Update SRD - Critters

[Wyvern]

The Fighting Fantasy series of solo gamebooks (by Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone, founders of Games Workshop) has an octopus-headed "Mind Slayer" in "Caverns of the Snow Witch" and an "Eye Stinger" (which resembles a beholder with no mouth or eyestalks, and spines like a pufferfish) in "Temple of Terror".

Wyvern

 

[Ranger REG]

I've heard that Wizards is considering granting permission to use the "missing" monsters on a case-by-case basis, especially for reprints. This is quite a relief to me, since the Yuan-Ti are a major part of my Nyambe campaign setting...

That is good.

I hope that third-party d20 publishers are taking the initiative to contact Wizards first, rather than procrastinate and let Wizards contact them with a Breach & Cure Letter.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I already have, and I was given a date on which to return contact. They know they are going to do it for some parties, but don't have a "process" for doing so yet, thus the reason for being asked to come back with the question again later.

In short, if it's out, don't worry about it yet, but tend to it in the next month or so. If it's not out but has been developed, there might be some reason for concern, but chances are you're clear. On the other hand, if you are only in the planning stages but haven't started the project up yet, than you should seriously consider hold-off on further development until you have contacted them on the matter.

 

[Psion]

I agree completely. A knock-off will always feel like a knock-off, and that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Additionally, there's the derivative product problem, and who really wants to bother with that?

I'd be more interested in seeing versions of "role replacements" than renamed entities. Like you said, it seems sort of hollow. But if d20 publishers can make something new and creative to fill the voids left by those creatures, then it could be interesting.

Yuan-ti shouldn't be too difficult. Snake men are not exactly a new concept and I sort of don't like the way they are made as is (frex, having both magic and psionics.) Heck, I can change the alignment of L5R Naga and swap out a few abilities and I am there! Or use the therianthrope template from TOH and add the psionic template.

Mind flayers might be a bit of a harder act to follow. It's a bit harder not stepping on WotC's IP toes there and ending up with something both interesting and fills the same role. But hope springs eternal.

The rest I hardly care about, really. I can stick in any big bad monster for a carrior crawler, really.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: Why

It was also a functional feature with the grouping of tanari and baatezu qualities. Imps, Kytons, and Hellcats are devils but not Baatezu and Quasits, Bebilith and Retrievers are demons but not tanari.

That's a point a lot of d20 publishers miss and are a bit ham-fisted about.

It makes me wonder, though: how does the updated SRD handle this? Is the text clear that quasits and kytons don't have the same resistances and immunities as the fiends formerly known as tanar'ri and baatezu? Or did these poor cousins just get an upgrade?

 

[Psion]

I've heard that Wizards is considering granting permission to use the "missing" monsters on a case-by-case basis, especially for reprints. This is quite a relief to me, since the Yuan-Ti are a major part of my Nyambe campaign setting...

Source?

At any rate, this may not be as consoling as you think. I hear from Jason on www.realmsofevil.net that the paradigm Slaadi book cannot be done as written, as the WotC will not allow them to make their chaotic creatures frog-like or live in limbo. Which, when you look at it that way, makes these types of books seem like the particular target of this change. After all, with the exception of some material drawn from common myths and/or which you can make reasonable conclusions from out of the text, how satisfying would books on creatures be if they obviously aren't speaking of the familiar versions?

I'm not exactly seeing the point of stamping out these sorts of books. One of the expressed purposes to the d20 STL was to allow other publishers to publish things supporting the sale of WotC core books with small print runs that WotC was too big to be bothered with. We won't ever see a book like the Illithiad again from WotC, and if the lack of these creatures is a permanent state of affairs, then we won't see it from third party publishers either.

At any rate, even if these sorts of book are too threatening too WotC's IP, yanking the whole creatures from the SRD seems like tossing the baby with the bathwater. It's not just the people who step on IP toes that are affected. It's also anyone who wants to just throw a mind flayer in a d20 adventure. Is the mind flayer NPC in Beyond All Reason a threat to WotC IP, for example?

 

[Voadam]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why

That's a point a lot of d20 publishers miss and are a bit ham-fisted about.

It makes me wonder, though: how does the updated SRD handle this? Is the text clear that quasits and kytons don't have the same resistances and immunities as the fiends formerly known as tanar'ri and baatezu? Or did these poor cousins just get an upgrade?

Now that I've finally been able to download the new srd sections I can answer this.

The new srd spells out every resistance and immunity for each demon and devil. Quasits etc. just don't have the same ones as the "common" demons.

It is similar to the spells, no "same as x ecept for y" cross references, each are complete on their own, which I like for a the copy and paste computer reference file.

The only d20 company that heavily uses the terms, I believe, are FFG which confuses the subtype of tanari and baatezu with the demon and devil category.

Thankfully the mechanics are all the same for the demons and devils, they just don't have the subgroup names for common abilities specified.

 

[Voadam]

Source?

At any rate, this may not be as consoling as you think. I hear from Jason on www.realmsofevil.net that the paradigm Slaadi book cannot be done as written, as the WotC will not allow them to make their chaotic creatures frog-like or live in limbo. Which, when you look at it that way, makes these types of books seem like the particular target of this change. After all, with the exception of some material drawn from common myths and/or which you can make reasonable conclusions from out of the text, how satisfying would books on creatures be if they obviously aren't speaking of the familiar versions?

I'm not exactly seeing the point of stamping out these sorts of books. One of the expressed purposes to the d20 STL was to allow other publishers to publish things supporting the sale of WotC core books with small print runs that WotC was too big to be bothered with. We won't ever see a book like the Illithiad again from WotC, and if the lack of these creatures is a permanent state of affairs, then we won't see it from third party publishers either.

At any rate, even if these sorts of book are too threatening too WotC's IP, yanking the whole creatures from the SRD seems like tossing the baby with the bathwater. It's not just the people who step on IP toes that are affected. It's also anyone who wants to just throw a mind flayer in a d20 adventure. Is the mind flayer NPC in Beyond All Reason a threat to WotC IP, for example?

I think the issue here is licensing for money versus free and attempting to assert IP ownership over not just settings and individual characters, but images as well.

The interesting question is will WotC challenge computer games and other RPGs that have similar concept things in their games as in the pseudo beholders or mind flayers.

 

[Wyvern]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why

It makes me wonder, though: how does the updated SRD handle this? Is the text clear that quasits and kytons don't have the same resistances and immunities as the fiends formerly known as tanar'ri and baatezu? Or did these poor cousins just get an upgrade?

I wondered the same thing, and as far as I can tell, they simply listed the tanar'ri/baatezu qualities individually on the Special Qualities line of each individual stat block.

Wyvern

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why

The only d20 company that heavily uses the terms, I believe, are FFG which confuses the subtype of tanari and baatezu with the demon and devil category.

Thankfully the mechanics are all the same for the demons and devils, they just don't have the subgroup names for common abilities specified.

FFG? I trust you mean Fast Forward, not Fantasy Flight Games (as I am not aware of any FFG book that uses the terms heavily.)

I would hasten to point out the Green Ronin fiend books. Armies of the Abyss, for example, takes Tanar'ri as a specific category of demon and they introduce their own, the Qlippoth. Mongoose also had a similar concept, a new subrace of demon their web enhancement for their Demonology book.

One other point is that it could complicate interactions between official and d20 rules. For example, the Jovoc from the MMII has an ability that damages all non-tanar'ri creatures in a certain radius. Without the designation, deciding what is a tanar'ri and what is not is less apparent.