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).

 

[abazaba]

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.

Some of the parts were it matters to me and makes a difference are :

How we refer to the 'not-new-edition': WotC seems to want to call it the '2024 revision of 5e' (if I even got that right), which leads to naming things like 'the 2014 revision of 5e', and 'the 2024 revision of 5e', which doesn't exactly roll of the tongue easily. The fact that the new monster manual was only published in 2025 and not 2024 only makes it more complicated: do we call that the '2024 MM' or the '2025 MM' ? Or perhaps even 'the 2025 revision of the monster manual using the D&D 5e 2024 revision' ?

WotC is definitely marketing it as 'not-a-new-edition' while claiming that all the old material will fully be compatible with the new material, and then they plan to release a 'conversion guide' to convert the old material to the new material. So which is it: a 'fully compatible not-new-edition that doesn't need any conversions', or a 'not so compatible new-edition that needs conversion' ? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Reynard]

Some of the parts were it matters to me and makes a difference are :

How we refer to the 'not-new-edition': WotC seems to want to call it the '2024 revision of 5e' (if I even got that right), which leads to naming things like 'the 2014 revision of 5e', and 'the 2024 revision of 5e', which doesn't exactly roll of the tongue easily. The fact that the new monster manual was only published in 2025 and not 2024 only makes it more complicated: do we call that the '2024 MM' or the '2025 MM' ? Or perhaps even 'the 2025 revision of the monster manual using the D&D 5e 2024 revision' ?

WotC is definitely marketing it as 'not-a-new-edition' while claiming that all the old material will fully be compatible with the new material, and then they plan to release a 'conversion guide' to convert the old material to the new material. So which is it: a 'fully compatible not-new-edition that doesn't need any conversions', or a 'not so compatible new-edition that needs conversion' ? You can't have it both ways.

I don't think that is accurate. They acknowledge that it is a new edition of some sort. What they are claiming, and what the design aim was, was that previous adventures remain compatible with the new rules, with a secondary goal of making it easy to use other material until it has been replaced in the new edition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Some of the parts were it matters to me and makes a difference are :

How we refer to the 'not-new-edition': WotC seems to want to call it the '2024 revision of 5e' (if I even got that right), which leads to naming things like 'the 2014 revision of 5e', and 'the 2024 revision of 5e', which doesn't exactly roll of the tongue easily. The fact that the new monster manual was only published in 2025 and not 2024 only makes it more complicated: do we call that the '2024 MM' or the '2025 MM' ? Or perhaps even 'the 2025 revision of the monster manual using the D&D 5e 2024 revision' ?

How something like this "rolls off the tongue" does not matter in the slightest. It takes a person literally less than 1 second to say what they mean. Saying "the 2024 revision of 5E" or "6th Edition" does not impact anything.

WotC is definitely marketing it as 'not-a-new-edition' while claiming that all the old material will fully be compatible with the new material, and then they plan to release a 'conversion guide' to convert the old material to the new material. So which is it: a 'fully compatible not-new-edition that doesn't need any conversions', or a 'not so compatible new-edition that needs conversion' ? You can't have it both ways.

You forgot about the third and correct version:

'fully compatible not-new-edition that needs conversion for those people who can't figure it out on their own'

So yes, everyone can have it both ways. If you can't it both ways it's because you personally do not want to call it what WotC is calling it. But that's your issue, not theirs.

 

[abazaba]

So yes, everyone can have it both ways. If you can't it both ways it's because you personally do not want to call it what WotC is calling it. But that's your issue, not theirs.

Apparently, you came here to have an argument.

 

[abazaba]

I don't think that is accurate. They acknowledge that it is a new edition of some sort. What they are claiming, and what the design aim was, was that previous adventures remain compatible with the new rules, with a secondary goal of making it easy to use other material until it has been replaced in the new edition.

Perhaps you are correct. I do get the impression that the claim was that previous adventures remained compatible with the new rules. But now they announce a 'conversion guide'. It's just getting confusing at this point. Perhaps we will have to wait and see what this conversion guide will actually contain, once it's released.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Apparently, you came here to have an argument.

Well, I did pay 8 pounds for the course of ten.

 

[dave2008]

Perhaps you are correct. I do get the impression that the claim was that previous adventures remained compatible with the new rules. But now they announce a 'conversion guide'. It's just getting confusing at this point. Perhaps we will have to wait and see what this conversion guide will actually contain, once it's released.

That would probably have been prudent advice to start with!

 

[Dire Bare]

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' ?

No, they did not. 3.5 was a revision to the 3.0 rules. Not huge changes, really, but enough a conversion guide was appreciated.

3.0 to 3.5 was a greater change than 2014 5E to 2024 5E. Not huge changes, but enough a conversion guide is appreciated.

Apparently, you came here to have an argument.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. You're the one who came in a bit hot with, "AHA! A conversion guide! So it IS a new edition after all!" Like you caught WotC stealing cookies.

Call it what you want, a new edition or simply a revision to the existing rules. As others have pointed out, the game remains the same.

So far, I've had zero issues adapting my 2014 campaign and books to the new rules. I don't need a conversion guide, but I think it's a good idea for WotC to put one out. My prediction is that this conversion guide will be quite thin, as not much is needed.

 

[overgeeked]

You can include stuff from a CC BY released document within an OGL document. The former doesn’t exclude the latter. You can’t, however go the other way. You can’t release OGL material under a CC BY since the OGL is more restrictive.

That’s why the CC BY is a better license for downstream producers.

So we could simply release the 5.2 CC-BY SRD under the OGL ourselves. If someone really wanted to use the OGL for some reason.

 

[darjr]

So we could simply release the 5.2 CC-BY SRD under the OGL ourselves. If someone really wanted to use the OGL for some reason.

Except anyone who uses it would still have to deal with the cc-by stuff. Dunno what that means myself.