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.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

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.

Yeah this is more or less my view as well.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

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?

Cause they want incentives for you to buy their books. Giving away most everything is nice, but it's still a good idea to hold some cards to attract people into buying your book.

 

[Reynard]

Cause they want incentives for you to buy their books. Giving away most everything is nice, but it's still a good idea to hold some cards to attract people into buying your book.

That's not what SRDs are for.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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?

To me, the simplest explanation is that they didn’t want to give all that text away.

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.

Or maybe it doesn’t.

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.

I love when I get called a WOTC fanboy in one forum and a WOTC hater in another.

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.

Or maybe it doesn’t say something. It’s just not in there.

I expect someone is going to publish bastion options outside of the DMs Guild and I bet we don’t hear a peep about it.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Cause they want incentives for you to buy their books. Giving away most everything is nice, but it's still a good idea to hold some cards to attract people into buying your book.

I guess anything is possible, but I have my doubts WotC determined that the Bastion rules were the secret sauce driving DMG sales

 

[Reynard]

To me, the simplest explanation is that they didn’t want to give all that text away.



Or maybe it doesn’t.



I love when I get called a WOTC fanboy in one forum and a WOTC hater in another.



Or maybe it doesn’t say something. It’s just not in there.

I expect someone is going to publish bastion options outside of the DMs Guild and I bet we don’t hear a peep about it.

Maybe I'm not being clear.

So when it comes to subclasses, backgrounds, feats, etc, WotC clearly wants people to expand on those things. So they provide some examples of those things in the SRD.

They did not do this with Bastions, even though it is precisely the kind of thing that WotC would want 3pp companies to embelish (just like subclasses, feats and more).

Do you really think WotC is planning Lord Neverember's Guide To Bastions and is therefore trying to undercut 3PPs?

 

[Shardstone]

Maybe I'm not being clear.

So when it comes to subclasses, backgrounds, feats, etc, WotC clearly wants people to expand on those things. So they provide some examples of those things in the SRD.

They did not do this with Bastions, even though it is precisely the kind of thing that WotC would want 3pp companies to embelish (just like subclasses, feats and more).

Do you really think WotC is planning Lord Neverember's Guide To Bastions and is therefore trying to undercut 3PPs?

I think they are going to quietly ignore bastions.

 

[bedir than]

Since 5.2 doesn't have "Between Adventures" nor Bastions it means creators start from the beginning while developing 4th pillar materials, rather than have a crutch to lean on.

As a player/DM I like this because it encourages more ideation.

As a creator I like this because I have more space to operate.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A couple of interesting things on my first glance.

Despite scrubbing errant IP from 5.2, this new OGL 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):



And a rep from WotC provided some clarity on Reddit:

Keep in mind that "D&D" is trademarked. As far as I know, CC doesn't apply to trademarks, so even though the term "D&D" appears in the SRD 5.1, it's still protected under trademark.

 

[dave2008]

WotC is learning. They probably shouldn't have included words like aasimar, Orcus, and Strahd in previous SRDs, and are course-correcting now.

I do want to point out that Orcus (and Tiamat which was mentioned in another post) are RL mythological creature names. They are not WotC IP. WotC's specific representation of them (Tiamat with 5 heads) would be their IP I believe.