Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lupin" data-source="post: 9647976" data-attributes="member: 7042758">These are my thoughts on it at the moment. I can't speak for Mike or anyone else.1. Various online play tools like VTTs can only use SRD content because it is open-sourced. I believe most VTTs don't even have the option of using official D&D rulebook data.2. There is no printable "Basic Rules" onboarding PDF for 2024 D&D like there was for 2014 D&D (2 in 2014, patched and merged into 1 file in 2018). However, the revised SRD genuinely appears to be meant to fill that void: it has the gameplay overview (including "exceptions override general rules"—not in the 5.1 SRD), a character creation walkthrough, and even the trinkets list, all of which were missing from the 5.1 SRD but included in the 2014 Basic Rules. The inclusion of the excellent Rules Glossary also points to this.My impression is that if it's indeed intended to also serve as a "basic rules"—which it will both via VTTs and as a PDF—they should probably include the really basic stuff that will be of use to incoming players. Naturally, you'd expect the physical/D&DB rulebooks to include many more and more interesting feats, but Tough, for example, is essentially a super-basic feat suited for players just getting their feet wet.My case for the other basic Fighting Style Feats being included is because they're all already options for Fighters in both the 2014 Basic Rules PDF and 5.1 SRD; why exclude them now?3. In the case of the magic items, they said they had included something and then didn't. I think it would be in poor taste to call out all this stuff by name and then say "whoops we actually didn't mean to include those, sorry to get your hopes up." Would leave people with a bad taste in their mouths, similar to how much of the 2024 DMG content was added to the Free Rules section on D&DB and then mostly pulled it the next day, but even more publicly than that.Thank you kindly!</blockquote>

Verification