Update SRD - Critters

[Orcus]

Hi everyone-

I would encourage us to not take a "sky is falling" approach.

This isnt the first time stuff in the gentleperson's agreement has changed.

Many of you wont remember back that far, but in its first incarnation, the names of the Greyhawk gods were part of the gentleperson's agreement. Those were the first to be cut. Then the discussion about art derived from IP monsters. Then the spell names.

So none of this is a shock--or can even be claimed to be a shock--by any d20 publishers. A disappointment, yes. But lets lay off the "dirty tricks" and "unfair tactics" comments. That just isnt correct and can only be made by people without full information.

Most importantly, however, this is a work in progress. Dont forget that the SRD will be updated for 3.5. It would not surprise me to see versions of those creatures in the 3.5 SRD even though they had been removed from the current SRD.

Give things time to shake out.

I havent yet heard from Ryan or Anthony or even Andy the intern who has been handling lots of the 3.5 stuff.

So chill out for a bit and lets get the official word.

Clark

 

[MEG Hal]

Hi everyone-

I would encourage us to not take a "sky is falling" approach.

This isnt the first time stuff in the gentleperson's agreement has changed.

Many of you wont remember back that far, but in its first incarnation, the names of the Greyhawk gods were part of the gentleperson's agreement. Those were the first to be cut. Then the discussion about art derived from IP monsters. Then the spell names.

So none of this is a shock--or can even be claimed to be a shock--by any d20 publishers. A disappointment, yes. But lets lay off the "dirty tricks" and "unfair tactics" comments. That just isnt correct and can only be made by people without full information.

Most importantly, however, this is a work in progress. Dont forget that the SRD will be updated for 3.5. It would not surprise me to see versions of those creatures in the 3.5 SRD even though they had been removed from the current SRD.

Give things time to shake out.

I havent yet heard from Ryan or Anthony or even Andy the intern who has been handling lots of the 3.5 stuff.

So chill out for a bit and lets get the official word.

Clark

Words to live by!!!!

 

[jaldaen]

Dead on Clark!

Jaldaen

 

[kingpaul]

Dead on Clark!

What? You mean that Clark is dead? Or is that he's buried underneath a pile of corpses?

 

[Darke]

Perhaps "Un-dead on Clark!" ?

Should suit Orcus better or..?



das Darke

 

[Gez]

Re: Re: Missing creatures

And fologub is spelled wrong (though the correct spelling is in the combat section).

Pyrokenticist also.

Good character concept: the Fol[o]gub Pyrok[enti]cist. I can see it fighting against Type-0 Demons.

 

[Gez]

What makes me wonder is the names "tanar'ri" and "baatezu". They will probably become subtypes in D&D 3.5, judging from the revised Pit Fiend stat block. If they become subtypes, like (fire) or (incorporeal), they may be put again into the SRD...


About mindflayer-like creatures appearing in other media, like Final Fantasy or other, isn't Duke Nukem's Octobrain a hybrid of mind-flayer and beholder ?

Doom's cacodemon (and its cousin the pain elemental) looks like both an astral dreadnought's head, and an eyestalkless beholder:

Compare with:

Shadowcaster's Opsis is beholder-like as well:

And here's an oldie, gazers from Ultima Underworld 1:

 

[Orcus]

That was cool!

 

[Alzrius]

Many of you wont remember back that far, but in its first incarnation, the names of the Greyhawk gods were part of the gentleperson's agreement. Those were the first to be cut.

I had been wondering why Heironeous was in a lot of your early books. St. Cuthbert too. Glad the mystery is solved.

originally posted by Orcus
Most importantly, however, this is a work in progress. Dont forget that the SRD will be updated for 3.5. It would not surprise me to see versions of those creatures in the 3.5 SRD even though they had been removed from the current SRD.

originally posted by Gez
What makes me wonder is the names "tanar'ri" and "baatezu". They will probably become subtypes in D&D 3.5, judging from the revised Pit Fiend stat block. If they become subtypes, like (fire) or (incorporeal), they may be put again into the SRD

I live on hope...

 

[CWD]

I've heard that Wizards is considering granting permission to use the "missing" monsters on a case-by-case basis, especially for reprints. This is quite a relief to me, since the Yuan-Ti are a major part of my Nyambe campaign setting...