D&D (2024) WotC Announces April 22 Release For 2024 System Reference Documents

The System Reference Document 5.2--the tool which helps developers create third-party content using the Dungeons & Dragons core rules engine--will be released under the Creative Commons license on April 22nd.

Additionally, Wizards of the Coast will publish a Conversion Guide for updating game content from the 2014 edition to the 2024 edition. This guide will arrive at a later date.

The Free Rules document on D&D Beyond will also be updated with new D&D Beyond Basic Rules (2024).

The older 5.1 SRD, which is based on the 2014 edition of D&D, will also remain available under both Creative Commons and the Open Game License (OGL).

More information will be available on April 22nd, when the new SRD is released.

A copy of each System Reference Document is stored independently at A5ESRD.com, which includes the 5.1 SRD, the revised 3.5 SRD, and other System Reference Documents (including the enormous A5E SRD).

 

[Alzrius]

plenty excluded everything

Then those "plenty" were in violation of the license's terms (which makes it all the more unfortunate that WotC did nothing about it).

While I agree that this was the intent, and that ORC fixed the loophole, the fact is that tons of publishers PIed their new systems and statblocks and spells etc. If you recall the OGL kerfuffle and the subsequent discussions that led to ORC, this was a major point of contention.

Leaving aside that I don't recall that being a major point of the OGL debacle (things like the "morality clause" and WotC wanting a cut of the profits for products that made more than, if I recall correctly, $750k, were much larger points of contention), the thing to remember is that those publishers (of which there were two or three, as I recall) were in violation of the OGL. Their declaring Open Game Content to be Product Identity didn't actually make it Product Identity under the license's terms.

 

[mamba]

Then those "plenty" were in violation of the license's terms (which makes it all the more unfortunate that WotC did nothing about it).

maybe, but that doesn’t change that it was excluded and no one challenged them over it

Their declaring Open Game Content to be Product Identity didn't actually make it Product Identity under the license's terms.

guess the only way to find out is you using it regardless in your OGL licensed product and see what happens

 

[Reynard]

. Their declaring Open Game Content to be Product Identity didn't actually make it Product Identity under the license's terms.

To my knowledge, it was never tested in court.

 

[Alzrius]

maybe, but that doesn’t change that it was excluded and no one challenged them over it

The salience of that sentence is found in its last six words.

guess the only way to find out is you using it regardless in your OGL licensed product and see what happens

To my knowledge, it was never tested in court.

Honestly, this highlights the issue with the (lack of) enforcement mechanism more than anything; in that regard, WotC's having lost interest in that role was a sign of things to come.

 

[abazaba]

As I understand it, that is in addition, not instead of. It's there to help folks translate to the 2024 rules.

Well that was sort of the point that I was trying to make (although perhaps I chose my words poorly): if it wasn't a new edition, there would be no need for any translation, now would there ?
Oh, well, nevermind.

 

[abazaba]

To be fair, WotC did release a conversion guide (although they called it an "update booklet") for the 3.0 to 3.5 changeover as well.

Perhaps I got it all wrong here (I've been known to be wrong before) but didn't WotC clearly market 3.5 as a 'new edition' ?
By the way, I'm not saying they shouldn't release a 'conversion guide', I actually think that it is a good idea and will definitely help people. I just think they should have just called it a new edition, like 5.5e or 6e or something (I feel the best name for the edition I have seen thus far is '5.24').

 

[mamba]

The salience of that sentence is found in its last six words.

where you put the emphasis does not really change the outcome

 

[dave2008]

Well that was sort of the point that I was trying to make (although perhaps I chose my words poorly): if it wasn't a new edition, there would be no need for any translation, now would there ?
Oh, well, nevermind.

Change =/= new edition. If there was no change, a conversion guide is not needed. If there is change, a conversion guide may be warranted. Things being changed doesn't make it a new edition (at least how D&D has typically defined "editions"). The impact and quantity of those changes may warrant that designation though. Whether someone believes 5e24 changes enough to warrant calling it a new edition is a personally opinion, not an objective fact one way or the other.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Perhaps I got it all wrong here (I've been known to be wrong before) but didn't WotC clearly market 3.5 as a 'new edition' ?
By the way, I'm not saying they shouldn't release a 'conversion guide', I actually think that it is a good idea and will definitely help people. I just think they should have just called it a new edition, like 5.5e or 6e or something (I feel the best name for the edition I have seen thus far is '5.24').

What difference does it make? They don't call it a new edition and a bunch of people say "Yes it is!"... or they call it a new edition and a bunch of people see how little of the totality of the game was actually changed and they say "No it isn't!"

What is the actual result of either option? Nothing. There's no difference. So the only people for whom this matters are the ones who need WotC to do things and say things the way they feel things are. They need that rub from the company for whatever silly reason.

 

[Alzrius]

where you put the emphasis does not really change the outcome

No, but it emphasizes how we got there, which is important.