Dungeons & Dragons SRD 5.2 Is Officially Live

The new System Reference Document (SRD) for Dungeons & Dragons' revised 5th Edition is officially live. The new SRD was officially released and is available for download on D&D Beyond. A FAQ detailing changes from the previous SRD was also released.

The SRD provides a version of D&D's rules that can be used and referenced in third-party material and form a framework for publishing material compatible for D&D's latest edition. The newest version of the SRD contains a mix of species, backgrounds, subclasses, and feats from the 2024 Player's Handbook, along with statblocks from the 2025 Monster Manual.

One other interesting note is that the new SRD purges references to creatures and characters classified as D&D IP. The previous SRD released under a Creative Commons license contained reference to Strahd and Orcus, both of which were removed in the new SRD. Additionally, the SRD renames the Deck of Many Things as "Mysterious Deck" and the Orb of Dragonkind as "Dragon Orb" to allow for both to be used in third-party material while not infringing upon D&D IP.

 

[Burnside]

The weapons that the kids use in the 1980s cartoon are all represented in the 5.2 SRD (cloak of invisibility, energy bow, Quarterstaff of the Acrobat, Shield of the Cavalier, Hat of Many Spells, Thunderous Greatclub).

 

[doctorhook]

Norrin Strahd?

Any similarity to the silver guy is purely coincidental. My guy is gold! It’s completely different.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

That’s my understanding. Thus, because of the inclusion of Strahd and Orcus in SRD 5.1 but not any lore about them, my newest product features them in the following forms:

Orcus, Evil God of Orcs and Orcas

Strahd, a.k.a. St. Rad, the Surfing Saviour

(Note: I’m just being a smartass, don’t look for this product.)

Given Orcus is an old Roman appelation for Death (also: Dis Pater, Pluto, etc.) that they borrowed from the etruscans, I assume WotC can only specifically claim his very specific D&D appearance and function as a demon of the undead?

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is great!

 

[Remathilis]

I mean...its already out there under 3/3.5.

Which is why I thought it was odd. If they are claiming proprietary on the name, I they are 20 years late. But they created it, they can do what they want.

 

[Loren the GM]

A couple of interesting things on my first glance.

Despite scrubbing errant IP from 5.2, this new SRD introduces new IP, the term "D&D" (first sentence of Rhythm of Play, once again in that same section, and then also in Starting at Higher Levels on page 24). So while "Dungeons & Dragons" is not introduced, "D&D" appears to be a usable term now for publications. This in spite of the legal notice within the license that asks that no other attribution to WotC/parents/affiliates/ be included, and only refer to 5e or fifth edition.

To be clear, this is only insofar as the SRD license itself is concerned - there is obviously a larger and more nuanced discussion of how exactly you can attribute compatibility, reference D&D (the brand name, terms from the rules), etc. while using the CC SRD.

Part of which they are also doing. WotC have also provided mechanisms outside of the SRD for referencing non-SRD works (the Creator FAQ):

Do you want to reference official D&D books that aren’t in the SRD?​

If you need to reference D&D content in your created works that aren’t covered by either SRD, there are different preferred methods depending on the context of your citation.

For in-line citations:
The quick brown fox (Book Title Reference, page #)(footnote #).

If in a sentence:
The quick brown fox, appearing in Book Title Reference (pg. #) by Wizards of the Coast (footnote #), has a tendency to jump over lazy dogs.

If in footers:
(footnote #) Wizards of the Coast LLC, Book Title Reference, Year.

In practice, a citation might look like this:
Your players step into an alternate reality where reflections appear all around like shattered glass. For some ideas on potential effects of the alternate reality, check out the Mirror Zone effects in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything (pg. 158) by Wizards of the Coast.(1)
(below the line)
1 Wizards of the Coast LLC, Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, 2020.

And a rep from WotC provided some clarity on Reddit:

latiajacquise (WotC Official):
The Creator FAQ, which contains the passage OP is referencing, is not a part of the SRD, but an extra resource that we provided to help folks who want to make third-party stuff. We understand that people might want to reference things that aren't included in the SRD, so we provided a few ways that one could do that.

Reddit User Question:
Thank you for your reply. Would one be able to write something for Aasimar (like an ancestral feat) then by including an in-line citation?

latiajacquise (WotC Official):
I don't have a direct answer for that question, but I feel like that's not the intended purpose. To me, it feels more scholarly than a way to get around IP restrictions.

 

[Burnside]

Given Orcus is an old Roman appelation for Death (also: Dis Pater, Pluto, etc.) that they borrowed from the etruscans, I assume WotC can only specifically claim his very specific D&D appearance and function as a demon of the undead?

Similarly, Tiamat and Bahamut as deity names are not original to D&D, but their visual likenesses and characterizations are.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I sometimes include pregens with adventures, so I appreciate having a wider selection of backgrounds and feats.

 

[Reynard]

I sometimes include pregens with adventures, so I appreciate having a wider selection of backgrounds and feats.

You can create pregens with whatever you want so long as you don't copy text from the PHB that isn't in the SRD. How often do you give a complete Background entry on a pregen?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I almost see the removal of the names Strahd and Orcus from this new SRD as WotC actually saving people from themselves.

Random people who might be thinking about publishing some stuff are now going to have to stop and think about whether they can or can't use the name 'Strahd' in some product (even though they can)... and might very well decide to check with a lawyer before doing anything and finding out that way whether what they want to do is legal.

Which is EXACTLY what they should be doing anyway. So WotC's confusing variant texts and documents are going to force the legal-illiterate to actually bone up on all of this and get their stuff checked out prior to publishing for their own safety. And thus in the end these people are going to find themselves better off than had they just tried to make stuff on a whim and fumbling about the Creative Commons, Open Game License, and various System Reference Documents available on their own, thinking they could just white-knuckle it.