No Mind Flayer in the SRD?

[RigaMortus]

I was hoping to make up a quick BBEG for my campaign tonight while I had some time to kill here at work. I want to make up a Mind Flayer, but it seems like they are not included in the SRD. Unless I missed it somehow... Any reason why Mind Flayer isn't in the SRD? I even looked up Illithid and it wasn't there either. Maybe I looked in the wrong place?

At any rate, can someone post for me the stat block for Mind Flayers? And the changes you need to do to them to make them Psionic-based (from the XPH)? I'd really appreciate it!

 

[DreamChaser]

Mind Flayers and Beholders are not open content. Technically, they can't be posted anywhere. They are considered iconic monsters and are property of WotC only.

Silly perhaps, but still the case.

DC

 

[RigaMortus]

Oh, is that why? Makes sense I guess... but aren't other "iconic" D&D monsters posted in the SRD?

 

[Piratecat]

Nope. No kuo toa, yuan ti, beholders. . . a few others as well.

 

[Matafuego]

What I don't get is WHAT is IP of WoTC?
If I were to make Deep Ones or something that ressembles Fish-Boys (Kuo Toa)
Can I?
Can't I?
=\

 

[Garnfellow]

At any rate, can someone post for me the stat block for Mind Flayers? And the changes you need to do to them to make them Psionic-based (from the XPH)? I'd really appreciate it!

Note that mind flayers were included in the original, "Gentleman's Agreement" version of the SRD, and there are copies of that draft floating around the internet. For example:

http://winter.mushpark.com/SRD041701/SRD%20Monsters%20(M).htm

As far as I know, there are no legal issues with someone posting this draft version of the SRD. You couldn't use it in writing a d20 book, of course.

 

[RigaMortus]

Note that mind flayers were included in the original, "Gentleman's Agreement" version of the SRD, and there are copies of that draft floating around the internet. For example:

http://winter.mushpark.com/SRD041701/SRD%20Monsters%20(M).htm

As far as I know, there are no legal issues with someone posting this draft version of the SRD. You couldn't use it in writing a d20 book, of course.

Thanks, but is that the 3.0 version? If so, do you know of any differences between this version and the one in the 3.5 MM?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Thanks, but is that the 3.0 version? If so, do you know of any differences between this version and the one in the 3.5 MM?

While I don't have my 3.0 MM open in front of me, I'd guess that skills and feats changed, if nothing else, since the rules for figuring monster skills and feats changed in the crossover to 3.5. (And make much more sense now than they used to, I might add.) Possibly other changes to, but I'd bet money on skills.

 

[AuraSeer]

What I don't get is WHAT is IP of WoTC?
If I were to make Deep Ones or something that ressembles Fish-Boys (Kuo Toa)
Can I?
Can't I?

If you're not intending to publish your work, you almost certainly don't have to worry about this. But in general:

You can create a custom race of fish-people, even if they're kind of similar to the Kuo-Toa, and that's okay. But you can't use the Kuo-Toa themselves, even if you change the name or a few details.

If your custom race "happens" to have stats identical to the Kuo-Toa, that would be infringement. If you change one small ability or description and leave the rest the same, that would also be infringement. However, if your custom race is partly based on the Kuo-Toa but overall constitutes a new, creative work, then that would not be infringement.

The legal definitions are complicated, and figuring out the exact dividing line is not easy. A court case about copyright infringement can literally take years to resolve.

 

[HeavyG]

Mind Flayers and Beholders are not open content. Technically, they can't be posted anywhere. They are considered iconic monsters and are property of WotC only.

Silly perhaps, but still the case.

That's not silly. Now copyrighting the Carrion Crawler, that is silly.