Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 3023066" data-attributes="member: 7635">They would've probably added MORE monsters to that list, but:1.) Most of the "Iconic" monsters of D&D have origins in myth or literature (orcs, goblins, drow, dragons, giants, undead) and thus WotC doesn't "own" a copyright per se on the idea. (and even if they did, they would have such a hard time "proving" Green Ronin's version of a dragon is an infringment on theirs rather than a reinterpeting of the mythos)2.) Many "unique" D&D monsters aren't that unique: You couldn't justify a rust monster or bullete as a wholly TSR/WotC invention knowing thier origin. 3.) Other monster that are "unique" aren't that profitable: Beholders sell sourcebooks; Thoquaa's don't make it in most dungeons.4.) It keeps the SRD more-or-less complete: there aren't 15 different envisionments of orcs, goblins, or dragon (beyond subrace-types) to compete, and it doesn't fragment the market (I'm using Green Ronin's MM, for example). 5.) As for the select few: I can only guess on them. Slaad seem pretty D&D specific and profitable, the giths are classically D&D, Mind Flayers and Beholders are pretty iconic and profitable, the idea of Yuan-Ti is not D&D specifc, but the caste/distinctions are, and I have NO idea why displacers and carion crawlers are on that list. Now, I can't PROVE any of that, but I'd wager all of that went into the thoughts behind it.</blockquote>