Sure, but the issue wasn’t just how many weeks count as “weeks”—it was that WotC set an expectation and then went silent until pressed for an update.
If they had simply said, “Expect it in March or April” or “We’re still on track, just not ready yet,” this wouldn’t have been a discussion at all. Instead, we heard “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns, especially for creators who need SRD 5.2 for their projects.
It’s not about splitting hairs over what ‘weeks’ means—it’s about making sure that when WotC makes a public commitment, they follow up with clear communication so the community isn’t left guessing.
Sure, but the issue wasn’t just how many weeks count as “weeks”—it was that WotC set an expectation and then went silent until pressed for an update.
What "expectation" had they not met?
I'd think it's pretty unreasonable to expect a company to, even monthly, release something stating "no change, things are going according to plan." Some companies do that sort of thing (but only very rarely), and they tend to be the very small ones.
Sure, but the issue wasn’t just how many weeks count as “weeks”—it was that WotC set an expectation and then went silent until pressed for an update.
What "expectation" had they not met?
I'd think it's pretty unreasonable to expect a company to, even monthly, release something stating "no change, things are going according to plan." Some companies do that sort of thing (but only very rarely), and they tend to be the very small ones.
The expectation they set was that SRD 5.2 would be released ‘within weeks’ of the Monster Manual. When weeks passed with no official confirmation of the timeline and reports surfaced that there was no ETA, that naturally caused concern—especially for third-party creators who need it for their projects.
No one is asking for monthly updates on everything WotC does. But when they set a timeline for a major release, it’s reasonable to expect some communication if people start asking whether that timeline has shifted. Now that we’ve finally gotten confirmation that things are still on track, great—but that kind of update could have avoided this whole debate weeks ago.
Sure, but the issue wasn’t just how many weeks count as “weeks”—it was that WotC set an expectation and then went silent until pressed for an update.
If they had simply said, “Expect it in March or April” or “We’re still on track, just not ready yet,” this wouldn’t have been a discussion at all. Instead, we heard “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns, especially for creators who need SRD 5.2 for their projects.
WotC set a (very vague) expectation. They are well within that expectation, so they have no real obligation or expectation to say anything more.
No ETA just means "sorry, I can't give you more precise information than you already have".It doesn't mean delayed. It doesn't mean not delayed.
Sure, but the issue wasn’t just how many weeks count as “weeks”—it was that WotC set an expectation and then went silent until pressed for an update.
If they had simply said, “Expect it in March or April” or “We’re still on track, just not ready yet,” this wouldn’t have been a discussion at all. Instead, we heard “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns, especially for creators who need SRD 5.2 for their projects.
WotC set a (very vague) expectation. They are well within that expectation, so they have no real obligation or expectation to say anything more.
No ETA just means "sorry, I can't give you more precise information than you already have".It doesn't mean delayed. It doesn't mean not delayed.
I understand that some people are fine with no updates as long as the release eventually happens, but for those of us who rely on the SRD for third-party content, clarity matters.
The issue was never just “is WotC late?”—it was that when people started asking about the timeline, the only answer was “no ETA”, which raised concerns that the release might not be happening anytime soon. If “no ETA” just meant ‘I can’t give a more precise date yet’, then WotC should have just said that upfront instead of letting confusion build.
We’ve now gotten confirmation that SRD 5.2 is still on track, which is great. But this whole discussion could have been avoided if WotC had simply provided that reassurance earlier. That’s my only point.
If “no ETA” just meant ‘I can’t give a more precise date yet’, then WotC should have just said that upfront instead of letting confusion build.
People failing to understand what "no ETA" means is not the fault of WotC.
If multiple people interpreted “no ETA” as uncertainty about the timeline, then that’s a communication failure on WotC’s part, not just a misunderstanding on the community’s end.
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
Thankfully, we now have confirmation that it’s coming soon. Hopefully, in the future, WotC will be clearer to avoid unnecessary confusion.
If “no ETA” just meant ‘I can’t give a more precise date yet’, then WotC should have just said that upfront instead of letting confusion build.
People failing to understand what "no ETA" means is not the fault of WotC.
If multiple people interpreted “no ETA” as uncertainty about the timeline, then that’s a communication failure on WotC’s part, not just a misunderstanding on the community’s end.
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
Thankfully, we now have confirmation that it’s coming soon. Hopefully, in the future, WotC will be clearer to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Or, alternatively, it’s a comprehension failure/bad faith position on the listener’s part.
And we literally got a “still on track” a month after the MM’s release, so by your own metric they handled this properly.
If “no ETA” just meant ‘I can’t give a more precise date yet’, then WotC should have just said that upfront instead of letting confusion build.
People failing to understand what "no ETA" means is not the fault of WotC.
If multiple people interpreted “no ETA” as uncertainty about the timeline, then that’s a communication failure on WotC’s part, not just a misunderstanding on the community’s end.
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
Thankfully, we now have confirmation that it’s coming soon. Hopefully, in the future, WotC will be clearer to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Or, alternatively, it’s a comprehension failure/bad faith position on the listener’s part.
And we literally got a “still on track” a month after the MM’s release, so by your own metric they handled this properly.
If WotC had said a month ago what they just confirmed now, this entire debate wouldn’t have happened. Instead, when people asked about the timeline, all we heard was “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns about whether the release had slipped.
The fact that they eventually confirmed things were still on track doesn’t change the fact that they could have communicated that much sooner to avoid confusion. Expecting clear communication from a company isn’t bad faith—it’s just reasonable.
Anyway, at this point, we have the answer. Hopefully, next time, WotC is more proactive in keeping people informed.
If “no ETA” just meant ‘I can’t give a more precise date yet’, then WotC should have just said that upfront instead of letting confusion build.
People failing to understand what "no ETA" means is not the fault of WotC.
If multiple people interpreted “no ETA” as uncertainty about the timeline, then that’s a communication failure on WotC’s part, not just a misunderstanding on the community’s end.
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
Thankfully, we now have confirmation that it’s coming soon. Hopefully, in the future, WotC will be clearer to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Or, alternatively, it’s a comprehension failure/bad faith position on the listener’s part.
And we literally got a “still on track” a month after the MM’s release, so by your own metric they handled this properly.
If WotC had said a month ago what they just confirmed now, this entire debate wouldn’t have happened. Instead, when people asked about the timeline, all we heard was “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns about whether the release had slipped.
The fact that they eventually confirmed things were still on track doesn’t change the fact that they could have communicated that much sooner to avoid confusion. Expecting clear communication from a company isn’t bad faith—it’s just reasonable.
Anyway, at this point, we have the answer. Hopefully, next time, WotC is more proactive in keeping people informed.
A month ago their timeline would have been even looser and there was no real impetus to speak up- particularly given there’s a vocal minority who like to try and smear anything they say. Instead they work through part of their allotted time so when they make a statement it can be more informed and come at a point where speaking up is actually needful, rather than just filling the air for its own sake.
If “no ETA” just meant ‘I can’t give a more precise date yet’, then WotC should have just said that upfront instead of letting confusion build.
People failing to understand what "no ETA" means is not the fault of WotC.
If multiple people interpreted “no ETA” as uncertainty about the timeline, then that’s a communication failure on WotC’s part, not just a misunderstanding on the community’s end.
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
Thankfully, we now have confirmation that it’s coming soon. Hopefully, in the future, WotC will be clearer to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Or, alternatively, it’s a comprehension failure/bad faith position on the listener’s part.
And we literally got a “still on track” a month after the MM’s release, so by your own metric they handled this properly.
If WotC had said a month ago what they just confirmed now, this entire debate wouldn’t have happened. Instead, when people asked about the timeline, all we heard was “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns about whether the release had slipped.
The fact that they eventually confirmed things were still on track doesn’t change the fact that they could have communicated that much sooner to avoid confusion. Expecting clear communication from a company isn’t bad faith—it’s just reasonable.
Anyway, at this point, we have the answer. Hopefully, next time, WotC is more proactive in keeping people informed.
A month ago their timeline would have been even looser and there was no real impetus to speak up- particularly given there’s a vocal minority who like to try and smear anything they say. Instead they work through part of their allotted time so when they make a statement it can be more informed and come at a point where speaking up is actually needful, rather than just filling the air for its own sake.
I don’t think expecting basic communication is the same as asking them to “fill the air for its own sake.” If a company sets a timeline, it’s reasonable for people to ask for clarity when that timeline starts approaching.
We now have confirmation that SRD 5.2 is still on track, which is all people were asking for in the first place. If they had said that earlier, it would have avoided the confusion. That’s all there is to it.
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
I'm not sure I believe that. All that happened is someone on kickstarter said they were told "no eta" (which is a mostly meaningless statement).
How often should they publish a statement saying that things are on track? Every month? Every week? Every time someone on the internet asks? Every time someone on the internet claims to have talked to them directly?
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
I'm not sure I believe that. All that happened is someone on kickstarter said they were told "no eta" (which is a mostly meaningless statement).
How often should they publish a statement saying that things are on track? Every month? Every week? Every time someone on the internet asks? Every time someone on the internet claims to have talked to them directly?
No one is asking for weekly updates—just basic communication when people start asking legitimate questions about a promised release.
If WotC had simply said, “SRD 5.2 is still on track” earlier instead of letting people hear “no ETA” through secondhand sources, this whole discussion wouldn’t have been necessary.
Anyway, we have our answer now. Hopefully, next time, they’re clearer upfront.
No one is asking for weekly updates—just basic communication when people start asking legitimate questions about a promised release.
If WotC had simply said, “SRD 5.2 is still on track” earlier instead of letting people hear “no ETA” through secondhand sources, this whole discussion wouldn’t have been necessary.
They didn't "let" you hear anything. You don't even know what they told "some kickstarter" in full.
Who defines what's a "legitimate question" instead of an illegitimate one? For that matter, the kickstarter people were answered by WotC.
This is all just sounds like trying to make community managers dance.
No one is asking for weekly updates—just basic communication when people start asking legitimate questions about a promised release.
If WotC had simply said, “SRD 5.2 is still on track” earlier instead of letting people hear “no ETA” through secondhand sources, this whole discussion wouldn’t have been necessary.
They didn't "let" you hear anything. You don't even know what they told "some kickstarter" in full.
Who defines what's a "legitimate question" instead of an illegitimate one? For that matter, the kickstarter people were answered by WotC.
This is all just sounds like trying to make community managers dance.
People asked about the SRD release because WotC set a timeline, and when they inquired, they got “no ETA” as an answer. Whether that response came from a Kickstarter update, a direct email, or anywhere else, it was unclear and left room for doubt. That’s why people pushed for more information.
No one is asking for community managers to "dance." Just for basic transparency when WotC makes a commitment that third-party creators rely on. We’ve now gotten an actual response, which is all people wanted in the first place.
I think that wraps this up. Hopefully, next time, WotC is clearer upfront.
I don’t think expecting basic communication is the same as asking them to “fill the air for its own sake.” If a company sets a timeline, it’s reasonable for people to ask for clarity when that timeline starts approaching.
It's reasonable to ask the company for clarity. They didn't do that-- they asked individual company representatives. Given that those people (a) probably don't know, and (b) aren't authorized to give an answer even if they do know, they really should not have expected a useful response, or been surprised when they didn't get one.
Wasn’t something mentioned in another thread about the timeline for when the SRD 5.2 would be released ether around the end of March or April? Thought I had noticed it when the 2024-25 Monster Manual had been out for a week or two officially?
Anyway, if a bit more of a continuation of status updates on what exactly is happening with the SRD 5.2 and what might be coming out and starting the process of actually making statements again might start getting this change of rules bit going better for some reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Unlike others I personally go by the old phrase "no news is good news"
Also believe that Wotc might feel like they are "doomed if they do, doomed if they don't" when it comes to communications with the public, a lot of things get twist or miss interpreted due to focusing on a single word or phrase written, otherwise there is speculation that something sinister is happening behind closed doors.
“Unless no news means bad news” when suddenly everyone is like,” did you hear?”, which is kindling for rumor mill conspiracy, and is easily dismissed when actual continued updates about elements of change are being discussed and implemented.
And while don’t care about wanting to be informed about such trivial matters, for some it’s better to know what coming down the pipeline than to look downhole and get slapped in the face.
The quieter it is, the more ominous the feeling becomes and the more cautious some become.
I just wonder how they intend to handle the IP declarations and copyright and trademark issues that still require a declaration for cc-by, I understood from reading the cc-by documentation that at any point a 3party can send requests for copyright clarification and if the company is keeping a significant portion of Srd5.2 the same as SRD5.1, there could be a “holding” period where clarification is required to understand if the new cc-by is a “revision” or “addendium of existence” by which the new entry will replace the existing version and care would be needed to define which version is legal for use in which ever version of the rules is applicable. ( and just from the free rules version, I can personally question how will the missing elements of monster creation be handled considering it’s a chunk missing from the new rules released?).
With changes to certain classes that place subclass selection on the same level 3 requirements for all classes, and tweaks made to all main class features, the difference between the 5.1 and 5.2 will the difference between the two be fully documented?
I’m sure the total communication blackout can be adjusted to start letting the community know where things stand. Like I mentioned earlier, time is getting short and people will want answers sooner or later, and when later is the way chosen, it’s not too pretty to be around.
But then again what is there to stop them from dropping it at the last second and watch how the community rips itself apart?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure, but the issue wasn’t just how many weeks count as “weeks”—it was that WotC set an expectation and then went silent until pressed for an update.
If they had simply said, “Expect it in March or April” or “We’re still on track, just not ready yet,” this wouldn’t have been a discussion at all. Instead, we heard “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns, especially for creators who need SRD 5.2 for their projects.
It’s not about splitting hairs over what ‘weeks’ means—it’s about making sure that when WotC makes a public commitment, they follow up with clear communication so the community isn’t left guessing.
What "expectation" had they not met?
I'd think it's pretty unreasonable to expect a company to, even monthly, release something stating "no change, things are going according to plan." Some companies do that sort of thing (but only very rarely), and they tend to be the very small ones.
The expectation they set was that SRD 5.2 would be released ‘within weeks’ of the Monster Manual. When weeks passed with no official confirmation of the timeline and reports surfaced that there was no ETA, that naturally caused concern—especially for third-party creators who need it for their projects.
No one is asking for monthly updates on everything WotC does. But when they set a timeline for a major release, it’s reasonable to expect some communication if people start asking whether that timeline has shifted. Now that we’ve finally gotten confirmation that things are still on track, great—but that kind of update could have avoided this whole debate weeks ago.
WotC set a (very vague) expectation. They are well within that expectation, so they have no real obligation or expectation to say anything more.
No ETA just means "sorry, I can't give you more precise information than you already have". It doesn't mean delayed. It doesn't mean not delayed.
I understand that some people are fine with no updates as long as the release eventually happens, but for those of us who rely on the SRD for third-party content, clarity matters.
The issue was never just “is WotC late?”—it was that when people started asking about the timeline, the only answer was “no ETA”, which raised concerns that the release might not be happening anytime soon. If “no ETA” just meant ‘I can’t give a more precise date yet’, then WotC should have just said that upfront instead of letting confusion build.
We’ve now gotten confirmation that SRD 5.2 is still on track, which is great. But this whole discussion could have been avoided if WotC had simply provided that reassurance earlier. That’s my only point.
People failing to understand what "no ETA" means is not the fault of WotC.
If multiple people interpreted “no ETA” as uncertainty about the timeline, then that’s a communication failure on WotC’s part, not just a misunderstanding on the community’s end.
A simple “SRD 5.2 is still on track, but we can’t share a release date yet” would have avoided all of this.
Thankfully, we now have confirmation that it’s coming soon. Hopefully, in the future, WotC will be clearer to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Or, alternatively, it’s a comprehension failure/bad faith position on the listener’s part.
And we literally got a “still on track” a month after the MM’s release, so by your own metric they handled this properly.
If WotC had said a month ago what they just confirmed now, this entire debate wouldn’t have happened. Instead, when people asked about the timeline, all we heard was “no ETA”, which naturally raised concerns about whether the release had slipped.
The fact that they eventually confirmed things were still on track doesn’t change the fact that they could have communicated that much sooner to avoid confusion. Expecting clear communication from a company isn’t bad faith—it’s just reasonable.
Anyway, at this point, we have the answer. Hopefully, next time, WotC is more proactive in keeping people informed.
A month ago their timeline would have been even looser and there was no real impetus to speak up- particularly given there’s a vocal minority who like to try and smear anything they say. Instead they work through part of their allotted time so when they make a statement it can be more informed and come at a point where speaking up is actually needful, rather than just filling the air for its own sake.
I don’t think expecting basic communication is the same as asking them to “fill the air for its own sake.” If a company sets a timeline, it’s reasonable for people to ask for clarity when that timeline starts approaching.
We now have confirmation that SRD 5.2 is still on track, which is all people were asking for in the first place. If they had said that earlier, it would have avoided the confusion. That’s all there is to it.
I'm not sure I believe that. All that happened is someone on kickstarter said they were told "no eta" (which is a mostly meaningless statement).
How often should they publish a statement saying that things are on track? Every month? Every week? Every time someone on the internet asks? Every time someone on the internet claims to have talked to them directly?
No one is asking for weekly updates—just basic communication when people start asking legitimate questions about a promised release.
If WotC had simply said, “SRD 5.2 is still on track” earlier instead of letting people hear “no ETA” through secondhand sources, this whole discussion wouldn’t have been necessary.
Anyway, we have our answer now. Hopefully, next time, they’re clearer upfront.
They didn't "let" you hear anything. You don't even know what they told "some kickstarter" in full.
Who defines what's a "legitimate question" instead of an illegitimate one? For that matter, the kickstarter people were answered by WotC.
This is all just sounds like trying to make community managers dance.
People asked about the SRD release because WotC set a timeline, and when they inquired, they got “no ETA” as an answer. Whether that response came from a Kickstarter update, a direct email, or anywhere else, it was unclear and left room for doubt. That’s why people pushed for more information.
No one is asking for community managers to "dance." Just for basic transparency when WotC makes a commitment that third-party creators rely on. We’ve now gotten an actual response, which is all people wanted in the first place.
I think that wraps this up. Hopefully, next time, WotC is clearer upfront.
It's reasonable to ask the company for clarity. They didn't do that-- they asked individual company representatives. Given that those people (a) probably don't know, and (b) aren't authorized to give an answer even if they do know, they really should not have expected a useful response, or been surprised when they didn't get one.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffI don't know any forum platform that wouldn't close or consolidate multiple threads on a topic to keep things neat and information contained.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Community Manager (she/her)
You can call me LT. :)
CM Hat On | CM Hat Off
Generally active from 9am - 6pm CDT [GMT-5].
Thank you for your patience if you message me outside of those hours!
Useful Links: Site Rules & Guidelines | D&D Educator Resources | Change Your Nickname | Submit a Support Ticket
Wasn’t something mentioned in another thread about the timeline for when the SRD 5.2 would be released ether around the end of March or April?
Thought I had noticed it when the 2024-25 Monster Manual had been out for a week or two officially?
Anyway, if a bit more of a continuation of status updates on what exactly is happening with the SRD 5.2 and what might be coming out and starting the process of actually making statements again might start getting this change of rules bit going better for some reason.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Unlike others I personally go by the old phrase "no news is good news"
Also believe that Wotc might feel like they are "doomed if they do, doomed if they don't" when it comes to communications with the public, a lot of things get twist or miss interpreted due to focusing on a single word or phrase written, otherwise there is speculation that something sinister is happening behind closed doors.
“Unless no news means bad news” when suddenly everyone is like,” did you hear?”, which is kindling for rumor mill conspiracy, and is easily dismissed when actual continued updates about elements of change are being discussed and implemented.
And while don’t care about wanting to be informed about such trivial matters, for some it’s better to know what coming down the pipeline than to look downhole and get slapped in the face.
The quieter it is, the more ominous the feeling becomes and the more cautious some become.
I just wonder how they intend to handle the IP declarations and copyright and trademark issues that still require a declaration for cc-by, I understood from reading the cc-by documentation that at any point a 3party can send requests for copyright clarification and if the company is keeping a significant portion of Srd5.2 the same as SRD5.1, there could be a “holding” period where clarification is required to understand if the new cc-by is a “revision” or “addendium of existence” by which the new entry will replace the existing version and care would be needed to define which version is legal for use in which ever version of the rules is applicable. ( and just from the free rules version, I can personally question how will the missing elements of monster creation be handled considering it’s a chunk missing from the new rules released?).
With changes to certain classes that place subclass selection on the same level 3 requirements for all classes, and tweaks made to all main class features, the difference between the 5.1 and 5.2 will the difference between the two be fully documented?
I’m sure the total communication blackout can be adjusted to start letting the community know where things stand.
Like I mentioned earlier, time is getting short and people will want answers sooner or later, and when later is the way chosen, it’s not too pretty to be around.
But then again what is there to stop them from dropping it at the last second and watch how the community rips itself apart?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.