I am not a laywer, these are the opinions of a layman who, in his opinion, has seen too many kickstarters playing fast and loose with IP.Sigh...
A five headed dragon is one thing. A five headed dragon with heads very similar in design to the WOTC Dragons, arranged in the same order as WOTC's Tiamat, looking like a specific piece of art and with the red body WOTC's Tiamat has officially adopted is another thing.
That statement further adds to my concerns. The Bullywug. It got published by WOTC in the 3e Monsters of Fearun book, so it didn't get swept into the open gaming arena in the Tome of Horrors book. This is why Paizo calls one of their 'manphibians' the Boggard. BTW "Manphibian", also being used by somebody.
You are welcome, but 5 is an issue that should been noticed before launch!
You should probably run each monster name you use through google just to see how generic it is. I've never seen anyone but D&D use the name "Helmed Horror". The Drakes you have listed are the exact names of specific wotc monsters, though verb-drake itself might be considered generic if they don't happen to LOOK like one of wotc's versions.
I have never seen the image you posted until now. That uses a fairly different set of dragon heads than the actual D&D Tiamat. Do you know where its from? Is it fan art found on Steam?
Also, thanks for the info on the Bullywug. I have never actually seen it listed as Product Identity by Wizards but at least one other person seems to think it is so we'll change it back to our original name: Frogman.
Does anything else not pass muster in your opinion?