There's waaaaaay more feats this time around. Instead of just Grappler and ASI, now we have 4 Origin feats, 4 Fighting Styles and multiple Epic Boons alongside that. (Okay, the Fighting Styles are a wash since they weren't feats in 5.1, but we only had 4 of them per class in 5.1 anyway.)
Surprising no one, the SRD subclasses are the same ones from 5.1: Berserker Barbarian, Lore Bard, Life Cleric, Land Druid, Champion Fighter, Open Hand Monk, Devotion Paladin, Hunter Ranger, Thief Rogue, Draconic Sorcerer, Fiend Warlock, and Evoker Wizard.
With the SRD being released in English, is there anything preventing other language content from being released, but using the English 5.2SRD and CC license? Can we look forward to this letting the whole world contribute and play, or is there something that keeps it to English only? ( I don't know why there would, but i don't have a law degree so may as well ask. )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
With the SRD being released in English, is there anything preventing other language content from being released, but using the English 5.2SRD and CC license? Can we look forward to this letting the whole world contribute and play, or is there something that keeps it to English only? ( I don't know why there would, but i don't have a law degree so may as well ask. )
We do mention that localization is coming later this year, which will include French, Italian, German, and Spanish.
I am not multilingual, but if non-English 3P folks were creating things with SRD 5.1 (I assume they were), I don't see an impediment with 5.2. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
First thing was the notice, same as 5.1 except it forces one to dig and find what IP for content creators is problematic if that creator wants to create 3rd party indie content.
[ Note: Fan Content Policy still states what IP restrictions you should apply and the relevant information on where to look. ( and a perceptive individual will notice a curious reference.)]
So thats the first thing I personally wonder if it will be addressed more broadly and completely following this release?( Understanding it might take a short bit, but if it could be available by say July, that might be advantageous? )
The second thing is the Layout Format of it feeling like just a giant blob of text.
Section it off into smaller chunks, hell if it has 20 chapters or more, easier to bookmark. And read.
Third was it seems as if the SRD is blend of SRD5.1 and the few bits some people noticed has become the 2024 Free Rules here. Now understanding that the 2024 Basic Rules are to replace the Free Rules here on site, will there be a noticeable difference between those two?( free rules[possible srd?] vs 2024 Basic Rules? ), or what?
While a first read was interesting, the better bits for a dm are scattered and not much. In the SRD5.1 the DM section was better formatted and could have been a bit deeper and descriptive, and given how receptive the DMG was, a bit more than what’s available would “enhance” the possible reception of the new.
( will note the change in the light property editing and clarity, the sentence structure is better. )
it’s rough, but workable. Just needs more clarification on certain parts.
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.
The plan is still to review those older SRDs (and GSL in 4th edition's case?) though.
The GSL isn't the same thing as an SRD....the GSL was a license, much like the OGL or Creative Commons (just a lot more restrictive). And none of the TSR-era editions have SRDs, if they want to fulfil that promise, the would need to create new SRDs for them. (Spoilers: they won't.)
The GSL isn't the same thing as an SRD....the GSL was a license, much like the OGL or Creative Commons (just a lot more restrictive). And none of the TSR-era editions have SRDs, if they want to fulfil that promise, the would need to create new SRDs for them. (Spoilers: they won't.)
I mean, they could... but it's probably not a very high priority.
If you are looking for previous edition's to get the same treatment definitely expect the ones with existing licenses (OGL or GSL) to get done first. Those functionally already exist in a way that could be gone through and cleared for release. As stated by the company they aren't an immediate priority but are on the list. When you get back to 2nd edition its going to be a much harder task. 2nd and 1st edition were a complete mess for the rules and that would be hard work to synthesize into a document.
I can confirm that the 15 magic items that are listed as being added are in fact not present in the SRD 5.2 that I just downloaded a few minutes ago. The two that are said to have had their names changed are present.
Looks like an oversight to me. Probably cut and pasted the items from 5.1 and changed the two names but forgot to add the new ones.
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.
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.
i don't think there needs to be more in the SRD. As it is not meant to be used for play (even if some people do), but to build upon for 3rd party and homebrew stuff. So, more feats or backgrounds don't serve any purpose besides some basic ones as reference. I can make hundreds of backgrounds from the 4 examples, and same for feats.
Where they could have gone further would be to reference all spells from the PHB, even if they don't give the spell information, so people can reference all spells in classes, subclass, feats, species and magic items they make.
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.
i don't think there needs to be more in the SRD. As it is not meant to be used for play (even if some people do), but to build upon for 3rd party and homebrew stuff. So, more feats or backgrounds don't serve any purpose besides some basic ones as reference. I can make hundreds of backgrounds from the 4 examples, and same for feats.
Where they could have gone further would be to reference all spells from the PHB, even if they don't give the spell information, so people can reference all spells in classes, subclass, feats, species and magic items they make.
That's why we provided citation guidance in the Creator FAQ, and we're working to clarify some of the examples listed there to make it easier to understand. I've seen some conversation that suggests confusion or that it's unclear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
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.
i don't think there needs to be more in the SRD. As it is not meant to be used for play (even if some people do), but to build upon for 3rd party and homebrew stuff. So, more feats or backgrounds don't serve any purpose besides some basic ones as reference. I can make hundreds of backgrounds from the 4 examples, and same for feats.
Where they could have gone further would be to reference all spells from the PHB, even if they don't give the spell information, so people can reference all spells in classes, subclass, feats, species and magic items they make.
That's why we provided citation guidance in the Creator FAQ, and we're working to clarify some of the examples listed there to make it easier to understand. I've seen some conversation that suggests confusion or that it's unclear.
Ah, of course, the citation could work for that. but i think citing the exact page is a bit bad, as for example i only have the 2024 PHB on dndbeyond, and couln't cite the page number from that information. If instead citation could be just the book, it would work much better in a more digital world: Example:
Bladeward*
*PHB24
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's waaaaaay more feats this time around. Instead of just Grappler and ASI, now we have 4 Origin feats, 4 Fighting Styles and multiple Epic Boons alongside that. (Okay, the Fighting Styles are a wash since they weren't feats in 5.1, but we only had 4 of them per class in 5.1 anyway.)
Surprising no one, the SRD subclasses are the same ones from 5.1: Berserker Barbarian, Lore Bard, Life Cleric, Land Druid, Champion Fighter, Open Hand Monk, Devotion Paladin, Hunter Ranger, Thief Rogue, Draconic Sorcerer, Fiend Warlock, and Evoker Wizard.
With the SRD being released in English, is there anything preventing other language content from being released, but using the English 5.2SRD and CC license?
Can we look forward to this letting the whole world contribute and play, or is there something that keeps it to English only? ( I don't know why there would, but i don't have a law degree so may as well ask. )
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffWe do mention that localization is coming later this year, which will include French, Italian, German, and Spanish.
I am not multilingual, but if non-English 3P folks were creating things with SRD 5.1 (I assume they were), I don't see an impediment with 5.2. :)
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
First thing was the notice, same as 5.1 except it forces one to dig and find what IP for content creators is problematic if that creator wants to create 3rd party indie content.
[ Note: Fan Content Policy still states what IP restrictions you should apply and the relevant information on where to look. ( and a perceptive individual will notice a curious reference.)]
So thats the first thing I personally wonder if it will be addressed more broadly and completely following this release?( Understanding it might take a short bit, but if it could be available by say July, that might be advantageous? )
The second thing is the Layout Format of it feeling like just a giant blob of text.
Section it off into smaller chunks, hell if it has 20 chapters or more, easier to bookmark. And read.
Third was it seems as if the SRD is blend of SRD5.1 and the few bits some people noticed has become the 2024 Free Rules here. Now understanding that the 2024 Basic Rules are to replace the Free Rules here on site, will there be a noticeable difference between those two?( free rules[possible srd?] vs 2024 Basic Rules? ), or what?
While a first read was interesting, the better bits for a dm are scattered and not much. In the SRD5.1 the DM section was better formatted and could have been a bit deeper and descriptive, and given how receptive the DMG was, a bit more than what’s available would “enhance” the possible reception of the new.
( will note the change in the light property editing and clarity, the sentence structure is better. )
it’s rough, but workable. Just needs more clarification on certain parts.
" 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.
The GSL isn't the same thing as an SRD....the GSL was a license, much like the OGL or Creative Commons (just a lot more restrictive). And none of the TSR-era editions have SRDs, if they want to fulfil that promise, the would need to create new SRDs for them. (Spoilers: they won't.)
I mean, they could... but it's probably not a very high priority.
If you are looking for previous edition's to get the same treatment definitely expect the ones with existing licenses (OGL or GSL) to get done first. Those functionally already exist in a way that could be gone through and cleared for release. As stated by the company they aren't an immediate priority but are on the list. When you get back to 2nd edition its going to be a much harder task. 2nd and 1st edition were a complete mess for the rules and that would be hard work to synthesize into a document.
I wouldn't hold your breath. While I do think it will get done, that is a lot of content to unpack. And old contracts to revisit.
A lot (I think all?) of magic items (e.g., Energy Bow) that were mentioned here (https://www.dndbeyond.com/srd?srsltid=AfmBOop0GwKSEwzR_lGdTMM9YthhX5TsEMeue5tG3J4pN03tAB9rMLC6) are not included in the SRD 5.2. Is this intentional or an oversight?
Given that the header claims they've been added, someone messed up. That might be either the SRD or the header.
I can confirm that the 15 magic items that are listed as being added are in fact not present in the SRD 5.2 that I just downloaded a few minutes ago. The two that are said to have had their names changed are present.
Looks like an oversight to me. Probably cut and pasted the items from 5.1 and changed the two names but forgot to add the new ones.
Lee
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.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Staffgood morning, and great catch. I can see that they're present in the D&D Beyond Basic Rules, but not the SRD. Getting clarification on that now.
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
i don't think there needs to be more in the SRD. As it is not meant to be used for play (even if some people do), but to build upon for 3rd party and homebrew stuff. So, more feats or backgrounds don't serve any purpose besides some basic ones as reference. I can make hundreds of backgrounds from the 4 examples, and same for feats.
Where they could have gone further would be to reference all spells from the PHB, even if they don't give the spell information, so people can reference all spells in classes, subclass, feats, species and magic items they make.
It would give more references to work with and use in contents.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffThat's why we provided citation guidance in the Creator FAQ, and we're working to clarify some of the examples listed there to make it easier to understand. I've seen some conversation that suggests confusion or that it's unclear.
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
I was just getting ready to ask about that. I really hope these get added to the SRD.
Anyone know why all the spells that are on the SRD 5.2 but NOT on the Basic Rules are all marked with ‘Legacy’?
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffCan you clarify what you mean by this? The SRD isn't a compendium reference on D&D Beyond.
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
Ah, of course, the citation could work for that. but i think citing the exact page is a bit bad, as for example i only have the 2024 PHB on dndbeyond, and couln't cite the page number from that information. If instead citation could be just the book, it would work much better in a more digital world: Example:
Bladeward*
*PHB24