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]

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

again far from an expert (I didn;t start till 94/95 in 2)e but maybe you can answer then...did all the classes have the exact same advancement to hit form 1e to 2e I could have swore someone changed.

 

[Cadence]

It was pretty close in the 1e DMG. Off by an oit..

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

thank you, that is what I thought

 

[Cadence]

thank you, that is what I thought

For the record...

1e had six 20's.

2e didn't

 

[Parmandur]

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

If you can show up and runt eh character as written, that's no changes required for that character. You could do that with 1 E to 2E, but not 2E to 3E.

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.

Please, by all means, run the math yourself.

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.

I am not saying nothing will change, just thst the Core Rules will not and thus compatibility will be maintained. As WotC has said they are doing, and demonstrated with the changes already introduced.

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.

Do you have numbers for that being how it worked historically?

every rule is a rule... I don't care what chapter they are in...
each rule exception is expressed as a rule.

No, not all rules are equal in Modern D&D. Some are structural, some are exceptions. They have only talked about the exceptions rules in the buodlup to 2024.

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.

But we already know the Race rules are compatible on the mathematical level, they are right there in Tashas, MotM and all the new Setting books.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

I am not sure you are right but it feels like you are about this.

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):

I will 100% agree. I don't feel that essentials was different, I ran a slayer next to a normal PHB 1 fighter with no issues and no one even suggested we were doing anything but bringing the new book in.
the 3 to 3.5 we tried to keep it the same but it didn't work (2 to 3 and 3.5 to 4 and 4 to five we didin't even try)

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).

now not to pick (yet another fight) but just as an FYI for me... do you think giving the rogue AIM as a bonus+move to be a fundamental change to the class? I ask because in another thread I was told that AIM ruined rogues...

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.

i on the other hand wish it would be more like 3.5 to 4 but suspect it will be more like 3 to 3.5

 

[Li Shenron]

Glad to have never invested in a digital RPG content distribution platform.

 

[ersatzphil]

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.

At what point does it become a Ship of Theseus question? To @Jer 's point, we are kind of dancing on semantics, but I'm curious how far one could push changes to the game and describe it as technically compatible. I ask as a survivor of the 3e => 3.5e conflicts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you can show up and runt eh character as written, that's no changes required for that character. You could do that with 1 E to 2E, but not 2E to 3E.

Please, by all means, run the math yourself.

I am not saying nothing will change, just thst the Core Rules will not and thus compatibility will be maintained. As WotC has said they are doing, and demonstrated with the changes already introduced.

Do you have numbers for that being how it worked historically?

No, not all rules are equal in Modern D&D. Some are structural, some are exceptions. They have only talked about the exceptions rules in the buodlup to 2024.

But we already know the Race rules are compatible on the mathematical level, they are right there in Tashas, MotM and all the new Setting books.

Your definition of compatability appears to be all or nothing. As in, as long as the structural rules are the same, full compatibility. I think there are degrees, and WotC has said nothing about structural vs. exception-based rules regarding this issue. They have definitely changed how many of these exception-based rule elements are presented and designed, replacing old assumptions from 2014 with new ones. That presents a degree of incompatibility in design and "feel", especially when comparing the 2014 version of something to the 2024 version of that same thing.

The rules might still work, but it could very well FEEL incompatible to many folks. That feel matters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you can show up and runt eh character as written, that's no changes required for that character. You could do that with 1 E to 2E, but not 2E to 3E.

snip

But we already know the Race rules are compatible on the mathematical level, they are right there in Tashas, MotM and all the new Setting books.

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.

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.

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.