Pictures of the one of the Gith pages in the MToF (and the Nagpa)

[MechaTarrasque]

At https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/08/gith-characters-revealed/: Gith get +1 to int, and Githyanki get +2 to strength and tend towards LE. I like the Nagpa picture and the sketches are pretty good too.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's already been published in UA. Doesn't look any different - and I wouldn't expect it to be, the UA version was fine.

The other picture is Skeksis, yes?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The Nagpa walking straight out of the "Dark Crystal" and into your game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So on of the new Halfling subraces is Gelfling?

 

[Demetrios1453]

The Nagpa walking straight out of the "Dark Crystal" and into your game.

I actually don't have a problem with that - they are suitably creepy and menacing enough from the sample art!

Interestingly, the gith sample shows the page and chapter, so we know that page 96 is in Chapter 4, and, unlike Volo's, character races aren't going to be separated out into their own chapter (as the gith racial info is in the actual gith chapter in the book). Given that we know from previous info that the bestiary part of the book is roughly half of the book at around 130 pages makes it seem likely we'll be getting 5 or (possibly) six chapters on the big conflicts, of which we already know four (Blood War, Elves vs Drow, Dwarves vs Duergar, and Githyanki vs Githzerai vs Illithids). If the racial stuff is at the end of the chapter, that would give us around 25 pages for each conflict (which seems reasonable), and thus giving us room for one more after the gith chapter before the bestiary...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It doesn't matter if we have a problem with it, it's if the Dark Crystal licence holders (which I suspect is now Disney) have a problem with it. From what I can see of the fluff text it is similar enough to skeksis to create grounds for a law suit.

 

[Ath-kethin]

It doesn't matter if we have a problem with it, it's if the Dark Crystal licence holders (which I suspect is now Disney) have a problem with it. From what I can see of the fluff text it is similar enough to skeksis to create grounds for a law suit.

I don't know about rights holders, but the nagpa has been around since 1983 or so. Which means The Dark Crystal definitely came out first, but if nobody has yelled about the monster in its myriad appearances since then (1983, 86, 93, I think it showed up in a 4e book too, etc), it would be a bit disingenuous to try to holler about it now.

 

[Azzy]

*sigh* The Nagpa is an established monster that originated in 1983's Master of the Desert Nomads module.

It doesn't matter if we have a problem with it, it's if the Dark Crystal licence holders (which I suspect is now Disney) have a problem with it. From what I can see of the fluff text it is similar enough to skeksis to create grounds for a law suit.

The Raven Queen cursing a 13 wizards that tried to siphon off magical energy from her previous incarnation as an elven queen as she tried to implement a ritual to return the ancestors of the Shadar-Kai to Arvendor is similar to the Skeksis in the Dark Crystal?

 

[Teataine]

Why does the concept art so often look better than the final illustration.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

*sigh* The Nagpa is an established monster that originated in 1983's Master of the Desert Nomads module.



The Raven Queen cursing a 13 wizards that tried to siphon off magical energy from her previous incarnation as an elven queen as she tried to implement a ritual to return the ancestors of the Shadar-Kai to Arvendor is similar to the Skeksis in the Dark Crystal?

It has enough similarities (both species are wizards, both have a small fixed number, both created through a ritual gone wrong, both are evil), combined with the illustration, to at least give grounds for a law suit, if not guarantee a win.

As for them being around since 1983, I've been playing since 81, on and off, and haven't come across them before (maybe they looked less skeksislike?), and as far as I know the Raven Queen was a 4e addition.

 

[gyor]

It has enough similarities (both species are wizards, both have a small fixed number, both created through a ritual gone wrong, both are evil), combined with the illustration, to at least give grounds for a law suit, if not guarantee a win.

As for them being around since 1983, I've been playing since 81, on and off, and haven't come across them before (maybe they looked less skeksislike?), and as far as I know the Raven Queen was a 4e addition.

The originals are fixed in number, but they might be capable of reproduction.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

 

[Parmandur]

Pretty sure they are different enough to not be problematic: if "Treants" protect WorC from the Tolkien estate, then this is different enough.

 

[QuietBrowser]

I don't know about rights holders, but the nagpa has been around since 1983 or so. Which means The Dark Crystal definitely came out first, but if nobody has yelled about the monster in its myriad appearances since then (1983, 86, 93, I think it showed up in a 4e book too, etc), it would be a bit disingenuous to try to holler about it now.

Monster Manual 3 for the 4th edition featured the Nagpa.

 

[cbwjm]

Nice, a (classic?) monster from Mystara. I'm sure it's backstory has evolved to fit into the current edition but it's still neat to see.