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.

 

[Remathilis]

The Pathfinder brand . . . products designed to work with D&D 3E, was in response to Paizo losing the Dragon & Dungeon magazine licenses and realizing their business depending on WotC wasn't sustainable.

Transitioning Pathfinder into it's own 3E retro-clone was in response to WotC initially dragging it's feet on a 4E SRD & OGL, and then delivering a not very open GSL.

So, if 4E had been an open game . . . Pathfinder the brand would exist, but would Pathfinder the game? Maybe, maybe not!

There is no doubt that 4E's game design, world design, and marketing ruffled a lot of D&D fans' feathers and ignited a new phase in the never-ending Edition Wars that was hotter than ever before . . . and it ultimately failed to achieve the goals WotC had for designing it in the first place (bringing D&D into corporate level profit goals) . . . but how many players refused to adopt 4E really? Was there ever any reliable data on that? IME, it's just folks pouring their assumptions into the game and how well it did or didn't do.

The reason Paizo's rise has been called the Perfect Storm was such a tremendous botching of 4e's handling that they pretty much handed Paizo that victory. Paizo was well respected and had tools to sell to WotC's direct audience. WotC made a very radical departure from 3e and botched 3pp support, digital tools and marketing, giving Paizo the opportunity. If you remove any of those factors, it's very possible Paizo doesn't get as big as it did.

 

[mamba]

The Pathfinder brand . . . products designed to work with D&D 3E, was in response to Paizo losing the Dragon & Dungeon magazine licenses and realizing their business depending on WotC wasn't sustainable.

Transitioning Pathfinder into it's own 3E retro-clone was in response to WotC initially dragging it's feet on a 4E SRD & OGL, and then delivering a not very open GSL.

So, if 4E had been an open game . . . Pathfinder the brand would exist, but would Pathfinder the game? Maybe, maybe not!

probably, but not having an OGL certainly did not do 4e any favors. Paizo already did not like 4e as a game, between that and many players not moving to 4e either, a Paizo 3x always was a good option. That WotC made it impossible for them to switch their business to 4e was the icing on the cake, at that point Paizo did not even need to weigh their options

 

[Parmandur]

I don't know about the rest, but I'm fairly confident that we would have had some kind of OSR. It was born out the retro-clone games and those were in "reaction" to 3rd Edition and the abandonment of TSR-era D&D rules by WotC.

The biggest example, however, Dungeon Crawl Classics was born out of Joshua Goodman's frustration with trying to support 4E (he really did try, too) inspiring him to pit on his thinking cap and go to the drawing board with the willingness to kill sacred cows for the goal of generating narratives similar to old school Swords & Sorcery stories...even using 3E tech, bit willing to throw old D&D-isms under the bus wheels if needed.

That wouldn't have happened with a 4E that looked more lie, say, 5E or Pathfinder.

I do agree the OSR in some form probavly would exist, bit maybe more an emphasis on the OS, less on the R.

 

[Yaarel]

not having an OGL certainly did not do 4e any favors.

I knew 4e would fail because it lacked the OGL. On the wizards forums, there were a number of us that predicted its inevitable demise at the very beginning before 4e was even fully out. Even before a thought of Pathfinder. Initially, Paizo wanted to support both 3e and 4e. But WotC forced Paizos hands by weird legal commitments if creating for 4e.


In the meantime, 4e did many things well designwise. It was the first edition of D&D that actually understood how the ecology of game balance even worked.

Much of 4e design was "stealthed" into 5e 2014, and other insightful developments into 5e 2024 more overtly.

But the lack of OGL killed 4e. If OGL existed, indies would have made alternate versions of 4e to fill in the niches and help the old school and 3e communities ingest the bitter pill of game balance.

 

[see]

and the result was, by the end of 4E’s lifecycle, Pathfinder outselling D&D.

Two caveats.

First, this likely isn't true. Yes, I know it's what the ICv2 survey data said. The ICv2 survey data is, well, lousy. (It's the best the general public has, and so what we had to discuss, but it's lousy.) Statements from people (Chris Sims, Owen Stephens) in late '21-early '22, who were employed by Paizo back when and were later at WotC, were that internal sales data from both companies indicate D&D was never actually outsold by Pathfinder. You can believe them or not on this, but I do.

Second, when it was reported by ICv2, it was in a time period where WotC had stopped releasing new 4e product but Paizo was still releasing new Pathfinder product. So if it was true, the causal pattern was "D&D 4 didn't meet corporate goals, D&D 4 was ended, then still-supported Pathfinder finally managed to outsell a discontinued version of D&D while D&D 5 was being developed".

So WotC brought back the OGL and again pointed all those benefits to their product. And D&D left Pathfinder in the dust.

Except the timeline is "D&D 5 left Pathfinder in the dust in 2014-2015, then WotC brought back the OGL in 2016."

After which D&D 5 kept growing, defying all historical expectations. But since the pattern of sales with D&D 3/3.x helped set those historical expectations, D&D 5's defiance of them had to be rooted in something other than the 2016 release of the SRD under the OGL.

 

[see]

I do agree the OSR in some form probavly would exist, bit maybe more an emphasis on the OS, less on the R.

I mean, at the very least, OSRIC was released in 2006, well before 4e was announced.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, at the very least, OSRIC was released in 2006, well before 4e was announced.

True, there is the OS...but the R? Without 4E polarizing the hobby? Not so sure.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I figure you mean DM's Guild. You can't post products on D&D Beyond. And you don't put things on DMsG using the Creative Commons license--DMsG has its own licensing terms.

WotC does not own content put on DMsG. But it does get a perpetual license to use it, as do other DMsG creators. In effect it's a little mini 'open license' system in an enclosed marketplace.

I guess it effectively becomes Wizards' IP because they can use it how they like, while you cannot publish it outside DMsG--so WotC actually has more freedom to use the content you put there than you do.

Main draw of DMs Guild is visibility, right? From what I heard there are people who kickstarted their independent rpg careers with generic, but well-done products for DMs Guild, like Second Black Dawn, whose author is now acclaimed for independent products in Itally.

 

[Morrus]

Main draw of DMs Guild is visibility, right?

I can't speak to why people use DMs Guild. We don't use it. You'd have to ask them!

 

[SlyFlourish]

Main draw of DMs Guild is visibility, right? From what I heard there are people who kickstarted their independent rpg careers with generic, but well-done products for DMs Guild, like Second Black Dawn, whose author is now acclaimed for independent products in Itally.

Many DM Guild creators claimed that the DM's Guild offered better visibility than other platforms but there was never a way to actually prove this because you can't publish the same product on multiple platforms. In the early days of the DM's Guild, WOTC claimed that it was their way to identify potential freelance writers or even, potentially, new staff members. I can count on one-hand the number of people this actually served (maybe two?). And there were many other freelancers and staff members who got brought into WOTC outside of the DM's Guild. I always thought that wasn't a particularly noble carrot to wave in front of people given the vast number of creators who didn't get picked. There's a huge survivorship bias when it comes to DM Guild creators "making it" (however you define it).

Maybe there's a slight chance writing for the DM's Guild propels you to something greater but it's absolutely sure that you lose the ability to publish work you published on the DM's Guild anywhere else – whether that be a Patreon product, croudfunding, print-on-demand at other printers, or even offering it for free as a promotion. WOTC makes roughly 20% on every product sold on the DM's Guild but offers no guarantee that your product will make back its cost – much less anything else.

The DM's Guild is a fantastic way to write using WOTC's IP if you have to make a product that uses their IP. That is it's one true benefit. Everything else is a big maybe.

I argue it's much better to focus on your own IP and give yourself the freedom to publish your product anywhere, in any format, for any purpose, for the rest of your product's life.