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.

 

[Mercurius]

I remember of how I used to play D&D, back in my first decade or so - the 80s, basically, and a bit into the 90s. So much was hand-waved or ignored, and play worked just fine. I don't know if it was the style of play back then, or if it was just being young.

I also never played in the RPGA or any kind of public game - always with friends, and only tried out new groups when I was in my 20s.

The point being, I wonder if your typical D&D group these days won't--as @Parmandur speculated--even notice or care about anything beyond major changes, which we likely we won't see. Back before the 50th anniversary was announced - maybe two years ago - I made a poll here speculating that if they did a 2024 revision, where on the spectrum of "5.1" (cosmetic and errata only) to "5.5" (major rules revisions, including some structural) people thought it would be. Most said 5.1 or 5.2. I think I voted 5.2 or 5.3. Now I'm thinking they're going with 5.4 - as far as they can push it without causing a kerfuffle. I mean, doesn't Tasha's already bring it up to 5.2ish?

 

[JEB]

Now I'm thinking they're going with 5.4 - as far as they can push it without causing a kerfuffle. I mean, doesn't Tasha's already bring it up to 5.2ish?

I would agree on "as far as they can push it"... but I also think making feats core and altering backgrounds to include them - as looks likely from the Strixhaven and Dragonlance material - is just enough, when combined with other likely lesser changes, to count as "structural" change (and therefore a 5.5).

 

[SkidAce]

...

They made a good game, one that I can easily modify to suit my needs. Their recent choices have for the most not been worth it to me.

Yeah, I'm not against a revision, but its not "needed" either.

Current 5e hits that sweet spot like you say above.

 

[Jaeger]

A while back, WotC proclaimed that canon now consisted of just the 5e core books. ...

This is actually a rather sensible policy if it had remained a constant.

WotC has been very coy about how they are 'not' committing to an 'official setting' (Forgotten Realms) for 5e, so it fits that publishing paradigm perfectly.

It also serves as a useful bit of WotC policy to point to for those GM's who have the unfortunate experience of dealing with players that are overly fond of citing official WotC rules proclamation's like the horrid "sage advice" nonsense.

"No, sorry Tim; That class is from a supplement and not in the 'Core' books. You do not get to play your half teifling, half drow, blade dancing-warlock-necromancer, in my fantasy Albion England campaign..."

Generally speaking, it is not a bad notion.

But...

...I wasn't happy about that, but I got much less happy when I realized they were just going to change the core books so they could have their cake and eat it too.

WotC can't help themselves. They love, love, love, having their cake and eating it too.

In my opinion: 5e was a bit of scattershot game design trying to be "D&D" for various types of different groups play styles. "D&D" for everyone! They tossed the dice and managed to actually get away with it. Just...

I think that the last few years their desire for 5e to be "D&D for everyone!" has slowly started to dilute the focus of what the game of D&D is all about.

Some people like the direction WotC is taking, some don't.

However one feels on the subject is a bit irrelevant IMHO. The fact that more and more people are starting to question the direction and tone the WotC is slowly taking with D&D might be something that they should pay attention to now while times are good, rather than 5-10 years down the line...

2nd ed was a new edition, even though it used largely the same rules as before. 3.5 was a new edition, even though it used largely the same rules as before.

This is going to be at least as big a change as 3.5, at least as far as the public is concerned.

Pfft. Not a concern at all.

All the D&D devs have to do is invoke 'Rule Zero' on their own behalf.

"We are all still playing the same game. It's 'compatible', It's still D&D. What are you guys complaining about?"

... Too soon?

 

[Mercurius]

All of this makes me wonder...is there room for a 5E version of Pathfinder? Does the current license allow for something like that? I could see some smaller company doing quite well with something marketed as "Classic D&D 5E" - 5E rules, but more of a classic feel ala 2014, or even harkening back to 3E and TSR.

Again, I don't know to what degree this is possible from a legal standpoint - this isn't the OGL era that allowed Pathfinder to come into being.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All of this makes me wonder...is there room for a 5E version of Pathfinder? Does the current license allow for something like that? I could see some smaller company doing quite well with something marketed as "Classic D&D 5E" - 5E rules, but more of a classic feel ala 2014, or even harkening back to 3E and TSR.

Again, I don't know to what degree this is possible from a legal standpoint - this isn't the OGL era that allowed Pathfinder to come into being.

I have one that works great for me. It's called, "Level Up", and I can port anything from other 5e publishers into it.

 

[JEB]

All of this makes me wonder...is there room for a 5E version of Pathfinder? Does the current license allow for something like that? I could see some smaller company doing quite well with something marketed as "Classic D&D 5E" - 5E rules, but more of a classic feel ala 2014, or even harkening back to 3E and TSR.

Again, I don't know to what degree this is possible from a legal standpoint - this isn't the OGL era that allowed Pathfinder to come into being.

It's completely legal, and completely possible. 5E's core rules are available under the OGL, and there are already 5E-based games being sold as their own products that integrate large portions of the 5E SRD into their text (such as Amazing Adventures).

But will there be a market for such? Pathfinder emerged because 4E was such a big change from 3E in both rules and approach, which alienated enough 3E fans that they were receptive to an alternative. But 2024 edition will be a much subtler, largely compatible change.

Still, there will likely be a market for 2014 5E fans who aren't interested in the new direction. Maybe not big enough for a Pathfinder, but enough for products aimed at that crowd to sell even without an alternative game.

On that note, I'm very interested to see what happens to the DM Guild in 2024. Lot of stuff designed for 2014 5E on there...

 

[DarkCrisis]

Elaborate. I am pretty sure despite that there will be a new version of the Monk in the new book, it would not break the game or contradict any rules for me to use a elf monk from the old one in a game.

2nd Ed was “compatible” with 1st Ed. Not really.

Trust us that have been around the block a few times. They want you to buy the new books, and if they can make the old books less attractive they will.

See also 3rd ed and 3.5ed

 

[JEB]

I have one that works great for me. It's called, "Level Up", and I can port anything from other 5e publishers into it.

The only catch with Level Up is that it's not a Pathfinder, which was basically just a continuation of 3.5 with some rules tweaks - Level Up intentionally diverges from 5E towards something more complex. Which is absolutely fine, but also automatically more niche; I'd be surprised if it ever reaches Pathfinder levels of popularity. (But hey, I could be wrong, could be a huge untapped market.)

 

[MonsterEnvy]

again... when a rogue has Aim, and another rogue doesn't have AIm...

That has nothing to do with Compatibility. Old options can be inferior to new options, that does not mean they are not Compatible.