Update SRD - Critters

[Alzrius]

So are owlbears.

So are tanar'ri, baatezu, and a horde of other beasties. What's happening here just seems arbitrary, as well as unexpected. This deals a rather harsh blow to quite a few d20 companies, and honestly, IMHO, the idea that some monsters "are so D&D that they shouldn't appear anywhere else" just strikes me as ridiculous, as well as puerile, especially given that no warning was given to the myriad d20 companies about this.

There have been several moves on WotC's part recently that have irked me, but this one takes the cake. Talk about sleazy practices!

 

[afreed]

Why

Actually, the terms tanar'ri and baatezu have been removed, too.
As for why WotC did this, here's my guess. For a monster like a mind flayer, you couldn't legally do much with it anyway; the physical appearance, society information, and everything but the stat block and combat data weren't even in the SRD. This was intended to prevent companies from doing too much of their own stuff with WotC's unique and valuable IP.
It didn't work. Several companies put out products with pictures of mind flayers that looked exactly like the one in the MM, that were called 'illithids,' and so on.
Rather than take action against companies which did such things, WotC decided to remove mind flayers (and similar creatures) from the SRD. Seems logical, though I'm not happy about it myself. I can hardly blame them, though.
Keep in mind this is pure speculation.

 

[Alzrius]

Re: Why

Actually, the terms tanar'ri and baatezu have been removed, too.

*long string of expletives deleted*

I was just annoyed before, but now I'm really upset! Do they even care how many other companies are going to hurt for this? The societies of those two strata of monsters were my favorite thing to see! Now they're gone as a group, just relegated to being mere "demons" and "devils"!

Grrr!

 

[der_kluge]

I suspect that it's just a matter of time before someone publishes nearly identical OGC equivalents of all of these creatures, and then those will become the standards, thus reducing the product identity of WoTC's treasured beasties.

 

[Rifter]

Hmmm... another reason to love Tome of Horrors. If I decide I really like something out of there, I know that it can be used in the future, and other people can expand upon them. It is a bummer to loose those creatures though, well, a few of them, as has been said before.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Missing creatures

Based on my first run through the SRD, the following creatures all seem to be missing:

- Beholder
- Carrion Crawler
- Displacer Beast
- Kuo-toa
- Mind Flayer
- Slaad
- Umber Hulk
- Yuan-ti

Anyone like to confirm/correct this list?

Possible "end-arounds" - the monster stats are not there, but the names DO appear in other places in the RELEASED version of the SRD (at least as of 2-13-03 when I mirrored them).

Beholder - Found in the section for Druid and Ranger Animal Companions ("Animals are ill-equipped to handle unusual situations, such as combats with invisible opponents, and they typically hesitate to attack weird and unnatural creatures, such as beholders and oozes.") Also found in the "Flight Maneuvarability" table, and the Deck of Illusions magic item.

Carrion Crawler - Found in the Poisons section ("carrion Crawler brain juice")

Displacer Beast - No references

Kuo-toa - Found in the description of Svirfneblin, the Gnomish Subrace ("Most also speak the language of drow or kuo-toa.")

Mind Flayer - Found in the "Grimlock" entry under number appearing

Slaad - Found in the Summon Monster VI description (red) and Summon Monster VII (blue) as well as under the Iron Flask magic item

Umber Hulk - Gone

Yuan-ti - Gone

Because the above sections were officially released, even if WotC now amends the SRD, the terms "Slaad," "Mind Flayer," "Kuo-Toa," "Beholder," and "Carrion Crawler" - all demonstrably creatures/races from context, are OGC - even if the stats for the creatures are not. I suppose the creatures would have to be re-worked from first principles stat-wise, though, but WotC can't preclude the use of the names. IOW, even if they go back through the documents on their site and remove them now, it's too late - they did in fact release them under the OGL and can't "recant."

Umber Hulk, Yuan-ti, and Displacer Beast are not OGC, though, and WotC can preclude use of those names.

Slightly satisfying to "stick it" to WotC in this way for some, I guess. I am slightly satisfied because it means I can "stick them back into the OGC canon" after WotC tried to take them out with no warning - espeically obnoxious after they had allowed products - particularly products FEATURING the creatures - to be released.

--The Sigil

 

[linnorm]

As has been pointed out by many people in many threads, "It's their license, they can do what they want." Before you take this as the nice, neat simple answer it appears to be consider this; would you trust someone who refuses to drink their own kool-aid ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "fruit flavored soft drink"?

 

[Mark CMG]

Re: Re: Missing creatures

Possible "end-arounds"...

-snip-

Slightly satisfying to "stick it" to WotC in this way for some, I guess. I am slightly satisfied because it means I can "stick them back into the OGC canon" after WotC tried to take them out with no warning - espeically obnoxious after they had allowed products - particularly products FEATURING the creatures - to be released.

--The Sigil

Not at all a wise decision. There is no upside to taking a stance that is so blatantly adversarial. This attittude is unhealthy in light of the fact that WotC has in essence been allowing so many to play in their backyard. Better, IMO, to just enjoy the lemonade and sunshine, and should someone (even WotC) make a slight error such as they seem to have made by not thoroughly scouring the SRD to remove those errant references, then it is more in keeping of the spirit of the Open Game License Movement to simply drop them a line and give them the time to correct the mistakes. Anyone else involved would likely appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Re: Missing creatures

Not at all a wise decision. There is no upside to taking a stance that is so blatantly adversarial. This attittude is unhealthy in light of the fact that WotC has in essence been allowing so many to play in their backyard. Better, IMO, to just enjoy the lemonade and sunshine, and should someone (even WotC) make a slight error such as they seem to have made by not thoroughly scouring the SRD to remove those errant references, then it is more in keeping of the spirit of the Open Game License Movement to simply drop them a line and give them the time to correct the mistakes. Anyone else involved would likely appreciate the same courtesy

Perhaps not a wise choice, but on looking at my choice of words again, I think it came out wrong.

There are some who might be satisfied to "stick it" to WotC - by creating OGC versions of these creatures, as has been previously pointed out.

My satisfaction was not in "sticking it" to WotC but rather to point out that the creatures were there - thus "sticking them in" for those who have expended time and money creating products to support some of those creatures - keeps their efforts for being for naught. It's more of a, "for those who planned to send the 'Slayers Guide to Beholders' (or what have you) and have already paid for writing and art, don't worry too much about it." My satisfaction was not in "sticking it to WotC" but rather pointing out to publishers that they have a recourse - they might feel (rightly so, IMO) that WotC jerked the rug out from under them. I'm satisfied because I "caught them" before they could fall and sustain injury.

Sorry if it came across as "take that, WotC" - though personally, I think allowing people to play with this sort of stuff and then "Taking it away" is the height of rudeness and doesn't go with the spirit of the OGL either.

Just because WotC's letting folks play in their their back yard doesn't mean they have the right to suddenly decide to box your ears for playing with their basketball when they told you it was okay to play with the basketball in the first place. They could have at least said, "uh, guys, don't start a game of 'horse' with that because we're putting the basketball away soon" rather than, "I don't care if you're on the final shot of your game, I'm putting the ball away now."

--The Sigil

 

[Mark CMG]

I see what you mean but it has always been the case that some portions were going to go away. Everyone knew the proper names of characters (in spells and items), IP creatures (names if not also stats) and a number of other things were destined for the chopping block. That WotC trusted no one to over extend and take unfair advantage speaks well of the relationship between all parties. Sorry if it appeared I was unfairly jumping on something you clearly posted in a bit of haste. No harm done, I hope?