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.
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.
The SRD is a pdf file with page numbers.
In this instance they're referring to citing things that aren't in the SRD.
Some solutions are easier than others: if you're citing a monster, DDB includes the page numbers for the Monster Manual on their stat block pages. You might have to borrow a friend's copy or go to a library to cite something you don't have a physical version of. Or heck, ask in a public forum like this.
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!
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.
The SRD is a pdf file with page numbers.
In this instance they're referring to citing things that aren't in the SRD.
Some solutions are easier than others: if you're citing a monster, DDB includes the page numbers for the Monster Manual on their stat block pages. You might have to borrow a friend's copy or go to a library to cite something you don't have a physical version of. Or heck, ask in a public forum like this.
i just checked the spells page on DNDBeyond, and it has: "Player’s Handbook, pg. 247", so DNDBeyond is citing the pages. I guess that would work then. I checked spells and feats, and they all cite the exact page, so that is great!
Next question would be, how to cite with efficient space use in the case for multiple things cited, like for example, a classes/subclasses spell list, which might have multiple spells that are not in the SRD.
as one would be certainly much more user friendly and space efficent. And in case the first with the acronym is ok, we probably should have somewhere a list of all books acronyms to get them right for citation.
Anyone know why all the spells that are on the SRD 5.2 but NOT on the Basic Rules are all marked with ‘Legacy’?
Can you clarify what you mean by this? The SRD isn't a compendium reference on D&D Beyond.
The SRD spells not included in the basic rules are freely available to everyone on ddb….the ones in 5.2 are obviously sticking around-yet they’re tagged as Legacy spells.
The SRD is a ddb compendium, just not a visibly-tagged / filterable one.
Can you give me an example of one? I think I know why this is the case but need to confirm.
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!
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.
The SRD is a pdf file with page numbers.
In this instance they're referring to citing things that aren't in the SRD.
Some solutions are easier than others: if you're citing a monster, DDB includes the page numbers for the Monster Manual on their stat block pages. You might have to borrow a friend's copy or go to a library to cite something you don't have a physical version of. Or heck, ask in a public forum like this.
i just checked the spells page on DNDBeyond, and it has: "Player’s Handbook, pg. 247", so DNDBeyond is citing the pages. I guess that would work then. I checked spells and feats, and they all cite the exact page, so that is great!
Next question would be, how to cite with efficient space use in the case for multiple things cited, like for example, a classes/subclasses spell list, which might have multiple spells that are not in the SRD.
as one would be certainly much more user friendly and space efficent. And in case the first with the acronym is ok, we probably should have somewhere a list of all books acronyms to get them right for citation.
I think this is something we're working on clarifying, so I'll hold off on answering for now, if that's okay. I don't want to tell you something then have it changed by future updates.
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!
For an academic work the standard would be to put a footnote for each spell, but that's probably annoying for RPG publication.
yeah, that's why i ask. And the way it is present in the Creator FAQ is horrible for actual use:
Do you want to reference official D&D books that aren’t in the SRD?
If you need to reference D&D content in your created works that aren’t covered by either SRD, there are different preferred methods depending on the context of your citation.
For in-line citations:
The quick brown fox (Book Title Reference, page #)(footnote #).
If in a sentence:
The quick brown fox, appearing in Book Title Reference (pg. #) by Wizards of the Coast (footnote #), has a tendency to jump over lazy dogs.
If in footers:
(footnote #) Wizards of the Coast LLC, Book Title Reference, Year.
In practice, a citation might look like this:
Your players step into an alternate reality where reflections appear all around like shattered glass. For some ideas on potential effects of the alternate reality, check out the Mirror Zone effects in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything (pg. 158) by Wizards of the Coast.(1)
(below the line)
1 Wizards of the Coast LLC, Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, 2020.
If i have to write "Player's Handbook (pg. 247) by Wizards of the Coast*" each time i mention a spell, and then also have to cite "Wizards of the Coast LLC, Player's Handbook, 2024" in addition, that is a whole lot of space wasted. And spells are likely the most referenced thing from the PHB, followed by feats.
Can you give me an example of one? I think I know why this is the case but need to confirm.
acid arrow (and every other spell in the SRD that isn’t in the. ASIC rules). looking again its probably because it was tagged as ‘basic rules 2014’ even though it wasn’t in the 2014 basic rules …it was in SRD 5.1. Everything in both the 2014 basic rules and SRD 5.1 was tagged ‘basic rules’ on ddb.
That's what I was thinking, that the spells you were looking for were a part of the Basic Rules released alongside the 2014 core rulebooks, but I think you're confusing the sources and intents of each 'document'. The SRD is not the source for anything on D&D Beyond; it's not meant to be. The Basic Rules (both versions) and the SRDs (both versions) have some overlap with their respective counterparts, but they're not meant to be a one-to-one match.
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!
My question revolves around mentioning planes of existence in regards to SRD 5.2. Yes, the section about the planes of existence has been removed, however I believe most if not all planes of existence that you would find in the DM's guide are mentioned by name in the SRD, and planar travel appears multiple times in the rules. So just how much or little can we reference planes of existence?
My question revolves around mentioning planes of existence in regards to SRD 5.2. Yes, the section about the planes of existence has been removed, however I believe most if not all planes of existence that you would find in the DM's guide are mentioned by name in the SRD, and planar travel appears multiple times in the rules. So just how much or little can we reference planes of existence?
If they’re in SRD 5.1, you should be able to reference them as they are there as long as you include proper attribution. I fully expect people to attribute to both SRDs to use what might not be in SRD 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!
For an academic work the standard would be to put a footnote for each spell, but that's probably annoying for RPG publication.
yeah, that's why i ask. And the way it is present in the Creator FAQ is horrible for actual use:
Do you want to reference official D&D books that aren’t in the SRD?
If you need to reference D&D content in your created works that aren’t covered by either SRD, there are different preferred methods depending on the context of your citation.
For in-line citations:
The quick brown fox (Book Title Reference, page #)(footnote #).
If in a sentence:
The quick brown fox, appearing in Book Title Reference (pg. #) by Wizards of the Coast (footnote #), has a tendency to jump over lazy dogs.
If in footers:
(footnote #) Wizards of the Coast LLC, Book Title Reference, Year.
In practice, a citation might look like this:
Your players step into an alternate reality where reflections appear all around like shattered glass. For some ideas on potential effects of the alternate reality, check out the Mirror Zone effects in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything (pg. 158) by Wizards of the Coast.(1)
(below the line)
1 Wizards of the Coast LLC, Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, 2020.
If i have to write "Player's Handbook (pg. 247) by Wizards of the Coast*" each time i mention a spell, and then also have to cite "Wizards of the Coast LLC, Player's Handbook, 2024" in addition, that is a whole lot of space wasted. And spells are likely the most referenced thing from the PHB, followed by feats.
You only have to make a credits page and place any Attributions( cite references ) in that area. Best thing is to cite the entire book just once:
[1]-2024 Player's Handbook by Wizards of the Coast*
and just footnote the referecne:
( some non SrD, but in PHB2024 reference)^[1]* type thing.
Best to seek professional legal advice on how Attribution works, but as long as you know where the landmines and red tape should be, it’s better to error on the safe wide side of your endeavor.
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.
Can you give me an example of one? I think I know why this is the case but need to confirm.
acid arrow (and every other spell in the SRD that isn’t in the. ASIC rules). looking again its probably because it was tagged as ‘basic rules 2014’ even though it wasn’t in the 2014 basic rules …it was in SRD 5.1. Everything in both the 2014 basic rules and SRD 5.1 was tagged ‘basic rules’ on ddb.
That's what I was thinking, that the spells you were looking for were a part of the Basic Rules released alongside the 2014 core rulebooks, but I think you're confusing the sources and intents of each 'document'. The SRD is not the source for anything on D&D Beyond; it's not meant to be. The Basic Rules (both versions) and the SRDs (both versions) have some overlap with their respective counterparts, but they're not meant to be a one-to-one match.
The SRD5.0v1.0a was the foundation for DDBeyonds Basic Rules. The 5.1SRD upgrade was after 2018 Basic Rules were v1.0, and from 5.0 to 5.1 the four included classes ( classic fighter, cleric, rouge, and wizard. And single subclass, feat, and background ( folk hero)).
As more was pushed out, ddbeyond basic rules grew and added additional elements above what the SRD5.1 holds.
Ten years of add-ons does bloat and add to a set of rules that is widely available.
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.
So for things that are not in the SRD 5.2, what is allowed or not allowed to be used in my own creations?
For example, the spell Catnap (from Xanathar's) is not in the SRD 5.2. Which means that if I create an adventure, or any kind of homebrew content that I'm going to sell, I can't directly reference the spell "Catnap" and use it in my content. But can I create a Ring with 5 charges that produces the effect of the spell Catnap without saying "Catnap"? How much would an item's effect need to be changed for it to be allowed?
Or alternatively, I can make a reference to "Catnap" with a citation? If that's the case, again how much of the concept of "Catnap" can I use with a citation before I have infringed on Hasbro/Wizard's intellectual property rights and have to worry about them sending me a cease and desist?
So for things that are not in the SRD 5.2, what is allowed or not allowed to be used in my own creations?
For example, the spell Catnap (from Xanathar's) is not in the SRD 5.2. Which means that if I create an adventure, or any kind of homebrew content that I'm going to sell, I can't directly reference the spell "Catnap" and use it in my content. But can I create a Ring with 5 charges that produces the effect of the spell Catnap without saying "Catnap"? How much would an item's effect need to be changed for it to be allowed?
Or alternatively, I can make a reference to "Catnap" with a citation? If that's the case, again how much of the concept of "Catnap" can I use with a citation before I have infringed on Hasbro/Wizard's intellectual property rights and have to worry about them sending me a cease and desist?
You're going to want to consult the Creative Commons, the SRD and a lawyer.
That's what I was thinking, that the spells you were looking for were a part of the Basic Rules released alongside the 2014 core rulebooks, but I think you're confusing the sources and intents of each 'document'. The SRD is not the source for anything on D&D Beyond; it's not meant to be. The Basic Rules (both versions) and the SRDs (both versions) have some overlap with their respective counterparts, but they're not meant to be a one-to-one match.
Thanks for replying, I'm aware of the source differences and don't think I'm confused and am aware they don't fully overlap. I have a rather extensive spreadsheet of every spell/monster/character option comparison between 2014 Basic Rules and SRD 5.1. I think to rephrase my issue:
SRD 5.1 spells that weren't actually in the Basic Rules 2014 were marked 'Basic Rules' as their DDB source. Look at the Legacy Acid Arrow spell (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/1988-acid-arrow)...it says the source is 'Basic Rules 2014'...but then go into the 2014 Basic Rules (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/spells#SpellDescriptions) and you'll see there is NO Acid Arrow - it's not actually there (it is neither in the DDB Basic Rules version nor the PDF paper version on the wotc website despite being tagged 'Basic Rules' as the source).
My Issue: Some of the SRD 5.2 options just aren't available in DDB (e.g. Arcane Sword)...or they are tagged with 'Legacy' (e.g. Acid Arrow)
Will the SRD 5.2 content that isn't in the Basic Rules 2024 get the same treatment as SRD 5.1 content so that its freely available?
.
Acid Arrow is part of the SRD5.1(OGLv1.0(a)) spells list, p.114.
Added from Players HandBook(2014) and is the generic version of the namebrand.
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.
Acid Arrow is part of the SRD5.1(OGLv1.0(a)) spells list, p.114.
Added from Players HandBook(2014) and is the generic version of the namebrand.
I agree completely...now look at it on DDB, it says the source is 'basic rules (2014)'...even though its not in the basic rules 2014. This is what allows people to access it without buying the PHB. I think all the SRD 5.1 spells that are not actually in the Basic Rules 2014 are tagged with Basic Rules as the source. See what I mean? In order to provide the SRD content for free, i believe they marked it all as basic rules, even for those items not actually in the basic rules.
If SRD content is meant to be freely accessed, yet its in no other publication and SRD isn't a source option, how do they make it available on DDB? ...by adding it as sourced in the Basic Rules....even when not its not actually in the Basic Rules.
Print or save, it’s also under CC-BY and a link to that page is somewhere ….
The DDB 2014 Basic Rules are all over the place, but is basically a subset of the SRD5.1.
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.
Print or save, it’s also under CC-BY and a link to that page is somewhere ….
The DDB 2014 Basic Rules are all over the place, but is basically a subset of the SRD5.1.
Not all of the SRD 5.2 spells (and other features) are available on DDB. Will they be?
The SRD5.1 doesn’t have stripped down version of the Playing the game Section of the 2014 Basic Rules, yet the new 5.2 version does.
( the SRD5.1 doesn’t not have the Exception overrides General Rule, and the Basic Rules Intro.[ which has a small bit of IP, but that was stripped in the 5.2 version.] bits and pieces are here and there.)
Like I mentioned before, the publicly available rules are scattered across several sources and it just better to cite any and all public sources, and have a professional on hand to help rectify any “unintentional” inclusion that might present a problem legally in the future.
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 SRD is a pdf file with page numbers.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffIn this instance they're referring to citing things that aren't in the SRD.
Some solutions are easier than others: if you're citing a monster, DDB includes the page numbers for the Monster Manual on their stat block pages. You might have to borrow a friend's copy or go to a library to cite something you don't have a physical version of. Or heck, ask in a public forum like this.
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 just checked the spells page on DNDBeyond, and it has: "Player’s Handbook, pg. 247", so DNDBeyond is citing the pages. I guess that would work then. I checked spells and feats, and they all cite the exact page, so that is great!
Next question would be, how to cite with efficient space use in the case for multiple things cited, like for example, a classes/subclasses spell list, which might have multiple spells that are not in the SRD.
Which of these would be the right way?
as one would be certainly much more user friendly and space efficent. And in case the first with the acronym is ok, we probably should have somewhere a list of all books acronyms to get them right for citation.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffCan you give me an example of one? I think I know why this is the case but need to confirm.
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffI think this is something we're working on clarifying, so I'll hold off on answering for now, if that's okay. I don't want to tell you something then have it changed by future updates.
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
For an academic work the standard would be to put a footnote for each spell, but that's probably annoying for RPG publication.
yeah, that's why i ask. And the way it is present in the Creator FAQ is horrible for actual use:
If i have to write "Player's Handbook (pg. 247) by Wizards of the Coast*" each time i mention a spell, and then also have to cite "Wizards of the Coast LLC, Player's Handbook, 2024" in addition, that is a whole lot of space wasted. And spells are likely the most referenced thing from the PHB, followed by feats.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffThat's what I was thinking, that the spells you were looking for were a part of the Basic Rules released alongside the 2014 core rulebooks, but I think you're confusing the sources and intents of each 'document'. The SRD is not the source for anything on D&D Beyond; it's not meant to be. The Basic Rules (both versions) and the SRDs (both versions) have some overlap with their respective counterparts, but they're not meant to be a one-to-one match.
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
My question revolves around mentioning planes of existence in regards to SRD 5.2. Yes, the section about the planes of existence has been removed, however I believe most if not all planes of existence that you would find in the DM's guide are mentioned by name in the SRD, and planar travel appears multiple times in the rules. So just how much or little can we reference planes of existence?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffIf they’re in SRD 5.1, you should be able to reference them as they are there as long as you include proper attribution. I fully expect people to attribute to both SRDs to use what might not be in SRD 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
You only have to make a credits page and place any Attributions( cite references ) in that area. Best thing is to cite the entire book just once:
[1]-2024 Player's Handbook by Wizards of the Coast*
and just footnote the referecne:
( some non SrD, but in PHB2024 reference)^[1]* type thing.
Best to seek professional legal advice on how Attribution works, but as long as you know where the landmines and red tape should be, it’s better to error on the safe wide side of your endeavor.
" 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 SRD5.0v1.0a was the foundation for DDBeyonds Basic Rules. The 5.1SRD upgrade was after 2018 Basic Rules were v1.0, and from 5.0 to 5.1 the four included classes ( classic fighter, cleric, rouge, and wizard. And single subclass, feat, and background ( folk hero)).
As more was pushed out, ddbeyond basic rules grew and added additional elements above what the SRD5.1 holds.
Ten years of add-ons does bloat and add to a set of rules that is widely available.
" 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.
So for things that are not in the SRD 5.2, what is allowed or not allowed to be used in my own creations?
For example, the spell Catnap (from Xanathar's) is not in the SRD 5.2. Which means that if I create an adventure, or any kind of homebrew content that I'm going to sell, I can't directly reference the spell "Catnap" and use it in my content. But can I create a Ring with 5 charges that produces the effect of the spell Catnap without saying "Catnap"? How much would an item's effect need to be changed for it to be allowed?
Or alternatively, I can make a reference to "Catnap" with a citation? If that's the case, again how much of the concept of "Catnap" can I use with a citation before I have infringed on Hasbro/Wizard's intellectual property rights and have to worry about them sending me a cease and desist?
Did they issue a clarification on this issue yet?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffWe will be!
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
You're going to want to consult the Creative Commons, the SRD and a lawyer.
Read my D&D thoughts at FullMoonStorytelling.com
Acid Arrow is part of the SRD5.1(OGLv1.0(a)) spells list, p.114.
Added from Players HandBook(2014) and is the generic version of the namebrand.
" 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.
https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf
Print or save, it’s also under CC-BY and a link to that page is somewhere ….
The DDB 2014 Basic Rules are all over the place, but is basically a subset of the SRD5.1.
" 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 SRD5.1 doesn’t have stripped down version of the Playing the game Section of the 2014 Basic Rules, yet the new 5.2 version does.
( the SRD5.1 doesn’t not have the Exception overrides General Rule, and the Basic Rules Intro.[ which has a small bit of IP, but that was stripped in the 5.2 version.] bits and pieces are here and there.)
Like I mentioned before, the publicly available rules are scattered across several sources and it just better to cite any and all public sources, and have a professional on hand to help rectify any “unintentional” inclusion that might present a problem legally in the future.
" 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.
Has there been any updates about this?