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...

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.

AF030AF7-6B9A-4812-8080-A66465876F13.jpeg


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
or not... since AGAIN you can check on this very board with DMs that wont allow tasha's and ones that wont allow pre... so already not... and as more changes pile up and up they wont be (anymore then my 2e wizard is)
I don't care what some random allows at their table...if the rules are completely compatible, then they are compatible.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


In 1994, I could run B2: Keep on the Borderlands in either a Basic, 1e or 2e and the changes I needed to make were minimal. I could use the stat blocks in the module, the treasure was compatible, and most of the rules worked on the same principle. That's not to say they were 1:1 (initiative would be very different based on what system I was running) and some monster stat blocks did have differences, but I could run KotB in any of those three systems just fine.

Starting with 3e on, I would have to rebuild the module to make it work. The stat blocks are different, the rules on saves and checks are different, the format on spells and magic items are different. 4e even more so, with the large change in how encounters are built and resting. Even 5e is different enough that it can't be run as is. Sure, you can use the basics of the module, but the rules need to be overhauled in a way AD&D didn't need.

If the next edition in 2024 is like that; I can grab Curse of Strahd or Tomb of Annihilation and run it with very minimal changes or even out of the book as is rather than rebuild and convert, that's compatible enough for me.
yeah I have used 2e adventures for maps and concepts in 4e. I get the idea. I can even (with some work) use any edition stuff in 5e... but I can also just make things up whole cloth. the work is normally slightly less to take a 2e adventure (lets say a paladin in hell) then making up my own adventure... but I would not call that backwards compatible.

I will even go out on a limb and say 5e is only slightly less compatible with 3e then 2e was to basic... but I STILL wont say 5e is compatible with 3e out of the box.

I also would NEVER assume a DM would let a 3e character/spell/feat in 5e, just like I would NEVER assume a DM would let a 1e monk into a 2e game.
If anything I think it LESS likely a 3.5 DM would let 3e haste or a 3e ranger into there game.

I see no reason to suspect that 5.5/6/anniversary edition and the 2014 5e phb is any different then teh above.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
I see no reason to suspect that 5.5/6/anniversary edition and the 2014 5e phb is any different then teh above.
We already have most of the changes they are making in hand, and they are compatible.

You keep bringing up problematic Edition changes when people point to previous Edition changes where it wasn't just minimal work to use stuff...it was basically no work.
 

Well, forget them: convention games are not normal, at any rate. At normal tables, mixing is natural.
nope... if in 1996 you went to 100 tables with DMs running 2e D&D with a 1e half orc monk I doubt you would get 10 DMs willing to let you play it... and at least 2 of those 10 would tell you to make changes...

now some number (pull number out of butt) lets say 15-20 of the 90 that wont let you play that 1e half orc monk might MAKE a whole new 2e race/class that is based on it... but it would not be the 1e one.

either way MOST tables in 1996 are telling you NO...not compatible (and again that was the closest we ever got)
 

We already have most of the changes they are making in hand, and they are compatible.
citation needed... why have the class and spell surveys if they have no plans to make more spell and class changes?
You keep bringing up problematic Edition changes when people point to previous Edition changes where it wasn't just minimal work to use stuff...it was basically no work.
and you keep asserting that with no proof
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
nope... if in 1996 you went to 100 tables with DMs running 2e D&D with a 1e half orc monk I doubt you would get 10 DMs willing to let you play it... and at least 2 of those 10 would tell you to make changes...

now some number (pull number out of butt) lets say 15-20 of the 90 that wont let you play that 1e half orc monk might MAKE a whole new 2e race/class that is based on it... but it would not be the 1e one.

either way MOST tables in 1996 are telling you NO...not compatible (and again that was the closest we ever got)
Based on what numbers? Because that goes against everything I've heard from people who were mixing them, no conversion required
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
citation needed... why have the class and spell surveys if they have no plans to make more spell and class changes?
Sure, they will have some more stuff coming, but we already have the Race and Monster changes in hand, which are....completely compatible.
and you keep asserting that with no proof
Other than the actual changes which have been introduced, which remain compatible. As people reported doing for the OD&D/Basic/AD&D complex of Editions.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top