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]

At what point does it become a Ship of Theseus question?

thanks to WandaVision I thought of this logic problrm for the first time in years...and somehow I didn't put it to the thread... for shame on me.

 

[Jer]

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...

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

thank you... I mostly agree. Infact all of the "replace" or "add to" parts of the Tasha class mods I have taken as errata and let in whole sale. To the point that when the other thread the person told me AIM wasn't an option I didn't understand why...I had forgotten it WASN'T in the PHB

edit: and the funny part is my group is very split on flanking giving advantage, and I come down on the no side...because I think it's too easy, but for some reason I have 0 issue with AIM

 

[ersatzphil]

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

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.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

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)

That has nothing to do with Compatibility. That's just a DM choice.

 

[Jer]

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.

3e to 3.5e to me wasn't even technically compatible. There were so many gotcha changes and so much math in the game that they were fundamentally incompatible for the most part - mashing 3e prestige classes into 3.5e form, for example, took far too much work to be bothered with IME.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That has nothing to do with Compatibility. That's just a DM choice.

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.

 

[Jer]

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.

I disagree - if tables can exist where it doesn't matter which PHB you bring to the table then they're compatible.

Individual DMs can choose to use or not use things in any edition. I could find a table right now that won't let me use Tasha's - that doesn't mean that Tasha's makes it a new edition. To me if I can run a game where most of the players are using the 2024 PHB but a few are still using the 2014 PHB, possibly with a few errata pages, and it all works then they're compatible. If that won't work then they're not compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Part 2 of the PHB, where the actual system rules are located. That and Monster math, which we know is remaining the same. So, same structure with the same math, pretty cut and dried.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

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.

No it just means they are not allowing it. It's a fact that it's compatible, you just don't seem to understand.

Compatibility means that the books from before the new Core can be used with the new core, and it won't conflict with stuff in the new core. That is all it means. Older options may be underpowered or overpowered compared to the new options, or new options may be able to do stuff the old stuff could not or vice versa, but that has nothing to do with compatibility, all it means is the old stuff can still be used with the new rules.

A DM not allowing old stuff or new stuff to be used has nothing to do with something being compatible.