9
\$\begingroup\$

Based on a discussion on an answer.

Jeremy Crawford has said:

The sword of sharpness deals an extra 14 slashing damage when you roll a 20 on its attack roll. The SRD incorrectly says otherwise. Note that the SRD is not an official rules source for D&D.

[Agree with the man or not, we have to deal with the things he says.]

Does this mean that the SRD is unsuitable for citing in answers? Or is it fine to keep doing so?

Is there any potential downside to allowing an "unofficial" source to be cited?

The only real concern (besides the few known and existing discrepancies) is if this being considered "unofficial" means that they do not keep it up to date with errata gives a greater potential for confusion in answers. But of course this is a hypothetical based on an assumption.

For the record, I (clearly mistakenly) actually thought it was already policy that SRD not be used to cite things. For example discussion here: Language discrepancy between SRD and PHB and I think other places led me to believe this.

I don't care one way or another but thought a clear answer would be helpful since there is some confusion about the matter (and not just limited to me either).

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This is further complicated because sometimes the SRD is more accurate than the PHB (ie. has some errata). \$\endgroup\$ – GreySage Feb 8 '18 at 17:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ The SRD has not yet been updated as of the 2018 errata to the core books, even nearly 10 months later... There are definitely discrepancies now. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 6 at 4:11
13
\$\begingroup\$

Yes it is fine to cite the D&D 5e SRD; some caveats may be needed

For the most part, the rules texts match.

The issue is that in some cases, the SRD rules don't perfectly align with the rule books, but in other cases the official errata got folded into the SRD before the rules errata are published.

A classic case was the rules text for Polymorph Self spell; the permanent language in the 1st printing that I still have was in conflict with "until dispelled" that first cropped up in the SRD, and then we later found that the SRD version was right ... since the later PHB errata and later printings have that rules text.

In those cases where the rules don't match each other, it is worth noting the discrepancies as being useful to both questioners and answerers. Then let the table decide with full information, and let the votes fall where they may.

Best practice recommendation:

When citing the rules text, make sure to cite where you are getting it from. If there's a conflict between sources (which is rare but not that rare) anyone noticing that can comment and the answer or question revised as needed, or down voted as needed.

Tweets get cited with some frequency: see this meta.

We have no prohibition on citing dev tweets, which are also an unofficial rules source beyond sometimes clarifying intent. When a tweet becomes a part of the Sage Advice Compendium, and posted at WoTC's site, it gets closer to "official rulings" or intent; caveat is that a given tweet may not meet that standard.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .