
it might be somewhere between.

but if I can't take my 2014 book and make ANY character and walk up to most 2024 tables and be fine... it didn't work out as compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

if my Mt Dwarf rogue 2/ fighter 1 can't sit at 9 out of 10 2024 game tables, then it isn't compatible.

No, that's just a DM issue. If they can work if allowed, then it is compat

but if you can't take the character you drew up to gencon and sit down at a pick up table would you think it an outlier, or the norm?

Who cares about Con games? I assume anything in those is an outlier.

so just to be clear, if any of part 2 or any of the monster math changes, you will stop this argument?

If you can demonstrate a change in the fundmanetal math of how Mosnters work? Go for it.

The Monsters already changed in prep for the new Core we just saw it. And may new things are being made with the New Core in mind so they can be used with it without issue.

Some new Monsters using the same math were released. No fundamental math was changed.

if you can't find a table that mixes the two (with rare exceptions) then the two are not mixing

So if I can find a table that mixes it, then it is compatible...?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Every table I play with will allow it, so it's compatible.

What data do you have on most tables...?

right now the same as you have 0 zip nadda. this is talking about things yet to come, so don't play horse games about data. I have shown my work and my assumptions and you just keep saying I am wrong.

if in 2024 the game is the same great... if it is 100% diffrent great. I trust the dev team so far (but I wish they would fix some things).

I still doubt they will end up compatible.