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.

 

[aiouh]

That's not what SRDs are for.

SRDs are not for divulging your corporate intellectual property into the public either. I'm not a Hasbro bootlicker or anything but you can't expect WotC to just release their flagship product entirely for free. I think WotC is fully aware that playing with the SRD 5.2 is not the same as buying their 120$ set of books and it is intentional. The SRD 5.2 exists so you can build your own content and games around it, not to give the game to the community.

 

[aiouh]

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.

While I am leaning towards agreeing, this line of thought is slightly fallacious. SRD 5.2 having Bastions does not prevent 3rd party creators from adding their own Bastion rules.

 

[mamba]

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

not sure how that follows, you could always come up with your own ideas and ignore what is in the SRD if you wanted to.

If anything it restricts your options because you do not want to be too close to WotC’s approach

 

[Prime_Evil]

I'm hoping Morrus is planning a book of downtime activities, strongholds, and domain level activities for A5E at some point. They are doing one on animal companions, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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.

I think WOTC put out the 5.2 SRD with the material it has for two reasons:

1. To get creators to write D&D 2024 material they could consider for inclusion into D&D Beyond (the barrier of which, right now, is earning about a million dollars in crowdfunding or having another huge audience they want to tap).

2. Because they promised to do so as part of rebuilding their relationship with 5e creators after the OGL fiasco.

Their incentive is to not release anything more than what they released previously in the 5.1 SRD. They didn’t need to release anything more so they didn’t. People built all kinds of stuff off of the 5.1 SRD without needing anything more.

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).

What WOTC wants and what we can or can’t do are really separate things. For all we know they may decide to add bastion examples in later because they want other publishers to build off of them.

But NOT including Bastion text in the 5.2 SRD isn’t, to me, evidence that they DON’T want anyone to touch bastions at all. All we know is that they didn’t include any bastion text. We don’t know why and the simplest explanation, to me, is that they just didn’t want to add that much more material in the CC.

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

I don’t think that and I don’t know where I implied that I did. I think WOTC has other concerns than whether another publisher puts compatible bastion rules into a product as long as they don’t lift significant text out of the DMG to do so.

My main point is that I don’t think the lack of bastion text in the 5.2 SRD limits creators. Almost every creator I’ve talked to would prefer their own home base system anyway (including myself — I have a very light weight one in City of Arches for example that I much prefer).

 

[SlyFlourish]

I'm hoping Morrus is planning a book of downtime activities, strongholds, and domain level activities for A5E at some point. They are doing one on animal companions, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Isn’t there a bunch of stuff like that in the A5E adventurers guide and it’s related SRD?

 

[Prime_Evil]

Isn’t there a bunch of stuff like that in the A5E adventurers guide and it’s related SRD?

Yep. But I want moar!!!! We have a number of TPPs taking the 5e system in new directions. This is giving us a smorgasbord of options to choose from.

I give WoTC kudos for being true to their word, but most of the innovation in the 5e space is now happening elsewhere. I suspect they may be a victim of their own success - with such large print runs, the temptation to play it safe must be overwhelming. They need to appeal to such a broad audience that they almost have to be risk averse. There are few huge innovations in the 2024 rulebooks. It's an evolution rather than an evolution.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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?

Looking at their SRD 5.2 FAQ, they say this:

>>

Why is [class, spell, monster, etc.] not in SRD 5.2?​

SRD 5.2 includes a wide range of content from the 2024 core rulebooks, but some classes (such as the Artificer), species (like Aasimar), and monsters (including the Beholder) have been excluded. These exclusions are based on brand identity protection, licensing strategy, and intellectual property rights.

Further, in SRD 5.1 there was confusion around whether any named monsters, items, etc. that appeared in descriptions but not as stat blocks were part of the actual content of the SRD, so we’ve taken steps to ensure that there’s no further confusion there. Names like Strahd, Orcus, and Tiamat won’t appear in SRD 5.2.

SRD 5.2 is designed to give creators a strong foundation for building original material, not to replicate every element of the D&D brand or setting. Where content is omitted, creators are encouraged to design and name their own equivalents.

<<<

Thinking about it as a publisher, I’d probably create my own home base system instead of using bastions because it isn’t clear if WOTC considers that their core IP or not. I don’t think they’d send a C&D if I did but it’s not an impossibility.

There’s this big gray area between stuff they clearly think is fine which they’ve put in the SRD and the core IP we know we shouldn’t use like Greyhawk, Mordenkainen, or the Zhentarim. I think bastions fall into this gray area but it doesn’t feel like the sort of thing WOTC would mind people expanding with their own rules as long as they’re not copying the whole system out of the DMG. It also doesn’t feel like a copyright or trademark infringement to do so and it doesn’t feel like your taking money out of WOTCs pockets or exposing material they don’t want exposed that way.

I’d feel comfortable making bastion enhancements for the City of Arches in a pdf I could take down easily if I got hit with a C&D but I probably wouldn’t build a board game around them that would bankrupt me if I hat to take that down.

 

[Remathilis]

I think they are going to quietly ignore bastions.

Except that Forge of the Artificer is supposed to have Eberron -specific bastion rooms, so it's not ignored yet.

 

[dave2008]

...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.

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.

Sometimes things are a red herring. It is quite possible that they just didn't include them because they didn't think they were important. It could be T-Rex arms puzzle.

For years, people wondered why T-Rex did with it strange little 2-clawed arms. They came up with all kinds of purposes. Finally someone said: "Why are we wasting our time figuring out what these tiny little arms are for - they clearly were not important to T-Rex!" The important thing about T-Rex is not that is has tiny arms, but a giant head with big pointing teeth!