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.

 

[Reynard]

yes, obviously they do not want people to have access to it, I was more wondering what it reveals beyond this. Is that the ‘not building the game in a broad sense’ part?

Not sure why they would want / be ok with new subclasses but not with more bastion rules, but here we are

Yeah. I don't know either. It is totally possible it is an oversight, of course. Maybe they just decided it was easier to remove it than figure out what they thought was acceptable to release?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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?

Orcus had connections with the underworld and demons in Greek and Roman mythology. So you could probably get away with some connections to demons and necromancy. And he’s mentioned as being a demon lord in the 5.1 SRD. But you definitely couldn’t use his appearance or specific parts of his lore from my understanding.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Whoever is in charge of this at WotC does not seem to be interested in building the game in a broad sense. To actively choose to take out Bastions -- the SRD is obviously a edited version of the rule books, so everything not in it is an intentional choice -- says tat WotC, for whatever reason, does not want 3PP to have access to the subsystem.

They didn’t take Bastions out. They never included them.

I’m not sure what limitations actually apply to you if you wanted to write bastion content. Unless you planned to copy large amounts of text from the DMG, I don’t know why you can’t expand on them. The term bastion isn’t trademarked.

 

[mamba]

They didn’t take Bastions out. They never included them.

agreed, I assume this was more a 'withhold' than 'remove'

I’m not sure what limitations actually apply to you if you wanted to write bastion content. Unless you planned to copy large amounts of text from the DMG, I don’t know why you can’t expand on them. The term bastion isn’t trademarked.

what about terms like Bastion Turn and Bastion Event? Not sure there is more than those two, but they might be somewhat problematic or at least not obviously safe

 

[Yaarel]

I wouldnt worry too much about Bastion mechanics. Indies can focus on using gp to trick out a home base. Then if in use, the Bastion mechanics relating to level can add benefits onto the home base.

 

[Reynard]

They didn’t take Bastions out. They never included them.

I will reiterate: it is clear that most of the SRD is an edited down version of the core rules (as opposed to a seperately written document). As such, they absolutely "removed" Bastions since those were in the core rules.

I’m not sure what limitations actually apply to you if you wanted to write bastion content. Unless you planned to copy large amounts of text from the DMG, I don’t know why you can’t expand on them. The term bastion isn’t trademarked.

This seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" thing that happens a lot with Open material. We all know that you can put whatever youw ant in whatever document you want if you don't copy the exact text. We also all acknowledge that the SRD exists for a reason and that reason is largely a "safe harbor" that grants tacit permission to do certain things without fear of being overly scrutinized or possibly litigated against by WotC.

Frankly, bushing off the exclusion of Bastions with "you could just do it anyway" is disingenuous and I am a little surprised at you, @SlyFlourish , framing it that way.

 

[Hussar]

Is there a reason you cannot do Bastion stuff on DM's Guild? Or am I missing something?

 

[mamba]

Is there a reason you cannot do Bastion stuff on DM's Guild? Or am I missing something?

you can, there are products already, but you are limited to DMsG, whereas stuff in the SRD is not

 

[SlyFlourish]

Frankly, bushing off the exclusion of Bastions with "you could just do it anyway" is disingenuous and I am a little surprised at you, @SlyFlourish , framing it that way.

I don’t follow.

Is there any part of writing your own bastion options that violates copyright or trademark law?

We don’t know why WOTC didn’t include bastion rules but it seems like the simpler explanation that they just didn’t want to give away their own material.

Again, IANAL, but I don’t see an issue coming up with new bastion options as long as you’re not copying text right out of the DMG to do so.

But one could also write their own home base rules if they wanted to. I don’t see WOTC not including bastion rules as holding back other creators. We weren’t owed them.

 

[Reynard]

I don’t follow.

Is there any part of writing your own bastion options that violates copyright or trademark law?

We don’t know why WOTC didn’t include bastion rules but it seems like the simpler explanation that they just didn’t want to give away their own material.

Again, IANAL, but I don’t see an issue coming up with new bastion options as long as you’re not copying text right out of the DMG to do so.

But one could also write their own home base rules if they wanted to. I don’t see WOTC not including bastion rules as holding back other creators. We weren’t owed them.

WotC went through the process of designing Bastion rules, including a playtest round. That suggests they consider it an important part of 5.24. But then they do not include it in the 5.2 SRD. Why?

Of course we can create our own stronghold and domain rules. Tons of folks have done it already, and some very well. But we all know how official content carries special weight, and so there is significance in them NOT including Bastions in the 5.2 SRD. It means something.

Look, I know that you are inclined to feel positively toward WotC because they kept their D&D 2024 SRD in CC-BY promise. And I get it. But I don't think you should put your blinders on because of it.

Is the fact that Bastions isn't in the 5.2 SRD a game breaker? Of course not. But is says something, and we should listen.