Update SRD - Critters

[Mark Chance]

Re: You mean something like this...

First off, see my sig below.

Thank God for small favors, eh?

Nice. Now, is that creature being offered as Open Game Content because I don't see an OGL attached to it?

That just seemed like too much to cut and paste. But if someone wants the dread watcher, more power to 'em.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: HEADLINE: Sky Not Falling

I want to believe that, but news like this...

(my quote)

...makes me feel that while the impact should be zero, it's going to be higher than that. The only question is how much.

Well perhaps we should wait for Hellhound to show up and provide further amplification. I would suspect that WotC are purposefully protecting aspects that are more descriptive of their identified PI, but things like the Mind Flayers in Beyond All Reason or Rappan Athuk II would be kosher.

 

[Psion]

Only if there is an "exact likeness" ... right down to the stats and descriptions that WotC have for their creatures ... and that can only be interpreted by a (civil?) court.

But I don't have to tell you that ideas and concepts cannot be copyrighted nor trademarked. In this case, anyone can take the concept of the beholder creature and make their own version or interpretation of that creature.

Right, but I think you are missing an important aspect of the d20 STL and OGL. It has specific provisions that you, by using the license, agree to avoid using other people's IP without permission. So while normally you can get away with the fact that most copyright infringement is a matter of court interperetation, WotC is well within their rights to decide that you are in breach of the license.

 

[Voadam]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why

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.

Yes, I was thinking of Fast Forward with their encyclopedia of demons and devils.

The Jovoc interaction is not that tough, it just means that no d20 sourcebook demon will be immune to the Jovoc's radius blast. If a DM wanted to go the extra mile, any demon with all the tanari qualities (telepathy, specific resistances and levels, and immunities) could qualify as tanari.

 

[Gez]

Since with the Qlippoth and the Tzaretch, there is full d20 precedence for the concept of fiend families, one may simply use the term of Ruling Demons and Ruling Devils to refer to the Tanar'ri and Baatezu. That would be no worse than using "Core Rulebook" or the PH (or PHB), DMG and MM abbreviations...

 

[Ranger REG]

Right, but I think you are missing an important aspect of the d20 STL and OGL. It has specific provisions that you, by using the license, agree to avoid using other people's IP without permission. So while normally you can get away with the fact that most copyright infringement is a matter of court interperetation, WotC is well within their rights to decide that you are in breach of the license.

But the party that Wizards has accused of being in breach of the license (hypothetically), can that party challenge the accusation in court to get a ruling whether they breach the licensing agreement or not?

This of course, would put Wizards on the line because they must present to the court the burden of proof.

 

[Jhyrryl]

A Response from WotC

Well, I found an address for Anthony Valterra, and sent a request to use the non-SRD creatures in a series of books I've been working on. The first book deals with giants, humanoids, and monstrous humanoids, while subsequent books will deal with other creature categories. Here's the response I recieved:

We will give you permission to include yuan-ti and kuo-toa in your first book. Please include the following text in the copyright page of your book: "Kuo-toa and yuan-ti are copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and are used with permission."

We will not, however, be giving permission to include any other creatures not found in the SRD.

Andy Smith
Publishing Intern
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

The impression I get is that they're grandfathering existing works-in-progress under the Gentleman's Agreement, but beyond that, those creatures will be forever off-limits to D20 publishers without specific licensing.

 

[philreed]

OGC Replacements

I never even thought to post in this thread. Christopher Shy and I have created and released an OGC replacement for one of the missing monsters.

http://www.philipjreed.com/images/possessorspreview.pdf

And Christopher's started sending me art for the next one.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

That looks rather slick...

What's the pending release date on this?

Edit: Never mind, found the answer.

 

[Frilf]

Boy, Phil!

You two sure don't let the grass grow long, do you? Two replacement creatures ready to go right out the door! Color me impressed

Cheers!
Ian