I know it is because of the New Monsters of the Multiverse book that was released but why did they have to become unavailable for purchase? Why not just slap on a LEGACY badge but still let people buy it. I want to play a tiefling but don't wish to play the version that is available in the players handbook. I could use the homebrew feature but at least for me that is quite clunky and it sort of feels like cheating(? like I am not paying for the thing I am getting). Thank you for any responses.
I know it is because of the New Monsters of the Multiverse book that was released but why did they have to become unavailable for purchase? Why not just slap on a LEGACY badge but still let people buy it. I want to play a tiefling but don't wish to play the version that is available in the players handbook. I could use the homebrew feature but at least for me that is quite clunky and it sort of feels like cheating(? like I am not paying for the thing I am getting). Thank you for any responses.
To put it bluntly, WotC wish to change canon and assert influence on what you use at your table. By delisting MToF (and VGtM), they make it more difficult to use them, and so you are more likely to use the newly WoTC-approved monsters.
You are officially allowed and encouraged to use the homebrew those races, monsters etc, so it's not by any means cheating. It's a pain, but it's not dishonest or unfair to do so. Staff have already explicitly said they're happy for you to use that feature for MToF and VGtM (it's allowed for any official content too, but they specifically suggested this workaround for this specific issue). Given that DDB/WoTC have declined to do it for you for pay, then doing it yourself is not in the least immoral. Of course, where you can get the stats in order to do the homebrew is a different issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Exactly! Plus if they were still for sale, people would complain that they were scamming customers because they were selling "outdated" content.
We don't know. All the answers you'll get are speculation.
My speculation is that the people whose job is to know these things, told them that delisting the books would be best for either sales or overall image. Whichever of the two would be more profitable.
But there are times when my cynical side takes control and speculates that they're working on a Forgotten Realms setting guide so they can sell the same content again.
We don't know. All the answers you'll get are speculation.
My speculation is that the people whose job is to know these things, told them that delisting the books would be best for either sales or overall image. Whichever of the two would be more profitable.
But there are times when my cynical side takes control and speculates that they're working on a Forgotten Realms setting guide so they can sell the same content again.
I mean, we do know. Crawford has talked about it interviews. When 5th edition launched, the setting was Forgotten Realms and a lot of the material published was for Forgotten Realms. We're going toward a setting agnostic point of view.
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Yeah, it's a good thing that MMM has all the lore that was included with Volo's and Tome of Foes. Oh wait, it doesn't... It's a good thing that MMM has the subraces that were in those books too. Oh wait, it doesn't... At least people aren't demanding for those books anymore. Oh wait, people are still asking for those books...
I find it kinda funny how you insist that redundant content is bad business when literally MMM's whole MO is redundant content; by that logic, shouldn't MMM in its entirety be considered bad business? Aside from a [i]single[/i] new monster, there is absolutely [i]nothing[/i] new in MMM. The player races and monsters are all "updated" reprints of content from previous books; the overall quality of these updates is questionable at best, the monsters are hardly touched upon at all and the updates made to the player races has been and continues to be the subject of hot debate.
You know what would actually be the simple and best business practice to do? Continue to sell those two books and slap a big old "LEGACY" tag on them for those that would rather have those over MMM, or simply [b]want[/b] those books in addition to MMM. Wizards and DDB is literally throwing money away for no reason other than removing consumer choice; even if you want to argue that it'd be too expensive to continue printing those books, there's no reason why the [i]digital[/i] versions of those books can't continue to be sold for those that want them.
Yeah, it's a good thing that MMM has all the lore that was included with Volo's and Tome of Foes. Oh wait, it doesn't... It's a good thing that MMM has the subraces that were in those books too. Oh wait, it doesn't... At least people aren't demanding for those books anymore. Oh wait, people are still asking for those books...
I find it kinda funny how you insist that redundant content is bad business when literally MMM's whole MO is redundant content; by that logic, shouldn't MMM in its entirety be considered bad business? Aside from a [i]single[/i] new monster, there is absolutely [i]nothing[/i] new in MMM. The player races and monsters are all "updated" reprints of content from previous books; the overall quality of these updates is questionable at best, the monsters are hardly touched upon at all and the updates made to the player races has been and continues to be the subject of hot debate.
You know what would actually be the simple and best business practice to do? Continue to sell those two books and slap a big old "LEGACY" tag on them for those that would rather have those over MMM, or simply [b]want[/b] those books in addition to MMM. Wizards and DDB is literally throwing money away for no reason other than removing consumer choice; even if you want to argue that it'd be too expensive to continue printing those books, there's no reason why the [i]digital[/i] versions of those books can't continue to be sold for those that want them.
Anyone who wants the lore from Volo's Guide to DM Headaches and Mordenkainen's Tome of Forgotten Realms-Exclusive Buggery Nobody Else Cares About already owns those two books.
Spideycloned raises a valid point. When 5e was first launched, the intent was for everybody to play in the Forgotten Realms. Then Critical Role came along, more-or-less invented live/actual play Internet shows, and 5e gained an explosive boost in popularity and sales on the heels of a slew of Internet DMs manufacturing their own settings. The Eberron products did very well, the Critical Role/Exandria books sold very well despite grognards complaining about Wizards diluting 5e with "one dude's homebrew". Wizards' plans for 5e have changed, because they had no idea when they launched this edition that it was going to develop the way it did and attract a giant new userbase that loves D&D but doesn't really care a whit about forty years of convoluted, contradictory, impenetrable Forgotten Realms lore nobody understands except die-hard decades-old fans.
Those fans, nigh-guaranteed, already have VGtDMH and MToFREBNECA. And if they don't, they can easily acquire both products on the secondary market. Many - not all, but many - new fans benefit from collecting all of the critters and playable species introduced piecemeal across a dozen books they may or may not have acquired/cared about in a single Omnibus Edition book. And this is of course leavbing out the entire bit with "Tashafication" of older content and bringing esoteric bits of the game up to the new standard set forth in newer books.
If 5e was a video game, this would all be expansion content rebalancing and nobody* would bat an eye. As it stands, Wizards is trying to thread the needle on fixing the game to conform to the needs and desires of its unexpectedly vast modern customer base whilst minimally pissing off vets, Old Guard, grognards, and every other flavor of Crusty Old Guy. They cannot please both New Customers and COGs, because one of the objectives of most COGs is to actively and intentionally block as many new people from entering the game as possible and this has obvious negative implications for Wizards' bottom line.
Ergo, the people who aren't actively trying to block new sales tend to get the favorable end of the carrot when it comes to new business decisions.
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Yeah, it's a good thing that MMM has all the lore that was included with Volo's and Tome of Foes. Oh wait, it doesn't... It's a good thing that MMM has the subraces that were in those books too. Oh wait, it doesn't... At least people aren't demanding for those books anymore. Oh wait, people are still asking for those books...
I find it kinda funny how you insist that redundant content is bad business when literally MMM's whole MO is redundant content; by that logic, shouldn't MMM in its entirety be considered bad business? Aside from a [i]single[/i] new monster, there is absolutely [i]nothing[/i] new in MMM. The player races and monsters are all "updated" reprints of content from previous books; the overall quality of these updates is questionable at best, the monsters are hardly touched upon at all and the updates made to the player races has been and continues to be the subject of hot debate.
You know what would actually be the simple and best business practice to do? Continue to sell those two books and slap a big old "LEGACY" tag on them for those that would rather have those over MMM, or simply [b]want[/b] those books in addition to MMM. Wizards and DDB is literally throwing money away for no reason other than removing consumer choice; even if you want to argue that it'd be too expensive to continue printing those books, there's no reason why the [i]digital[/i] versions of those books can't continue to be sold for those that want them.
If you took the time to read my post, you would note that I discussed mechanical redundancy, not lore redundancy - the earlier products are mechanically redundant, insofar as they offer races and monsters that exist in MMM. A new player who purchased MMM but didn’t realise it was a reissue would be fairly put off if they bought the new product, only to get effectively the same mechanical content.
As for whether MMM is mechanically redundant and it’s very existence being bad business - only insofar as a 2022 model of a car is mechanically redundant with a 2016 model. The new model might be a rehash of the earlier, but it represents the current direction the company wishes to take. MMM is a change in-line with the direction Wizards wants to go, attempting greater balance and ease of gameplay; and thus it makes sense they would want their new vehicle to be the only one on the car lot.
As for selling both; that’s inherently confusing to players. Marketing and product availability takes into account customer confusion - and many customers might be quite displeased to purchase content that’s much the same as what they already have (see all the people angry about MMM in the first place). Rather than just have the anger shock when the book is released and the other books delisted, Wizards would be dealing with perpetual fallout from “but it wasn’t really clear that ‘legacy’ meant ‘something I already basically own’” for years to come.
Yeah, it's a good thing that MMM has all the lore that was included with Volo's and Tome of Foes. Oh wait, it doesn't...
If Wizards decided that having the lore out there was desirable, they could publish a lore-only book or article. Or several, split up in a way that's more functional. Having redundant monster books out there is not useful.
The books are not redundant as they have different versions of the monsters that are in some cases IE. The Flail Snail very different and more interesting and thus its kind of a shame that the old books are gone and you have to homebrew stuff in if you wanted to set it up for D&D beyond. So not really a good arguing point for you here. The books are not redundant as the information within is not a 1:1 copy. There is information access lost with Volo's and alot of wizards new stuff isn't half as interesting to me as a DM so I can't use D&D Beyond as intended. All the money I already spent is pointless for using D&D Beyond as prep for campaigns since I can't even use the monsters I have intended.
This whole thread is a good example as to why "stealthing" in an edition change is a bad idea.
Tasha's is the point in which the game changed enough for some people to see the difference and now more are starting to see it with the drop of MMM. Volo's and Mordy's did not fit with the next phase of the game and is no longer supported. Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
It really is just that simple. I am not looking forward to 18 more months of this.
This whole thread is a good example as to why "stealthing" in an edition change is a bad idea.
Tasha's is the point in which the game changed enough for some people to see the difference and now more are starting to see it with the drop of MMM. Volo's and Mordy's did not fit with the next phase of the game and is no longer supported. Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
It really is just that simple. I am not looking forward to 18 more months of this.
There are only three options and a slow, rolling release of new content is the best of the options.
The first option is to never change editions - that mat very well be what Wizards is aiming for, something with a low barrier to initial entry but a depth of content. It’s not quite there yet - as evidenced by the changes Wizards is making to streamline DMing. Wizards is certainly aware that the perceived difficulty of DMing tends to be the biggest barrier to entry, since the potential DM to player ratio is incredibly skewed toward players.
The second option is to do a 3.5 to 4e change - “here is a new edition; enjoy having a dearth of content while you wait for us to expand slowly beyond the PHB/DMG/MM.” That is not a great system either - it means you have a bunch of angry old players upset that none of their content is useful and a bunch of new and old players who are upset over a lack of content in the most current edition.
Slow rollouts mean content that is unlikely to be reprinted or reprinted anytime soon (Magic content, Eberron, Stranger Things, etc.) all remain relevant for a long period of time. Wizards can move closer to the ideal version of D&D, while, at the same time, ensuring that older content remains relevant until it too can be replaced. You have all the depth of an older edition with all the advancement of a new “edition” conveniently together in a system that is backwards comparable.
So, given the reality that the game will continue to evolve and thus the first option is off the table, it’s silly to think “I don’t want a slow rollout” - the only alternative would be worse.
This whole thread is a good example as to why "stealthing" in an edition change is a bad idea.
Tasha's is the point in which the game changed enough for some people to see the difference and now more are starting to see it with the drop of MMM. Volo's and Mordy's did not fit with the next phase of the game and is no longer supported. Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
It really is just that simple. I am not looking forward to 18 more months of this.
There are only three options and a slow, rolling release of new content is the best of the options.
The first option is to never change editions - that mat very well be what Wizards is aiming for, something with a low barrier to initial entry but a depth of content. It’s not quite there yet - as evidenced by the changes Wizards is making to streamline DMing. Wizards is certainly aware that the perceived difficulty of DMing tends to be the biggest barrier to entry, since the potential DM to player ratio is incredibly skewed toward players.
The second option is to do a 3.5 to 4e change - “here is a new edition; enjoy having a dearth of content while you wait for us to expand slowly beyond the PHB/DMG/MM.” That is not a great system either - it means you have a bunch of angry old players upset that none of their content is useful and a bunch of new and old players who are upset over a lack of content in the most current edition.
Slow rollouts mean content that is unlikely to be reprinted or reprinted anytime soon (Magic content, Eberron, Stranger Things, etc.) all remain relevant for a long period of time. Wizards can move closer to the ideal version of D&D, while, at the same time, ensuring that older content remains relevant until it too can be replaced. You have all the depth of an older edition with all the advancement of a new “edition” conveniently together in a system that is backwards comparable.
So, given the reality that the game will continue to evolve and thus the first option is off the table, it’s silly to think “I don’t want a slow rollout” - the only alternative would be worse.
Option 1 is not an option so shouldn't have been listed in the first place.
Option 2 is how it has been done for every previous edition
Option 3 is what they are doing now, but it is the first time it has been done this way. So far it has created a lot of confusion and frustration for a significant portion of the player base (I am not saying all or even most) and that is the issue at hand. There is already a divide in the player base with some playing 5e and some playing 5ePT (Post Tasha's) so it is time to accept that keeping the name 5e is not going to fool everyone into thinking that it is the same edition.
And just so we are clear, I am playing 5ePT and looking forward to 2024.
Quote from Golaryn>>Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
Agreed, I wish WotC did not get rid of old books just because new ones came out. It's unfair to D&D fans and players who spent there money on Volo's and Mordenkainens (see my reasons here). I'm quite dissapointed that Wizards did this.
I could use the homebrew feature but at least for me that is quite clunky and it sort of feels like cheating(? like I am not paying for the thing I am getting). Thank you for any responses.
It's pretty much accepted that people do that as long as you do not try to publish them as your homebrew. V2blast (a moderator) said as much on this thread.
Quote from Golaryn>>Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
Agreed, I wish WotC did not get rid of old books just because new ones came out. It's unfair to D&D fans and players who spent there money on Volo's and Mordenkainens (see my reasons here). I'm quite dissapointed that Wizards did this.
I could use the homebrew feature but at least for me that is quite clunky and it sort of feels like cheating(? like I am not paying for the thing I am getting). Thank you for any responses.
It's pretty much accepted that people do that as long as you do not try to publish them as your homebrew. V2blast (a moderator) said as much on this thread.
Would it be less unfair if a new player bought MToF and VGtM and MMM and then realized they could have only bought MMM to have all those monsters? I don’t think so. And you know it would happen no matter how they labeled them (Legacy or anything else) just like people post complaints about purchasing hero tier and then realizing it doesn’t give them all the books for free. Even though hero tier subscription doesn’t say it gives them that.
yes, the older books will still be compatible with the “Next Evolution” in 2024 but would you have WotC release absolutely no content until then so they can make a clean switch? Or keep selling and releasing old content so the book you spend $50 on in December of 2023 becomes a $50 door stop as soon as 2024 hits?
Quote from Golaryn>>Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
Agreed, I wish WotC did not get rid of old books just because new ones came out. It's unfair to D&D fans and players who spent there money on Volo's and Mordenkainens (see my reasons here). I'm quite dissapointed that Wizards did this.
I could use the homebrew feature but at least for me that is quite clunky and it sort of feels like cheating(? like I am not paying for the thing I am getting). Thank you for any responses.
It's pretty much accepted that people do that as long as you do not try to publish them as your homebrew. V2blast (a moderator) said as much on this thread.
Would it be less unfair if a new player bought MToF and VGtM and MMM and then realized they could have only bought MMM to have all those monsters? I don’t think so. And you know it would happen no matter how they labeled them (Legacy or anything else) just like people post complaints about purchasing hero tier and then realizing it doesn’t give them all the books for free. Even though hero tier subscription doesn’t say it gives them that.
yes, the older books will still be compatible with the “Next Evolution” in 2024 but would you have WotC release absolutely no content until then so they can make a clean switch? Or keep selling and releasing old content so the book you spend $50 on in December of 2023 becomes a $50 door stop as soon as 2024 hits?
There is still lots of lore in Volo's and Modenkainen's that never made it into M3. If people put a "reused content" label on M3, or more likely explain in Vgtm and Mtof item description about it, then it would stop most new players from buying both.
This is not less unfair or more unfair then the other problem we mentioned. This problem could also have easily have been avoided if M3 was never printed, but that's just another problem it's print has caused.
Just because Wizards put themselves in this position doesn't mean they have to delist the books on DDB, they could have just as easily kept them up.
Quote from Golaryn>>Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
Agreed, I wish WotC did not get rid of old books just because new ones came out. It's unfair to D&D fans and players who spent there money on Volo's and Mordenkainens (see my reasons here). I'm quite dissapointed that Wizards did this.
I could use the homebrew feature but at least for me that is quite clunky and it sort of feels like cheating(? like I am not paying for the thing I am getting). Thank you for any responses.
It's pretty much accepted that people do that as long as you do not try to publish them as your homebrew. V2blast (a moderator) said as much on this thread.
I have no issues with outdated content being delisted. I am just explaining WHY it was delisted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know it is because of the New Monsters of the Multiverse book that was released but why did they have to become unavailable for purchase? Why not just slap on a LEGACY badge but still let people buy it. I want to play a tiefling but don't wish to play the version that is available in the players handbook. I could use the homebrew feature but at least for me that is quite clunky and it sort of feels like cheating(? like I am not paying for the thing I am getting). Thank you for any responses.
To put it bluntly, WotC wish to change canon and assert influence on what you use at your table. By delisting MToF (and VGtM), they make it more difficult to use them, and so you are more likely to use the newly WoTC-approved monsters.
You are officially allowed and encouraged to use the homebrew those races, monsters etc, so it's not by any means cheating. It's a pain, but it's not dishonest or unfair to do so. Staff have already explicitly said they're happy for you to use that feature for MToF and VGtM (it's allowed for any official content too, but they specifically suggested this workaround for this specific issue). Given that DDB/WoTC have declined to do it for you for pay, then doing it yourself is not in the least immoral. Of course, where you can get the stats in order to do the homebrew is a different issue.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You are going to get a lot of “malice on Wizards’ part” answers on these forums - there’s a lot of folks really angry over the changes and therefore have decided to assume the worst of Wizards.
The simple reality: They are redundant products, with MMM already giving you access to the “current” version of the all the mechanical content of the prior books. Having redundant content is bad business - it is confusing for new players who might not understand that a “legacy” tab means “you might have already bought this content” (and thus upset players who do not know they bought the content twice) and, especially now with printing costs being so high, it would be expensive to keep superseded books in circulation, with diminishing returns as folks will be more inclined to purchase the most recent version.
There isn’t any malice in the decision - it’s just the simple and best business practice to discontinue the older volumes.
Exactly! Plus if they were still for sale, people would complain that they were scamming customers because they were selling "outdated" content.
We don't know. All the answers you'll get are speculation.
My speculation is that the people whose job is to know these things, told them that delisting the books would be best for either sales or overall image. Whichever of the two would be more profitable.
But there are times when my cynical side takes control and speculates that they're working on a Forgotten Realms setting guide so they can sell the same content again.
I mean, we do know. Crawford has talked about it interviews. When 5th edition launched, the setting was Forgotten Realms and a lot of the material published was for Forgotten Realms. We're going toward a setting agnostic point of view.
Yeah, it's a good thing that MMM has all the lore that was included with Volo's and Tome of Foes. Oh wait, it doesn't...
It's a good thing that MMM has the subraces that were in those books too. Oh wait, it doesn't...
At least people aren't demanding for those books anymore. Oh wait, people are still asking for those books...
I find it kinda funny how you insist that redundant content is bad business when literally MMM's whole MO is redundant content; by that logic, shouldn't MMM in its entirety be considered bad business? Aside from a [i]single[/i] new monster, there is absolutely [i]nothing[/i] new in MMM. The player races and monsters are all "updated" reprints of content from previous books; the overall quality of these updates is questionable at best, the monsters are hardly touched upon at all and the updates made to the player races has been and continues to be the subject of hot debate.
You know what would actually be the simple and best business practice to do? Continue to sell those two books and slap a big old "LEGACY" tag on them for those that would rather have those over MMM, or simply [b]want[/b] those books in addition to MMM. Wizards and DDB is literally throwing money away for no reason other than removing consumer choice; even if you want to argue that it'd be too expensive to continue printing those books, there's no reason why the [i]digital[/i] versions of those books can't continue to be sold for those that want them.
Anyone who wants the lore from Volo's Guide to DM Headaches and Mordenkainen's Tome of Forgotten Realms-Exclusive Buggery Nobody Else Cares About already owns those two books.
Spideycloned raises a valid point. When 5e was first launched, the intent was for everybody to play in the Forgotten Realms. Then Critical Role came along, more-or-less invented live/actual play Internet shows, and 5e gained an explosive boost in popularity and sales on the heels of a slew of Internet DMs manufacturing their own settings. The Eberron products did very well, the Critical Role/Exandria books sold very well despite grognards complaining about Wizards diluting 5e with "one dude's homebrew". Wizards' plans for 5e have changed, because they had no idea when they launched this edition that it was going to develop the way it did and attract a giant new userbase that loves D&D but doesn't really care a whit about forty years of convoluted, contradictory, impenetrable Forgotten Realms lore nobody understands except die-hard decades-old fans.
Those fans, nigh-guaranteed, already have VGtDMH and MToFREBNECA. And if they don't, they can easily acquire both products on the secondary market. Many - not all, but many - new fans benefit from collecting all of the critters and playable species introduced piecemeal across a dozen books they may or may not have acquired/cared about in a single Omnibus Edition book. And this is of course leavbing out the entire bit with "Tashafication" of older content and bringing esoteric bits of the game up to the new standard set forth in newer books.
If 5e was a video game, this would all be expansion content rebalancing and nobody* would bat an eye. As it stands, Wizards is trying to thread the needle on fixing the game to conform to the needs and desires of its unexpectedly vast modern customer base whilst minimally pissing off vets, Old Guard, grognards, and every other flavor of Crusty Old Guy. They cannot please both New Customers and COGs, because one of the objectives of most COGs is to actively and intentionally block as many new people from entering the game as possible and this has obvious negative implications for Wizards' bottom line.
Ergo, the people who aren't actively trying to block new sales tend to get the favorable end of the carrot when it comes to new business decisions.
Please do not contact or message me.
If you took the time to read my post, you would note that I discussed mechanical redundancy, not lore redundancy - the earlier products are mechanically redundant, insofar as they offer races and monsters that exist in MMM. A new player who purchased MMM but didn’t realise it was a reissue would be fairly put off if they bought the new product, only to get effectively the same mechanical content.
As for whether MMM is mechanically redundant and it’s very existence being bad business - only insofar as a 2022 model of a car is mechanically redundant with a 2016 model. The new model might be a rehash of the earlier, but it represents the current direction the company wishes to take. MMM is a change in-line with the direction Wizards wants to go, attempting greater balance and ease of gameplay; and thus it makes sense they would want their new vehicle to be the only one on the car lot.
As for selling both; that’s inherently confusing to players. Marketing and product availability takes into account customer confusion - and many customers might be quite displeased to purchase content that’s much the same as what they already have (see all the people angry about MMM in the first place). Rather than just have the anger shock when the book is released and the other books delisted, Wizards would be dealing with perpetual fallout from “but it wasn’t really clear that ‘legacy’ meant ‘something I already basically own’” for years to come.
If Wizards decided that having the lore out there was desirable, they could publish a lore-only book or article. Or several, split up in a way that's more functional. Having redundant monster books out there is not useful.
The books are not redundant as they have different versions of the monsters that are in some cases IE. The Flail Snail very different and more interesting and thus its kind of a shame that the old books are gone and you have to homebrew stuff in if you wanted to set it up for D&D beyond. So not really a good arguing point for you here. The books are not redundant as the information within is not a 1:1 copy. There is information access lost with Volo's and alot of wizards new stuff isn't half as interesting to me as a DM so I can't use D&D Beyond as intended. All the money I already spent is pointless for using D&D Beyond as prep for campaigns since I can't even use the monsters I have intended.
That is very specifically what is redundant. Wizards doesn't want multiple different versions of the monsters kicking around.
This whole thread is a good example as to why "stealthing" in an edition change is a bad idea.
Tasha's is the point in which the game changed enough for some people to see the difference and now more are starting to see it with the drop of MMM. Volo's and Mordy's did not fit with the next phase of the game and is no longer supported. Just like when we went from 1e to 2e and then to 3e and again with 3.5 and so on and so on, the old books are phased out in favor of the new.
It really is just that simple. I am not looking forward to 18 more months of this.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There are only three options and a slow, rolling release of new content is the best of the options.
The first option is to never change editions - that mat very well be what Wizards is aiming for, something with a low barrier to initial entry but a depth of content. It’s not quite there yet - as evidenced by the changes Wizards is making to streamline DMing. Wizards is certainly aware that the perceived difficulty of DMing tends to be the biggest barrier to entry, since the potential DM to player ratio is incredibly skewed toward players.
The second option is to do a 3.5 to 4e change - “here is a new edition; enjoy having a dearth of content while you wait for us to expand slowly beyond the PHB/DMG/MM.” That is not a great system either - it means you have a bunch of angry old players upset that none of their content is useful and a bunch of new and old players who are upset over a lack of content in the most current edition.
Slow rollouts mean content that is unlikely to be reprinted or reprinted anytime soon (Magic content, Eberron, Stranger Things, etc.) all remain relevant for a long period of time. Wizards can move closer to the ideal version of D&D, while, at the same time, ensuring that older content remains relevant until it too can be replaced. You have all the depth of an older edition with all the advancement of a new “edition” conveniently together in a system that is backwards comparable.
So, given the reality that the game will continue to evolve and thus the first option is off the table, it’s silly to think “I don’t want a slow rollout” - the only alternative would be worse.
Option 1 is not an option so shouldn't have been listed in the first place.
Option 2 is how it has been done for every previous edition
Option 3 is what they are doing now, but it is the first time it has been done this way. So far it has created a lot of confusion and frustration for a significant portion of the player base (I am not saying all or even most) and that is the issue at hand. There is already a divide in the player base with some playing 5e and some playing 5ePT (Post Tasha's) so it is time to accept that keeping the name 5e is not going to fool everyone into thinking that it is the same edition.
And just so we are clear, I am playing 5ePT and looking forward to 2024.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's pretty much a normal .5 release; 3.5 and 4.5 also came out kinda gradually because of perceived weaknesses in 3.0 and 4.0.
Agreed, I wish WotC did not get rid of old books just because new ones came out. It's unfair to D&D fans and players who spent there money on Volo's and Mordenkainens (see my reasons here). I'm quite dissapointed that Wizards did this.
It's pretty much accepted that people do that as long as you do not try to publish them as your homebrew. V2blast (a moderator) said as much on this thread.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Would it be less unfair if a new player bought MToF and VGtM and MMM and then realized they could have only bought MMM to have all those monsters? I don’t think so. And you know it would happen no matter how they labeled them (Legacy or anything else) just like people post complaints about purchasing hero tier and then realizing it doesn’t give them all the books for free. Even though hero tier subscription doesn’t say it gives them that.
yes, the older books will still be compatible with the “Next Evolution” in 2024 but would you have WotC release absolutely no content until then so they can make a clean switch? Or keep selling and releasing old content so the book you spend $50 on in December of 2023 becomes a $50 door stop as soon as 2024 hits?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
There is still lots of lore in Volo's and Modenkainen's that never made it into M3. If people put a "reused content" label on M3, or more likely explain in Vgtm and Mtof item description about it, then it would stop most new players from buying both.
This is not less unfair or more unfair then the other problem we mentioned. This problem could also have easily have been avoided if M3 was never printed, but that's just another problem it's print has caused.
Just because Wizards put themselves in this position doesn't mean they have to delist the books on DDB, they could have just as easily kept them up.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I have no issues with outdated content being delisted. I am just explaining WHY it was delisted.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master