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]

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

if come 2024 30% (or more) of tables will let you bring in a race that has been changed and a class that has been changed and a background that has been changed without making you change them, I will have been proven wrong... but since this thread is about them already removing content from future sales, I would be VERY suprised.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I think this is pretty simple: Wizards just don't want to be seen selling any digital book that's effectively obsolete. Maybe the books will turn up on dmsguild in 10-15 years. Until then, either buy right now or try to find a paper copy.

 

[Parmandur]

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

I mean that the designers have stated on multiple occasions that a Rogue should have Advantage every time that they attack. So, form the math of how the Rogue is meant to work it is essentially not a change. If something is supposed to do X, amd some people use it to do Y, changing the design to ensure that X happens is an accidental change, but not effectively a change in output.

I forgot you know better then everyone.

It is a blessing, and a curse, but I struggle daily to bring my wisdom to the masses. You are welcome.

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)

It isn't about a given table, or a bunch of random given tables either. It is about the math of how the game works.

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.

You can walk up to mine, no problem.

 

[Parmandur]

if come 2024 30% (or more) of tables will let you bring in a race that has been changed and a class that has been changed and a background that has been changed without making you change them, I will have been proven wrong... but since this thread is about them already removing content from future sales, I would be VERY suprised.

My experience will be at 100%, so...

The real question isn't the perception of any random DM, it's the math underlying the game and WotC position ING. If the math works, and WotC says loudly "this works, check the math," then they will have achieved complete compatibility.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

We already have the start of the rules, and they are compatible. WotC has a profit motive to keep them compatible, and has stated that this is their intention. There is no particular reason to believe that the new rules will not be completely compatible.

You have made assertions about how "most tables" do thing or did things, but counter-examples are readily found, so I am doubtful of these claims based on my own experience and what WotC have said about how people play D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My experience will be at 100%, so...

The real question isn't the perception of any random DM, it's the math underlying the game and WotC position ING. If the math works, and WotC says loudly "this works, check the math," then they will have achieved complete compatibility.

even if no table but yours allows it? eeven if theses boards have a dozen or more posters saying they can' get anyone to let them?

 

[ersatzphil]

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

If I understand you correctly, that’s exactly the impasse - there are elements of 5e that I regard as substance that you regard as accidence. Not really a ‘right or wrong’ thing, just a difference of opinion.

…that being said, I still don’t see the Berlusconi connection, unless we’re staying with thief as our example class

 

[Parmandur]

even if no table but yours allows it? eeven if theses boards have a dozen or more posters saying they can' get anyone to let them?

Even if no table on Earth allowed it, if the math works than it is still completely compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

If I understand you correctly, that’s exactly the impasse - there are elements of 5e that I regard as substance that you regard as accidence. Not really a ‘right or wrong’ thing, just a difference of opinion.

…that being said, I still don’t see the Berlusconi connection, unless we’re staying with thief as our example class

Autocorrect didn't like versus for some reason?

It's pretty straightforward: Part 3 of the PHB is the core, essential system of the game. Ither stuff is interchangeable modules that plug into and out if the base.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We already have the start of the rules, and they are compatible.

start... and already seeing problmes...

WotC has a profit motive to keep them compatible, and has stated that this is their intention.

they have a vested intrest in having you believe it is compatible... remember "The game remains the same" in a bad french accent for 4e?

There is no particular reason to believe that the new rules will not be completely compatible.

other then we have seen minor changes and the evidence is pointint to more and more...

You have made assertions about how "most tables" do thing or did things,

yup... and you have ignored them. You say you don't play at stores and cons, you don't have experience with many change overs (you started with 35) but you think you know better.

but counter-examples are readily found,

not that readily and WotC has a habbit of calling major changes minor (with good reason it is good ad copy)

so I am doubtful of these claims based on my own experience and what WotC have said about how people play D&D.

I doubt you will see much cross over. I am sure it will not be 0...but I doubt it will be much, and a good portion of that cross over will be the first campaigns people run... over time you will see less and less, and I even bet WotC know that.