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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Heh, looking at a glance at a wall of text, without comment or hint, isnt "obvious".

Sorry, I didn't mean obvious at a skimming glance, I meant obvious that once you look at it, that it was meant to be a knight and not an iron golem.

 

[J.Quondam]

Yeah, it's obviously supposed to be "knight". They just forgot to update the name when they copy and pasted.

If you squint, a knight in all that armor kinda looks like a itty bitty iron golem.

 

[Shardstone]

I've looked over that book and STRONGLY disagree.

Really! What turned you off?

 

[mamba]

Why is this a problem? Because there are two versions of Iron Golem? One if it is Large, and the other if it is Medium/Small.

the second one is a Knight with a wrong title

 

[mamba]

Even if WotC isn't afraid of losing it's market dominance, I'm still sure the C-Suite regrets giving away the formula and allowing so many other companies to eat those sales that could have gone to them.

they might regret it, but I believe Ryan was right and WotC gained a lot more from it than they might have lost in sales. D&D is pretty dominant and there is a ton of non-WotC material luring players to it. WotC might have lost some crumbs, but they got a much larger cake for it

 

[Stormonu]

Really! What turned you off?

Beyond the tone (which I despise), it only accounts for a modern enterprise-like business. As I recall, you couldn’t use it to make a church/sanctuary, thieves guild or even just a manor house or ship the PC owned.

 

[Shardstone]

Beyond the tone (which I despise), it only accounts for a modern enterprise-like business. As I recall, you couldn’t use it to make a church/sanctuary, thieves guild or even just a manor house or ship the PC owned.

Oh well in that case, yes, it is more of a business. I think it's easy to reskin though, a lot of the stuff is essentially the same things you'd do with a guild or something. However, if you're wanting strongholds that aren't essentially a guild base or organization base, then yes, it doesn't work.

But I think the core mechanics and structure of the ideas is easy to apply to other things like ships or manors, and is a way more interactive and enjoyable template to build off of.

 

[overgeeked]

they might regret it, but I believe Ryan was right and WotC gained a lot more from it than they might have lost in sales. D&D is pretty dominant and there is a ton of non-WotC material luring players to it. WotC might have lost some crumbs, but they got a much larger cake for it

Yeah. And all you have to do to really drive the point home is look at the transition to 4E and the emergence of Pathfinder. All the networking benefits WotC drew from having the OGL were displaced to another company because WotC shot themselves in the foot by abandoning an open license. So all those network effects that were pointed to D&D were pointed to Pathfinder instead and the result was, by the end of 4E’s lifecycle, Pathfinder outselling D&D. So WotC brought back the OGL and again pointed all those benefits to their product. And D&D left Pathfinder in the dust. Whatever you might think of 4E, it would have benefitted greatly from having an open license fans could use to make their own stuff which would in turn help support the edition.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yeah. And all you have to do to really drive the point home is look at the transition to 4E and the emergence of Pathfinder. All the networking benefits WotC drew from having the OGL were displaced to another company because WotC shot themselves in the foot by abandoning an open license. So all those network effects that were pointed to D&D were pointed to Pathfinder instead and the result was, by the end of 4E’s lifecycle, Pathfinder outselling D&D. So WotC brought back the OGL and again pointed all those benefits to their product. And D&D left Pathfinder in the dust. Whatever you might think of 4E, it would have benefitted greatly from having an open license fans could use to make their own stuff which would in turn help support the edition.

In an alternate universe, where WotC made 4E just as open as 3E was . . .

Would we still be playing 4E?

 

[Azzy]

In an alternate universe, where WotC made 4E just as open as 3E was . . .

Would we still be playing 4E?

I don't think so. I'm sure 4e's shelf life would have been longer, but they would have still iterated to a new edition eventually.