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.

 

[ersatzphil]

WotC has been working on changing the exception, not the core. They haven't been putting out any surveys about the core rules.

It was eight months ago, but they did put out a survey that was polling on pretty fundamental questions on how each class worked - reddit link, unfortunately they took the survey down.

Really I suppose the debate hinges on how one defines the 'core rules'.

 

[Parmandur]

It was eight months ago, but they did put out a survey that was polling on pretty fundamental questions on how each class worked - reddit link, unfortunately they took the survey down.

Yes, that's my point Classes are part of the rules exceptions, not the Core. They could replace every single Class, and maintain compatibility of the fundamental game system math, allowing older versions to still function without conversion. Which is what they have said they are doing.

 

[ersatzphil]

Yes, that's my point Classes are part of the rules exceptions, not the Core.

Without wading into the debate - I'm fairly confident I agree with your overarching point - I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the classes shouldn't be viewed as part of the core rules. If they weren't, why are we shoehorning sorcerers and warlocks into Dragonlance? WotC seems to firmly believe that everything in the PhB should be permitted in any published 5e setting.

 

[Parmandur]

Without wading into the debate - I'm fairly confident I agree with your overarching point - I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the classes shouldn't be viewed as part of the core rules. If they weren't, why are we shoehorning sorcerers and warlocks into Dragonlance? WotC seems to firmly believe that everything in the PhB should be permitted in any published 5e setting.

Sure. Doesn't mean they are structurally core rules.

 

[Echohawk]

Thac0 was not in 1e there were charts instead and where people did make a Thac0 like thing from the chart it was not the same

Wait, what? THAC0 might not have been in the DMG, but it was certainly a feature of 1e.

From page 2 of H1: Bloodstone Pass, for example:

 

[Parmandur]

Wait, what? THAC0 might not have been in the DMG, but it was certainly a feature of 1e.

From page 2 of H1: Bloodstone Pass, for example:

View attachment 157025

Almost like 2E was a consolidation and representation of ten years of design work, that was compatible with what came before.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Wait, what? THAC0 might not have been in the DMG, but it was certainly a feature of 1e.

From page 2 of H1: Bloodstone Pass, for example:

View attachment 157025

Not to undercut your point. But, just for reference, the THAC0 from 1e and the one from 2e are not 1:1 interchangeable. They are mostly similar but differ in the results of the the more edge cases.

EDIT: Had a hard time remembering exactly, but the difference was a repeating number in one version apparently.

 

[Jer]

Without wading into the debate - I'm fairly confident I agree with your overarching point - I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the classes shouldn't be viewed as part of the core rules. If they weren't, why are we shoehorning sorcerers and warlocks into Dragonlance? WotC seems to firmly believe that everything in the PhB should be permitted in any published 5e setting.

This is a vocabulary issue. By "core" what I think @Parmandur is referring to is the actual rules of play. What in the 5e PHB would be in chapters 7-10 with a smattering of what's in Chapter 5 (equipment).

Every actual new edition of the game - from 1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 3.5e -> 4e -> 5e has changed the fundamental core rules of play in major ways.

For myself, there are two things that will cause me to say that it's actually a new edition of the game rather than an "Essentials" like revision (which you'll note - I don't consider a new edition of the game, though I do consider 3e and 3.5 to be different games):

1. Changes to the "core rules of play" as outlined above.
2. Changes to the basic class structure of the classes that result in incompatability with already published class material that is recognized as 5e. These would be big changes like changing when they get their subclasses, when they get class features, the number of class features they receive, etc. (Note that there can still be major changes that don't violate this assumption - the Tasha's Ranger is still a 5e ranger, for example, and I don't think Tasha's makes the game a new edition in any meaningful sense of the word).

And incidentally that's why I consider 3e and 3.5e to be two different editions, while I don't consider 4e and Essentials to be different editions. 3e to 3.5e was a pain in the neck switchover where fundamental rules of the core game were changed (1) AND major changes were made to classes that made them incompatible with their 3e versions (2). Essentials just gave a bunch of stuff that was presented in a different way but was compatible with what 4e already had done. I'm suspecting and hoping that the Anniversary edition will be much more like the 4e->Essentials move than a 3e to 3.5e one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A house rule that requires no changes = complete compatibility.

it does require change... just things you don't think count

You could just use them as is, I hear thst people did.

who?

I've seen people saying that they were compatible as a criticism of 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials, and even 5E. It's out there, man.

and I have never heard such... and around the 2e/3e switch and 3e/3.5 I was very active in the community. the closest I heard was WotC ruined Gary's game while 2e evolved gary's game...

Thac0 and the matrices are compatible: that's the point. The d20 approach of 3E broke compatibility, but Thac0 did not.

again I am far from an expert, the few times I did oneshots back to 1e I can't recall how to hit... but I have been told that math changed for more then 1 class. Maybe we can get someone that played both who remembers... but for now I am NOT taking your word for it.

Then why complain...?

the only complaints I have made are that you are pretending things wont change at alll and I fear they will not change enough... however our disagreement is what counts as a rule.

The point us, if two mathematical constructs work together in same structural framework

so is Rifts compatible with D&D? the both have classes they both have to hit rolls where you roll d20 and add a modfire against a dc....

...which the new options do with the 2024 rules...then they are mathematically compatible, or completely compatible, fully compatible, fundamentally compatible.

the closest you can get me is they MAY be theoretically comparable and they WILL be in ad and office word be said to be... but like every edition change we will see a little over lap the first few months maybe the first year, and after that the majority of tables will just move on to 1 of 2 choices (keep to teh 2014 rules, or go with the 2024 rules) there will be out liers... maybe as much as 10% in year 2 that like you will hold out complatibleity... but every year there after that number will shrink more and more until t is bearly a foot note.

However you want to ohrase it, the compatibility is baked in with no work required.

wasn't true from 1e to 2e wasn't true from 3e to 3.5 (I will give you it was true from 4e to essentials) and my bet is it wont be anymore true in 2024... my hope would be as big a jump as 2 to 3 or from 3.5 to 4 but I doubt it... it will resemble more the 3 to 3.5

The chapter with the actual rules of the game?

every rule is a rule... I don't care what chapter they are in...

Characters are a bundle of mathimatical rules exceptions,

each rule exception is expressed as a rule.

They could utterly replace all of those options, but if 2024 options can plug and play, or 2024 options plug and play in a mostly 2014 campaign...

if you can sit down at any table and use the race/class/background from 2014 that's fine... but we already know you CAN NOT use the race. We suspect you will not be able to use the background, and we know that class and spells are both being worked on.

the very fact that elf will not be the 2014 elf shows the change... but maybe if it was ONLY elf I could see it but it will be every race.

We know that the rules we have work this way, and that they are releasing the intro product for the new rules this year..for use with both older and newer material in the future.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a vocabulary issue. By "core" what I think @Parmandur is referring to is the actual rules of play. What in the 5e PHB would be in chapters 7-10 with a smattering of what's in Chapter 5 (equipment).

Every actual new edition of the game - from 1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 3.5e -> 4e -> 5e has changed the fundamental core rules of play in major ways.

For myself, there are two things that will cause me to say that it's actually a new edition of the game rather than an "Essentials" like revision (which you'll note - I don't consider a new edition of the game, though I do consider 3e and 3.5 to be different games):

1. Changes to the "core rules of play" as outlined above.
2. Changes to the basic class structure of the classes that result in incompatability with already published class material that is recognized as 5e. These would be big changes like changing when they get their subclasses, when they get class features, the number of class features they receive, etc. (Note that there can still be major changes that don't violate this assumption - the Tasha's Ranger is still a 5e ranger, for example, and I don't think Tasha's makes the game a new edition in any meaningful sense of the word).

And incidentally that's why I consider 3e and 3.5e to be two different editions, while I don't consider 4e and Essentials to be different editions. 3e to 3.5e was a pain in the neck switchover where fundamental rules of the core game were changed (1) AND major changes were made to classes that made them incompatible with their 3e versions (2). Essentials just gave a bunch of stuff that was presented in a different way but was compatible with what 4e already had done. I'm suspecting and hoping that the Anniversary edition will be much more like the 4e->Essentials move than a 3e to 3.5e one.

You got it. I think WotC can get a bit bold with the Classes themselves as long as the actual structural rules remain on place. For the sake of argument, let's assume the change them entirely. Still doesn't mean the new rules aren't compatible, because 2014 PCs will still function in the core rule framework. We already have Tasha's Races with 2014 Classes fighting Encounters with NPCs from both the 2014 Monster Manual and Monsters of the Multiverse. Compatibility in the structural rules is complete compatibility.