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]

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.

I wasn't clear. I meant that SRDs are there for publishers, not customers.

 

[Reynard]

Sometimes things are 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!

Maybe. I am just saying that it was an intentional decision to exclude Bastions, and I wonder why that is.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Maybe. I am just saying that it was an intentional decision to exclude Bastions, and I wonder why that is.

One thing to consider, which I considered when I put out my own CC documents, is that it's a big risk to put anything into the CC because you can never take it back out again. If, for some reason, you really wished you hadn't put something in, there's no great way to remove it again. You might not even know the risk at the time.

From that standpoint, WOTC is safe updating everything they've already released in the 5.1 SRD, but anything new would require a lot of careful thought about what that could mean being out forever.

I think the safe bet was just not to put it in there. I still don't think it means they don't want anyone to write anything for bastions. My guess is that they probably wouldn't care that much for a few reasons:

1. It's not a specific IP they're very interested in protecting. It's not like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk lore.

2. Someone adding bastion options in a product isn't taking anything away from WOTC.

3. It acutally would help them sell DMGs if people included new options that required the core bastion system to run.

Changing topics, one thing I really wish was in the 5.2 SRD that isn't is the "Tough" feat. It's a really great feat for beginning players because its always on and requires no extra thought. All of the feats in the 5.2 SRD are crunchier with more options when what I'd love is a nice default feat that gives a great bonus without any extra work for the player. That, for me, is a bummer.

 

[Stormonu]

Hopefully it is a case on bastions that they're going to sit on it a short while (possibly to see what sort of feedback they get, possibly so they have exclusive on the rules for a bit), and then we'll see them appear in an updated SRD a little further down the road.

Personally, I intend to be building my own bastion rules using older edition concepts and sources. The trick is making something fun that isn't too much of a bear to set up or use. WotC's comes across as "a first attempt".

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

On paper, yes, but in practical use, not really. Here's why. And I'll use my B&B 2e project as an example because it's a great example of what @bedir than is referring to. When designing a project, a ton of feedback I got was that people wanted something built on the 5e engine to be familiar and compatible with core 5e rules. So while one could totally make up their own bastion type rules, folks seem to prefer if they were still built around the existing bastion rules. There were a lot of rule changes I wanted to have in B&B 2e, but I had to leave on the cutting room floor because the feedback I got was that folks didn't want new or unfamiliar rules.

 

[aiouh]

On paper, yes, but in practical use, not really. Here's why. And I'll use my B&B 2e project as an example because it's a great example of what @bedir than is referring to. When designing a project, a ton of feedback I got was that people wanted something built on the 5e engine to be familiar and compatible with core 5e rules. So while one could totally make up their own bastion type rules, folks seem to prefer if they were still built around the existing bastion rules. There were a lot of rule changes I wanted to have in B&B 2e, but I had to leave on the cutting room floor because the feedback I got was that folks didn't want new or unfamiliar rules.

That makes a lot of sense. So Bastions missing from the SRD 5.2 "Core Rules" is probably a good thing then. Because IMO the DMG rules are incredibly undercooked and it seems like a part of the rules that should be contained within modules because every setting and campaign will probably want Bastions to behave differently.

 

[mamba]

while one could totally make up their own bastion type rules, folks seem to prefer if they were still built around the existing bastion rules.

that is what I meant though, you can add additional elements / rooms with their own benefits without replicating the WotC bastion rules.

Granted, you could not do that for B&B because you are missing the basics then, but as a supplement for D&D, absolutely.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Of course. But WotC's interpretation of these mythological creatures is unique and part of their IP.

Regardless of Orcus or Tiamat are in the SRD, can you use or reference those names? Sure.

But removing them removes confusion (for some) regarding can you use the D&D versions of those characters.

 

[bedir than]

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

I didn't see A5E stronghold rules in their SRD. Can you verify it's there? My experience designing in that space has centered on Backgrounds (which I love the system's version).

 

[Plaguescarred]

Glad WoTC delivered as promised. I'm good with all the inclusions and ommissions they chose to go with, though i would have like it to have more Feats, Backgrounds and Magic Items.