10
\$\begingroup\$

I just got the Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition SRD from this webpage at Wotc. At first, I found it interesting that several of the sub-races were missing (I assumed something happened with them not being Open Content) but then I found something else: on page 28, there's a reference to three monastic traditions, and only one is actually listed in the text. The same thing seems to be happening in many (if not all) of the other option groups.

Is this an actual error, or is it that not all the options are Open Content per the OGL?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ This will likely be answered by the developers on Jan 15 in their reddit AMA. \$\endgroup\$ – Derek Stucki Jan 13 '16 at 22:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There's also only one each of feats, artifacts, backgrounds, and probably other things. \$\endgroup\$ – Adeptus Jan 14 '16 at 0:07
18
\$\begingroup\$

What is open content is defined by what is literally present in the SRD itself. Ergo, yes, these are not open content currently.

Whether this is an oversight and other options were meant to be made open content, or whether the reference to the three monastic traditions is deliberate because they're leaving in references to non-open content, is to be seen.

But in general: content released in the SRD is what defines the content available under the OGL.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, I checked into the AMA and didn't see anything of use, so I'll leave this accepted; it covers the bases. \$\endgroup\$ – Arcandio Jan 16 '16 at 21:26
9
\$\begingroup\$

Is this an actual error, or is it that not all the options are Open Content per the OGL?

Sub-races and Archetypes were specifically excluded from the SRD. From Mike Mearls the D&D guru on this.

Intent of SRD is for developing new content, especially archetypes

So Wizards is giving just enough information to create new class Archetypes and Sub-races without actually giving away all of their information.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I may change my accepted answer to this, if the AMA proves it to be the case. It does at least follow with the reinventing-the-wheel issue from 3.5. \$\endgroup\$ – Arcandio Jan 15 '16 at 14:51
2
\$\begingroup\$

Some of this was an oversight per a tweet by Mike Mearls. The case cited is the omission of Eldritch Blast from the Warlock cantrip list.

The remaining "missing" content should be addressed at the 15 January Q&A on reddit.

You will also find that Artifacts (p. 256 SRD 5e) are limited to the Orb of Dragonkind. That item, while it lists the random properties as 2 minor beneficial properties, 1 major and 1 minor detrimental property, the SRD does not include the tables for those properties.

Another example is "The Apparatus of the Crab" which looks like a replacement for "The Apparatus of Kwalish" in the DMG. While the A of K is not listed in the Product Identity items on page 1 of the SRD, the intent appears to be to make distinctions between the three core books and the SRD. This intent is confirmed by Mike Mearls' tweet of 13 January: "Intent of SRD is to develop new content, especially archetypes."

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.