Creatures not in the SRD?

[ElvishBard]

I think it is a really good idea to exclude monsters from the SRD. I don't own the MM because most of it is free from the SRD, but I have considered buying it when I get some money so that I can use the monsters I don't have and because having a book physically is better, I think.

 

[Len]

Actually, almost the entire content is posted; pretty much the only thing I have noticed being excluded is a few monsters.

Some of the rules for character creation and advancement were also omitted from the SRD.

 

[griff_goodbeard]

Yes most players will by the books regardless of the SRD, but even though it's used as a nice online reference for players, I don't think that's its intended use. I though wizards created the OGL and the SRD so that third party companies could produce material supporting their system, instead of producing different systems (which might have take business away from them). By excluding some monsters, they prevent, S&S for example from producing a book on the ecology of Beholders, guaranteeing that when players want info on these iconic monsters, they have to buy from WoTC.

 

[heirodule]

Slaad too.

There were some monsters that were in the 3.0 MM, and were in the Gentlemans Agreement SRD, that were taken out of the GASRD.

There were some monsters that were never in the GASRD, and are also not in the 3.5 SRD, though they are in the 3.5 MM.

The first can reasonably be said to have been removed (beholders, mind flayers) The second were never in it (slaadi, githyanki)

 

[Keith Robinson]

I believe Carrion Crawlers are another.

 

[dvvega]

The other reason for leaving them out is that if you wish to publish material for the game under the licensing, you cannot use those creatures either (if I remember correctly).

So you want to publish a d20 compatible world, you may not print stats for the the Evil Mind Flayer overlords and so forth that you spent months designing.

I'm sure if you can mention the name Mind Flayer, but you can't print any stats for it.

D

 

[The Grackle]

There's some debate as to whether WotC can legitimately call displacer beasts their IP. They originally appeared in an old sci-fi short story, iirc- can't recall the name or author, but it's been mentioned here in the past.

I wish they'd left all the other goodies in there, though.

Whoa. I'd love to know the name of that short story. I think I read it in elementary school. It was like some goofy tentacle-puma that leeched the potassium out of some astronauts.?

 

[glass]

Actually, almost the entire content is posted; pretty much the only thing I have noticed being excluded is a few monsters.

And the XP tables!


glass.

 

[jtone]

If I'm not mistaken, the displacer beast story is "Black Destroyer" by A.E. van Vogt. http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/001568.html
No displacement abilities, but a lot scarier than any displacer beast I've seen. (Hmm, throw in a few templates and I could have a nasty surprise for my players...)

 

[atom crash]

oddly enough, the leucrotta -- a creature from Roman mythology -- is also absent from the SRD.