# Update SRD - Critters



## Mindcrime (Feb 14, 2003)

Is it me, or are some critters gone....like mind flayers and yuan-ti.

If the yuan-ti are gone, I think Mongoose will have to rename mine and Legion's book to "Slayer's Guide to Se-Jing." Maybe the original will become a collector's edition. Now I just got to get my author copies, so I can lord it over the masses! (bwah-hah-hah...er, maybe not....)

It's cool that the monster stuff is official. It sucks about the dropped critters though.

It really sucks, the more I think about it. 

Chris


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 14, 2003)

I just went to the offical d20 web site on WoTC's site, and noticed all the Monster RTF that were posted are now gone.

Maybe they're brinning them back.


----------



## Psion (Feb 14, 2003)

Um... yeah. I just visited the open gaming foundation site and the yuan-ti are in HTML docs there. Did they do a reversal?


----------



## Blacksway (Feb 14, 2003)

It appears the SRD posted at www.opengamingfoundation.org has never changed.

The one at http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=srd however has changed, and as everyone is pointing out, is giving 404 File Not Found errors at the moment (only the new stuff).

Oh, nope, they are back...


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 14, 2003)

Beholders are not in the revised SRD either. There were a small handful of monsters that Wotc considered to be IP and I has predicted a long time ago that they would not be included in the formal SRD as soon as I saw what had happened to the spell names.

The Open Gaming Foundation copies are not the formalized versions. Many are still draft copies. Ryan Dancey is in the process of bringing that stuff up to date, but it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Feb 14, 2003)

That is strange, especially considering the Neothelid made the Psionic Creatures release.

What's up with that?


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 14, 2003)

*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?


----------



## philreed (Feb 14, 2003)

*Damn.*

Need to go through all of my PDFs and update them. And this changes some stuff I haven't released yet.

At least I never did a PDF on mind flayers. I was seriously thinking about doing one.


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 14, 2003)

- Beholder  - WTF?!?
- Carrion Crawler  - *yawn*
- Displacer Beast - not a huge loss
- Kuo-toa - *yawn*
- Mind Flayer  - I'm not a huge fan, anyway.
- Slaad - this is a loss
- Umber Hulk - This one is pretty sad..
- Yuan-ti - but this one!!  THE NERVE!!!!!!!


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 14, 2003)

Blacksway said:
			
		

> *It appears the SRD posted at www.opengamingfoundation.org has never changed.
> 
> The one at http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=srd however has changed, and as everyone is pointing out, is giving 404 File Not Found errors at the moment (only the new stuff).
> 
> Oh, nope, they are back... *



The version at opengamingfoundation.org is the original gentlemen's agreement version. The version at Wizards is the released SRD, gotta conform to it.

Although they've said for years now that GA was just that and stuff could change between the pre-release and the actual SRD. They had to know that Mind Flayer, beholder, and other monsters in that list were being featured in d20 material. A heads up that they might disappear would have been helpful. This impacts my forthcoming Character Customization book, too.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and there go the yuan ti in the Tree of Knowledge.


----------



## linnorm (Feb 14, 2003)

Oh goodie!  One more thing to *$%& up my campaign.   I'm just glad I'm not publishing anything, these "updates" to the SRD would have destroyed my buisiness by now.


----------



## tensen (Feb 14, 2003)

I wouldn't go running around acting like the sky is falling.
A similar instance of things vanishing occured when they started to revamp the spells.

Mind Flayer is the one that was most commonly misused due to the Illithid issue.  I would imagine they are taking care to correct the issues with that creature so the problems don't continue.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Feb 14, 2003)

tensen said:
			
		

> A similar instance of things vanishing occured when they started to revamp the spells.



Except the spells only changed names.  This isn't the case; These critters aren't there.

Otherwise I'm in the same boat as linnorm; One of the central races for my setting are eliminated.  While a Fan Project, I'm still held to OGL compliance.  Now that's all fubar.


----------



## linnorm (Feb 14, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Except the spells only changed names.  This isn't the case; These critters aren't there.
> 
> Otherwise I'm in the same boat as linnorm; One of the central races for my setting are eliminated.  While a Fan Project, I'm still held to OGL compliance.  Now that's all fubar. *




Exactly, I'm going to be hard pressed to come up with a reasonable explination as to why a dominate force in the campaign suddenly vanished.  "Sir, our sources tell us that the <censored> have all been eliminated by a powerful wizard from the coast casting an 'SRD' spell."


----------



## EarthsShadow (Feb 14, 2003)

does this mean the upcoming slayers guide to yuan-ti is now axed from production?


----------



## Mindcrime (Feb 14, 2003)

Well, I'm not Mongoose, but from everything Matt's said it should already be in stores. But, this probably means it won't ever get reprinted. (I don't think it would anyway - I don't think mongoose has reprinted any of their previous slayer's guides. They just sent them straight to RPGNow and PDF format, I believe.)

Chris


----------



## Ashy (Feb 14, 2003)

It could be that they just have not updated something yet...  (shrugs, but is being hopeful...)


----------



## Legion (Feb 14, 2003)

Well, I just went to my FLGS and saw a few copies of the Slayer's Gude to the Yuan-Ti. 

I'd snatch 'em up in a hurry if you really want one. Just in case.


----------



## Frilf (Feb 14, 2003)

::flicks on rant-o-matic::

To me, I just don't "get" this. Yuan-Ti I can *maybe* understand because they have an unnecessarily fanciful and pompous name that WotC might want to protect - but beholders, carrion crawlers, and mind flayers? Gimme a break! These creature's names are all common English words that anyone could slap together, hardly anything to make the exclusive intellectual property of whomever. Not to mention that beholders and mind flayers are some of the best "boss monsters" in the game.

Let's hope they're just updating things for 3.5e and that this sort of silliness isn't going to continue. Grrr. What's next: mephits, azers, and remorhazes?? Or maybe blink dogs? Yeah. There's a name worth clinging to.  

::kicks off rant-o-matic::


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 14, 2003)

Legion said:
			
		

> *Well, I just went to my FLGS and saw a few copies of the Slayer's Gude to the Yuan-Ti.
> 
> I'd snatch 'em up in a hurry if you really want one. Just in case. *



Score!!  Just called my FLGS.  They *just* got the book in, and I had them put it in my file.  Will I use?  Probably not, but it'll be a bit of a collectible...at least in our circles.


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2003)

I posted an e-mail to anthony @ wizards and asked if he or Andy could possibly drop by to comment on this situation. Hoepfully we will get an answer on the fate of our beloved destroyers of mind and body.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 14, 2003)

It's not the names they are protecting Frilf.

It's the entire concept. And I really understand why they are doing it. I just wish they had given SOME warning that it was coming down so people wouldn't have put so much time and money into books such as the Essential Guide to Mind Flayers and the Essential Guide to Slaad.


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 14, 2003)

If Unveiled Masters is at the printers, then it could possibly qualify as eligible for release.  Slaad, however, is most likely a dead project...


----------



## Frilf (Feb 14, 2003)

Agreed, HellHound. SOME warning would have been nice. However, in many circles where I game, mind flayers, beholders, and carrion crawlers are much more a feature than dragons (who would, quite frankly, kick the liver out of most parties I've been in). Perhaps Mr. Valterra can shed some light on WotC's plans here.

A technical, partially-from-ignorance question here: Are we to assume, then, that the SRD is now fully released (at least in terms of the amount of material in the draft version)? We can use the stuff now without further deletions, omissions, etc.?

My ranting is done. ::grumbles as he goes back to re-type his Ecology of the Mind Flayer books, volumes I-IX::

Cheers!
Ian


----------



## afstanton (Feb 14, 2003)

*Slaad as Open Content*

I'm sitting here with a copy of The Tome of Horrors, and there are two Slaad Lords listed.  Neither uses the names we are used to from the days of yore, but there they are.  I was under the impression that WotC worked closely with Necromancer Games on this book, so I find it odd that Slaad are not in the SRD.

Perhaps the term Slaad can be used, referencing Tome of Horrors, so long as none of the traditional types are mentioned?  (Given that they are creatures of Chaos, there should be many types, I'd think.)

Just my $.02


----------



## Perithoth (Feb 14, 2003)

Frilf said:
			
		

> * <SNIP>
> 
> A technical, partially-from-ignorance question here: Are we to assume, then, that the SRD is now fully released (at least in terms of the amount of material in the draft version)? We can use the stuff now without further deletions, omissions, etc.?
> 
> ...




Ian,

With the release of 3.5 revised core, the entire SRD will but updated and re-released. So, there is no way WotC can promise to "not change any material" when stuff like DR and the removal of partial actions are on the horizons. The Stat Blocks in the MM are getting an overhaul too.

If you are a publisher of D20 material (meaning you have at least one product already out there) there is a link to join WotC's Free Gaming Association:

http://www.wizards.com/D20/main.asp?x=welcome,3

This will get you on the inside track to the upcoming changes. NOTE: You have until Feb. 28th to mail in your NDA for this...

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness


----------



## HellHound (Feb 14, 2003)

_"With the release of 3.5 revised core, the entire SRD will but updated and re-released. So, there is no way WotC can promise to "not change any material" when stuff like DR and the removal of partial actions are on the horizons. The Stat Blocks in the MM are getting an overhaul too."_

BUT, the "released" edition of the SRD will remain legal for use under the terms of the OGL. If they change material that appears int he current release of the SRD, we can still use the current version, as it HAS been released. Any future changes will NOT have to be handled retroactively.

So yes, Frilf, anything that appears in the RELEASED SRD (the one at WotC) is legal and if changed, the changes do NOT have to be reflected in our own (third party d20 or OGL) works.


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 14, 2003)

Wow!  Either Jason *really* wanted to make his point, or the boards were acting screwy.  So, which was it?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 14, 2003)

You can say that again, Jason.


----------



## tensen (Feb 14, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *You can say that again, Jason. *




He did..  several times.   Don't get him started anymore


----------



## Lizard (Feb 14, 2003)

linnorm said:
			
		

> *Oh goodie!  One more thing to *$%& up my campaign. *




Uhm, you know, you can still use the monsters YOURSELF. They aren't out of the game, just out of the SRD -- just like, say, most diseases, the XP chart, the traps, the sample dungeon, the descriptions of the monsters, the names of the gods, and plenty more...


----------



## Frilf (Feb 14, 2003)

Point taken!  Thanks for clearing that up, Jason.


----------



## Hardhead (Feb 14, 2003)

> Agreed, HellHound. SOME warning would have been nice. However, in many circles where I game, mind flayers, beholders, and carrion crawlers are much more a feature than dragons (who would, quite frankly, kick the liver out of most parties I've been in). Perhaps Mr. Valterra can shed some light on WotC's plans here.




I agree with what the poster right before me said.  They're not gone from D&D.  Just the SRD.  So companies can't put them in their books anymore.  That doesn't mean you still can't use them at home!


----------



## MEG Hal (Feb 14, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *You can say that again, Jason. *




I do not know if that was funny or scary...prolly a lil of both.

Need to go change the cover of my new book on monsters as PC's called _Barbaric Beasties_ I have a slaad and a Yuan-Ti fighting a beholder on it----oh crap 

 

Ok kidding about the book, but lets wait and see what happens.


----------



## Frilf (Feb 14, 2003)

> I agree with what the poster right before me said. They're not gone from D&D. Just the SRD. So companies can't put them in their books anymore. That doesn't mean you still can't use them at home!




Just to get all my chips on the table here - I work for a company that puts out d20 stuff. So, the missing critters are a big deal to me. But, having said that, my gaming group will still have to fight beholders every other night or so 

Thanks for the input, though.

Cheers!
Ian


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2003)

I helped Jason out a little bit. After all those posts, his fingers were probably getting sore.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 14, 2003)

(another double - sorry everyone)


----------



## HellHound (Feb 14, 2003)

. double post


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 15, 2003)

Frilf said:
			
		

> *::flicks on rant-o-matic::
> 
> To me, I just don't "get" this. Yuan-Ti I can *maybe* understand because they have an unnecessarily fanciful and pompous name that WotC might want to protect - but beholders, carrion crawlers, and mind flayers? Gimme a break! These creature's names are all common English words that anyone could slap together, hardly anything to make the exclusive intellectual property of whomever.*



You could say the same for "Conan." But if you use the exact same likeness of _Conan the Barbarian_ created by Ron E Howard, then you'd be infringing upon his trademark.

I believe the same goes for the aforementioned creatures. Wizards believe they are unique _D&D_ monsters, both name and description. So they want to keep them for themselves, just as much as those iconic characters in the _PH._ Maybe they want to be the only ones to make products using them in the near future.

All in all, it makes the Wizards' _D&D Core Rulebooks_ a bit more valuable.

But don't fret. There are other creatures that are in the formal SRD that you can use to publish.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Feb 15, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wizards believe they are unique _D&D_ monsters, both name and description.



So are owlbears.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 15, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *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 (Feb 15, 2003)

*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 (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Why*



			
				afreed said:
			
		

> *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 (Feb 15, 2003)

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 (Feb 15, 2003)

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 (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Missing creatures*



			
				Echohawk said:
			
		

> *Based on my first run through the SRD, the following creatures all seem to be missing:
> 
> - Beholder
> - Carrion Crawler
> ...



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 (Feb 15, 2003)

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 (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Missing creatures*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *Possible "end-arounds"...
> 
> -snip-
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Missing creatures*



			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 15, 2003)

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?


----------



## The Sigil (Feb 15, 2003)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> *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? *



None at all. 

My goal was simply, "if you're along in the process of spending time/money on something, finish it."  I don't expect to see an awful lot of stuff about the monsters in question appearing in 3rd-party publications after the next 3-12 months (depending on where people are in their publication prep cycles), but anything that was planned short-term should hopefully be able to proceed.

The thing that strikes me is that with all the nifty 3rd-party open content out there, I could (and am in the process of, actually), assemble a rather nice world with very little of the core rules.   This stuff is not needed/essential, obviously - but it is a little disappointing to see some of the "iconic D&D monsters" lost from the open canon. 

That said, I'm sure new open "iconic" creatures will eventually surpass closed creatures in popularity because they will be more widely used.  I am of the opinion that as the Open Gaming movement continues to grow that we will find that Open Content will become the norm and closed content the exception - because when something genius is released as Open, it will be re-used by everyone else to avoid re-inventing the wheel.  The closed stuff will not see re-use.  As stuff sees more re-use, it will become more popular, and more widespread.  Therefore, in the very very long term, the most successful parts of the system - perhaps not fiscally for the original product but in terms of intellectual legacy - will always be Open Content.  Because of this, IMO, closing content does more harm than good.  

That's why I think WotC is doing far more harm to their intellectual legacy by closing this content than they could have had by keeping it open.  They are inflicting a worse punishment on their control of the game by forcibly closing their own content than I ever could by trying to force it open.

--The Sigil


----------



## Jhyrryl (Feb 15, 2003)

*More Missing Mythos*

Again, WotC is weakening its own mythos with this move to "protect" its product identity.

Initially, I thought I understood it.  I thought that it wasn't to keep the D20 publishers from using the material, but to keep real competitors (non-D20 publishers) from using those concepts and mimicking that mythos.  I mean, who saw Blade II and didn't think to themselves, "Cool!  They're mind flayers!"?

But then I realized that couldn't be the case.  The stuff was OGC, sure, but that didn't mean you could make a video game or a movie, or even another gaming system that had beholders in them.  Did it?  Maybe I'm wrong there, but if I'm not, then the only people that WotC is trying to protect themselves from, are D20 publishers.

D20 publishers aren't trying to steal the mythos, they're simply trying to do what the OGL provides for, and in doing so, trying to make their products fit in with the official books that they are sharing shelf space with, in support of those books.  Continued lack of support in this area is simply going to alienate the most hardcore gamers of all, D&D players turned D20 publishers, from supporting WotC's interests.  The end result will be that WotC will have bred their own demise in the creation of the largest force of independent game developers that the industry has ever seen.

What needs to happen is that WotC needs to provide a mechanism by which D20 publishers can at least reference product identity, some way that wouldn't be construed as an attempt to challenge WotC's ownersihp rights.  And if they won't do something like this, I'm all for seeing the existing D20 publishers start banding together to create a common shared mythos, and moving completely away from WotC's lead.


----------



## Gez (Feb 15, 2003)

I guess a second printing of the ToH would be severely maimed.

Carrion Moth and Slime Crawler both references the Carrion Crawler.

There are Slaad Lords. I suppose they could just be renamed Salad Lords. 

The Kamadan is said to be a relative of the Displacer Beast.

The Abomination template mentions Owlbears.

And references to Beholders are made for gas-spore and each beholder-kin (gorbel, eye of the deep).



Also, Green Ronin's Armies of Abyss and Legion of Hell; as well as Mongoose's Demonology, all use and references Baatezu and Tanar'ri.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Feb 15, 2003)

Uh, you folks realize my comments about Owlbears was in reference to their being unique to D&D, just like Mind Flayers, Displacer Beasts, and most everything else they decided to keep.  Owlbears, however, did make it into the SRD.  So did several dozen other "unique to D&D" creatures.

Of course, that's what stinks.  The primary villain-race for my entire setting is eliminated, but a creature I've never once used in over 20 years of gaming, as well as several dozen I'll likely _never_ use for the simple fact of not liking them, are released.

Ugh...  Time to drink myself to sleep...


----------



## arwink (Feb 15, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Of course, that's what stinks.  The primary villain-race for my entire setting is eliminated, but a creature I've never once used in over 20 years of gaming, as well as several dozen I'll likely never use for the simple fact of not liking them, are released.
> *




For me, this is possibly the up-side of the ommisions.  THey've taken away some of the traditional big-bads, so maybe we'll finally see some of the lesser lights getting some focus.  

I'm hanging out to see a Complete Guide to Arenea that turns them into a potentially nasty race of evil overlords


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 15, 2003)

Hmmmm, the displacer beast itself, both appearance and special ability, is stolen from the story 'Black Destroyer' by  A. E. van Vogt, around 1940s or so. Don't know if this in any way helps, it just means that WoTC is treading on somebody elses IP.

The Auld Grump

*Edit*  Heh! Found it, published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1939. So I was close anyway....


----------



## DungeonKeeperUK (Feb 15, 2003)

linnorm said:
			
		

> *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"? *




Got to agree with Linnorm here, yes it is a right pain in the ....... neck that certain creatures have been "removed" from the SRD, beleive me I know, gotta go back to the drawing board on something that was near completion.... But at the end of the day what was the alternative, to wait until now for 3rd party publishers to be releasing materila when the SRD is complete....

Like I said it bites that this stuff is gone but at the end of the day its their material and we've been lucky enough to get our hands on the vast majority of the material....


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 15, 2003)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> *Hmmmm, the displacer beast itself, both appearance and special ability, is stolen from the story 'Black Destroyer' by  A. E. van Vogt, around 1940s or so. Don't know if this in any way helps, it just means that WoTC is treading on somebody elses IP.
> 
> The Auld Grump
> 
> *Edit*  Heh! Found it, published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1939. So I was close anyway.... *




Does anyone have a quote from this book that verifies the name or description of displacer beasts?


----------



## tensen (Feb 15, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.
> *




Didn't Square Soft Games use a Mind Flayer at one point?


----------



## tensen (Feb 15, 2003)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> *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? *




Although I think they were actually a tad late with the spells.  They used Mord in the Gentlemen's Agreement spell lists for so long, they appeared to have been included in the Pocket Grimoire Arcane.  Now technically they are different spells.  Which means if you want to use them, you have to add the section15 block of the Pocket Grimoire...  but it isn't completely out of your hands anymore.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Feb 15, 2003)

Does anyone have any sort of official word on this from WotC? It is possible that it was an oversight, that they had info. from the revised editions included and decided not to put it out, who knows? 

WotC has been very good about the SRD and SRD issues. They are also very good about granting permission (when asked nicely) to use items not in the SRD when it doesn't impinge on their game world(s). I would hold off on condemning them until there is some sort of official word or comment on the inclusion/exclusion of some of the MM critters.


----------



## jaldaen (Feb 15, 2003)

To be honest I'm fine with them cutting certain creatures... as someone said before it was understood under the gentleman's agreement that some things would change and even be cut... 

that being said I think it is too bad that carrion crawlers and displacer beasts were taken out as they don't seem to me to be blockbuster IP names and ideas to me (or at least not as much as the others are)... I can understand the rest though and a part of me wonders if the creatures cut might be involved in some diabolical plan... such as the new campaign setting that is coming out from WotC?

Hmmm... 

Could the new campaign setting be based on some (or all) of these creatures? Could taking them out of the SRD be part of a terrible plan to force those who love these creatures to have to come to WotC's new campaign setting for material on them?

I don't know, but someone out there does... and they are.... <thwak, muffled noise, the post ends abruptly>


----------



## afstanton (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: More Missing Mythos*



			
				Jhyrryl said:
			
		

> *Again, WotC is weakening its own mythos with this move to "protect" its product identity.
> <snip>
> 
> What needs to happen is that WotC needs to provide a mechanism by which D20 publishers can at least reference product identity, some way that wouldn't be construed as an attempt to challenge WotC's ownersihp rights.  And if they won't do something like this, I'm all for seeing the existing D20 publishers start banding together to create a common shared mythos, and moving completely away from WotC's lead. *




I really like the idea of a common shared mythos.  In a sense, all the OGC content created by 3rd party publishers is a shared mythos, but I don't believe there is a strong tie between the various scattered elements.  What would be really nice is to see the deliberate creation of a completely OGC world with support from multiple publishers.  It would certainly have to be very large to accomodate the ideas  that so many people can produce, but it would be a very interesting project.

This actually might be worth a new thread, if people are interested in discussing it further.  Any takers?


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 15, 2003)

jaldaen said:
			
		

> *Could the new campaign setting be based on some (or all) of these creatures? Could taking them out of the SRD be part of a terrible plan to force those who love these creatures to have to come to WotC's new campaign setting for material on them?*



Hmmm.... Veddy Einteresting......


----------



## Legion (Feb 15, 2003)

*Question?*

Has anyone considered the fact that maybe these creatures aren't in there YET for some reason? Maybe WotC is doing something with them and will later update the SRD? Just because they aren't in there now, doesn't necessarily mean they won't be.

Just food for thought, and possibly hope for the future.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Missing creatures*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> 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).
> 
> *




I for one have no intention of being combative with WotC, in our experience, Wizards has been very helpful in SRD issues.

This does put a halt to 4 of our 5 next essential books, but only 1 of the 4 has had any energy put into it. As far as Yuan Ti, there are many mythological serpent-people, that is easy to fix with a rename.

Eric Wiener
Paradigm Concepts, Inc.
ewiener@paradigmconcepts.com


----------



## afreed (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Missing creatures*



			
				Echohawk said:
			
		

> *Based on my first run through the SRD, the following creatures all seem to be missing:
> 
> - Beholder
> - Carrion Crawler
> ...




As mentioned above, tanar'ri and baatezu are removed as terms, but the creatures remain.
Githyanki and githzerai have been removed from the Psi-monsters. And fologub is spelled wrong (though the correct spelling is in the combat section).
Control Shape and Improved Control Shape (the lycanthrope skill and feat) are referenced, but their descriptions appear to be missing. (Presumably an oversight.)


----------



## HellHound (Feb 15, 2003)

Both the Gith races were never in the SRD, even the draft edition. Completely culled from the beginning.


----------



## Frilf (Feb 15, 2003)

> Both the Gith races were never in the SRD, even the draft edition. Completely culled from the beginning.




Bummer, huh? Now I can't release my OGC rapcore song "I'm a Githyanki Doodle Dandy". 

Peace! Out!
da Frilfmeista


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2003)

This isn't nearly as bad as it could be, y'know....

It's not hard at all for some d20 publisher to make a squid-headed creature that eats brains and is called the Brain Flayer...

Or for them to whip up a big eye with a lot of stalks and a jaw and magical powers from the eyes that is called the Eye Ball.

Or to make a feline with the natural power of displacement and tentacle-claws that is called the Displacement Panther.

Or to make an austere race of psionic monks that live on a plane of absolute chaos and call them the Xerai, and they have a long standing feud with their cousins the Yanky, who live on the plane of thought and ectoplasm and tame red dragons and are militaristic and worship a soul-consuming god-queen with the Lich template. And have them both enslaved in times gone by by the Brain Friars. 

Vary the stats a wee bit (do Brain Friars really need the Cha or HD of a Mind Flayer? Give them more, or slightly less, or whatever). 

If WotC wants to be a bit of a bad-guy by retaining things that are aparently essential PI for them, we can be a bit of a bad-guy by making our own generic knock-offs. We can make our own Faygo versions of these Coke and Pepsi products.

No problem.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Missing creatures*



			
				Paradigm said:
			
		

> *This does put a halt to 4 of our 5 next essential books, but only 1 of the 4 has had any energy put into it. *




Yeah, the good news is that instead of worshipping the Slaad,  the Ssethregorans of Arcanis will have to worship something more chaotic and lizard-like - the mutable Del'kaan perhaps? (insert description of giant lizard-like creatures with a random number of limbs that move like multi-legged centaurs with more arms - they come in many varieties and have a strange internal evolutionary ladder that a particular member of the species may climb, with many seemingly random forks along the way).


----------



## jaldaen (Feb 15, 2003)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *If WotC wants to be a bit of a bad-guy by retaining things that are aparently essential PI for them, we can be a bit of a bad-guy by making our own generic knock-offs. We can make our own Faygo versions of these Coke and Pepsi products.
> 
> No problem.  *




Actually after going back over one of the earlier discussions on the OGL list I found the following posted by Ryan which might shed some light as to why:

1) You can't do what you just suggested (at least not the way you stated it).

2) Why these creatures were probably taken out of the SRD...

Please forgive the length of this quote, but I didn't want to cut anything...



> _Originally posted by Ryan_
> 
> > Ryan, is this an oversight or is it intentional?
> 
> ...




From the above I gather the following:

1) That from the beginning WotC was concerned with "derivitive works" abusing certain "PI" images in the MM...

2) That perhaps WotC was so concerned by the above that they decided to take out those creatures that they desired to protect from such violations (of which I believe there have been a few)...

3) That attempting to create "Brain Flayers", "Eye Balls", etc... would be considered "deriviate work" by WotC and probably frowned on by WotC and its probably its lawyers...

Hope this post by Ryan helps others to understand what perhaps is going on... I know it reminded me of the concerns WotC had with "derivative works" using the MM instead of the SRD as their basis... Perhaps WotC decided just to cut out the monsters to avoid problem...

Jaldaen


----------



## Jhyrryl (Feb 15, 2003)

> It's not hard at all for some d20 publisher to make a squid-headed creature that eats brains and is called the Brain Flayer...
> 
> Or for them to whip up a big eye with a lot of stalks and a jaw and magical powers from the eyes that is called the Eye Ball.




See, I want a shared mythos, but I don't want this.  Ideally the shared mythos I want is the same mythos that I've been playing with for over 20 years, not a knocked off version of it.  If it turns out that WotC will not cooperate with the concept, then any shared mythos needs to be something new and unique.


----------



## afstanton (Feb 15, 2003)

Jhyrryl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> See, I want a shared mythos, but I don't want this.  Ideally the shared mythos I want is the same mythos that I've been playing with for over 20 years, not a knocked off version of it.  If it turns out that WotC will not cooperate with the concept, then any shared mythos needs to be something new and unique. *




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?

New and unique is what made the game interesting in the first place - I'm not claiming that much of the small boxed set was original (far from it!) - but the ideas were, and the initial thrill of having some grotesque thing described in vivid detail by the DM and wondering, "Oh, crap, are we gonna die?"...that's what makes the game fun.

I'm guessing that more than a few of the 30-somethings reading this have been playing an insanely long time, long enough to have become jaded and recover more than once.  We know that the secret to recovering from being jaded is originality, not trying to recover past glory.  I'm suggesting that the idea of a mythos shared by multiple publishers (not merely authors) is sufficiently original to generate a lot of interest and energy.


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 15, 2003)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *Or to make an austere race of psionic monks that live on a plane of absolute chaos and call them the Xerai, and they have a long standing feud with their cousins the Yanky, who live on the plane of thought and ectoplasm and tame red dragons and are militaristic and worship a soul-consuming god-queen with the Lich template. And have them both enslaved in times gone by by the Brain Friars. *



While I don't condone this action, I am intrigued by these monks you mention, the Brain Friars. Some form of monastic order dedicated to reason, not divine worship, I assume. Cool concept. While rumored to eat brains, it is actually the zombies that they use for menial labor that occasionally munch a brain down.


----------



## ragboy (Feb 15, 2003)

*New Thread?*

Should we move discussion of this to an all new thread? I'm interested in new and different as a player, DM and developer. 

-- Rgb

PS: Hey Brannon! What happened to ps3e.com?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2003)

Well, the thing is...

I mean, look at something like the videogame Final Fantasy.

They had an enemy in there that was a squid-headed humanoid with a long rod in their hand, dressed in robes. They lived in caves, or near water, and could use a powerful ability called "brain blast" (or something similar) to confuse or stun your entire party...

It was called a WIZARD.

Other versions of the game have had other creatures...including one called a MINDFLARE.

Is this enfringement on a WotC copyright? It looks like a Mind Flayer. It blasts your brain. It even has a name that is even more suspect than Brain Friar. 

And Wizards doesn't seem to be too eager to sue Squaresoft over this.....

So there seems to be something of a crossover. Or at least a common mythological source for a squid-headed person that can blast your brain. So this isn't exactly derivative...or at least, not derivative from WotC, unless someone already did it. And then you can argue that you're taking inspiration from Final Fantasy, and not D&D...and in Final Fantasy, they're largely just another enemy to slice up.

I do think that just living in a world without them is best. Mutants and masterminds abound, and you don't need WotC's pre-established ones to be interesting or compelling.

But still....at least with the mind flayer, it seems suspect...maybe I'm just st00pid, though.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 15, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> *
> So are tanar'ri, baatezu, and a horde of other beasties.*



The tanar'ri and baatezu are just names thought up by TSR/Wizards during the 80's and 90's politically correct era (when TSR is trying to do right by grievances from religious institutions), but they basically describe the demons and devils, which are Public Domain.




> *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.*



Perhaps, but most companies knew what they're getting into when it comes to using the Draft sections of the SRD (found on www.opengamingfoundation.org) and the Gentleperson's Agreement.

The draft is NOT beta, nor it is the example of the final product, once Wizards R&D and Wizards Legal review, edit, and approve them.


----------



## Gothenem (Feb 16, 2003)

Fear not all, The Yuan-ti and Mind Flayer are in the d20 Modern SRD, so they're still legal  .

Otherwise, They may have taken them down for now to add those missing monsters.

    OK, I just went to d20 modern and checked, they're not there either! I'm seriously PEEVED!!!!


----------



## HellHound (Feb 16, 2003)

They were never in the modern SRD actually... I had noticed that and was wondering why... never made the connection however.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Re: Why*



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *long string of expletives deleted*
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 16, 2003)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> *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.  *




I think this was the first time that anything mechanical was dropped in the transfer from draft to released srd.

I thought everyone was surprised when the spells came out without even the abbreviated name from the draft version. In fact I have a file I believe you wrote up to rename the spells so that they would still be in the same rough alphabetical order, although that was definitely derivative of the originals.

After that I thought everybody thought the individual character names would be removed but that the underlying stats would still be released as happened in the magic item and spell sections.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 16, 2003)

Hellhound, are you still able to release the Veiled Masters?

I definitely want to buy that product.

(Is it in print or on PDF? A lot of products don't make it in print to Canada, unfortunately.)


----------



## Aitch Eye (Feb 16, 2003)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Does anyone have a quote from this book that verifies the name or description of displacer beasts? *




I have a copy of the story somewhere, I'll try to dig it up and get the relevant passages.

Until then, have a look at this cover from a Marvel Comics adaptation from February of 1974. My memory of D&D publishing history is fuzzy, but could displacer beasts have appeared in the game before then?

http://ksacomics.com/wu/wu5.htm

Here's another nice illustration by Bob Eggleton, though it postdates the D&D monster so may not be evidential:

http://www.bobeggleton.com/sfg001b.html

Unfortunately, the only images I can find of the 1939 _Astounding_ cover are a bit darker than I remember the original as being:

http://www.mmedia.is/vanvogt/voyageof.htm


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 16, 2003)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Does anyone have a quote from this book that verifies the name or description of displacer beasts? *




Etch! You caught me away from my S.F. collection for a week or so, this is from memory. If I had read this even a few hours sooner I could have given you quotes from the story.

The description was a large six legged black catlike being with tentacles ending in rough pads rising from its shoulders. It was never quite where it appeared to be, weapons missing it as a result. (No not just hard to hit, but the creature appearing 'displaced'. Unlike the displacer beast the creature feeds off of the id as well as the flesh of its victims.

While the word displaced was used in describing the beast's ability at no time is it refered to as a 'displacer beast.'

The story is part of the book 'Voyage of the Space Beagle', available as an e-book from Amazon.com. 

The story 'Black Destroyer' was the first one published for van Vogt (1912 - 2000) and was only later added to the book 'Voyage of the Space Beagle'  (1951). 

Much of van Vogt's work seems a bit dated now, largely consisting of 'here's the monster, now what do we do?' situations, but they are still fun reads. I recommend 'Voyage of the Space Beagle' and 'The Weapons Shops of Isher' in particular.

The Auld Grump, who did some digging online while writing this reply....


----------



## Strutinan (Feb 16, 2003)

*Mind Flayer replacement*

Well, i dug out an old GURPS Horror monster whos memory still gives me chills, and converted it to d20.  It is in the "Teasers" section of my website, and it is mostly OGC (only the history and culture are reserved, I want to develop them in Shades of Black after I finish Lands of Molokai).

DaemonEye Publishing


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 16, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> *I think this was the first time that anything mechanical was dropped in the transfer from draft to released srd.*




You have brought up a valid point that this recent revision from draft to finalized SRD section excludes mechanical material while others have only made cosmetic changes (names, how something is labeled, but not how something works). It appears that WotC's concerns about just changing things cosmetically are somewhat warranted, given the suggestions of some to simply use a different name and create new mechanics that do virtually what the removed ones did.  It's my opinion that the creative energies used to reproduce or mimic that which has been removed would be better channeled toward creating new materials in other areas.  I see no limit to imagination and don't feel that pursuing something that has been closed is worthwhile.  Certainly others may see things differently and to each their own.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> *I thought everyone was surprised when the spells came out without even the abbreviated name from the draft version. In fact I have a file I believe you wrote up to rename the spells so that they would still be in the same rough alphabetical order, although that was definitely derivative of the originals.*




I like to think that was a stop-gap method to tide us over between 3 and 3.5.  I'm fairly certain the intention on WotC's part was simply to remove the names from circulation (Mord****, Bigs***, etc) and not to disallow like-minded spells.  If this hadn't been their intention, I believe they would have yanked the full spell with those names, rather than simply dropping the names from them.  As you point out, my intention was to use common adjectives to maintain an alphabetic order to the spells (while things were sorted out through the next revision of the rules).  It can be suggested that the spells with common adjectives are derivitive of the spells mechanics left in the SRD by WotC that excluded their IP (which I do not believe to be a problem nor against the intent of WotC), while a renaming of the spells with misspelt the proper names is actually deritive of the IP and spells in the draft version where WotC had proper names (IP) still included (which I felt/feel is less in the spirit of WotC's intent and concerns).



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> *After that I thought everybody thought the individual character names would be removed but that the underlying stats would still be released as happened in the magic item and spell sections. *




You've hit the nail right on the head with this statement.  It's a matter of trying to follow WotC's intent.  I do not believe it serves anyone's best interest to try to find away around their method.  In the case of the spells, their intent was to still include the spells but protect IP.  In the case of these creatures they still want to protect the IP but they aren't intending to help other companies merely create knock-offs of their IP as may have happened with the spells where they merely removed the IP and left the mechanics.

In the case of the spells there was a school of thought that side stepping the intent, perhaps, by simply misspelling the names that were removed was a more useful way to go.  I believe that this method was counter to WotC's intent and would prove to be deriative of the removed IP names rather than deriative of the spells' mechanics themselves.

Now with the creatures, if the stats had been left in the SRD but the names had been changed I have no doubt that some companies would be including "Mind Frayers" and other such side steps.  I do not believe this is in the spirit of WotC's wishes or intent and it appears that they have removed the full mechanics of the creatures to leave no doubt this time around.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 16, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Hellhound, are you still able to release the Veiled Masters?
> 
> I definitely want to buy that product.
> 
> (Is it in print or on PDF? A lot of products don't make it in print to Canada, unfortunately.) *




I'm not the person releasing Veiled Masters, (it is a Paradigm Concepts product - not Ambient Inc.) and I am not in a position to be able to discuss the release of said book at this time.

It isn't a PDF product, it's a print book. 

I do believe that the book was en route to the printers already when the SRD was changed, but that all I know at this point.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Mind Flayer replacement*

. double post .


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Re: Mind Flayer replacement*



			
				HellHound said:
			
		

> *. double post . *



Are you having a problem with your connection Jason?  You seem to be havin 2x post problems.


----------



## Orcus (Feb 16, 2003)

Hi everyone-

I would encourage us to not take a "sky is falling" approach.

This isnt the first time stuff in the gentleperson's agreement has changed.

Many of you wont remember back that far, but in its first incarnation, the names of the Greyhawk gods were part of the gentleperson's agreement. Those were the first to be cut. Then the discussion about art derived from IP monsters. Then the spell names. 

So none of this is a shock--or can even be claimed to be a shock--by any d20 publishers. A disappointment, yes. But lets lay off the "dirty tricks" and "unfair tactics" comments. That just isnt correct and can only be made by people without full information.

Most importantly, however, this is a work in progress. Dont forget that the SRD will be updated for 3.5. It would not surprise me to see versions of those creatures in the 3.5 SRD even though they had been removed from the current SRD. 

Give things time to shake out. 

I havent yet heard from Ryan or Anthony or even Andy the intern who has been handling lots of the 3.5 stuff.

So chill out for a bit and lets get the official word.

Clark


----------



## MEG Hal (Feb 16, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *Hi everyone-
> 
> I would encourage us to not take a "sky is falling" approach.
> 
> ...




Words to live by!!!!


----------



## jaldaen (Feb 16, 2003)

Dead on Clark!

Jaldaen


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 17, 2003)

jaldaen said:
			
		

> *Dead on Clark!*



What?  You mean that Clark is dead?  Or is that he's buried underneath a pile of corpses?


----------



## Darke (Feb 17, 2003)

Perhaps "Un-dead on Clark!" ?

Should suit Orcus better or..?



das Darke


----------



## Gez (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Missing creatures*



			
				afreed said:
			
		

> *And fologub is spelled wrong (though the correct spelling is in the combat section).*




Pyrokenticist also.

Good character concept: the Fol[o]gub Pyrok[enti]cist. I can see it fighting against Type-0 Demons.


----------



## Gez (Feb 17, 2003)

What makes me wonder is the names "tanar'ri" and "baatezu". They will probably become subtypes in D&D 3.5, judging from the revised Pit Fiend stat block. If they become subtypes, like (fire) or (incorporeal), they may be put again into the SRD...


About mindflayer-like creatures appearing in other media, like Final Fantasy or other, isn't Duke Nukem's Octobrain a hybrid of mind-flayer and beholder ?







Doom's cacodemon (and its cousin the pain elemental) looks like both an astral dreadnought's head, and an eyestalkless beholder:









Compare with:






Shadowcaster's Opsis is beholder-like as well:





And here's an oldie, gazers from Ultima Underworld 1:


----------



## Orcus (Feb 18, 2003)

That was cool!


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 18, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *Many of you wont remember back that far, but in its first incarnation, the names of the Greyhawk gods were part of the gentleperson's agreement. Those were the first to be cut.*




I had been wondering why Heironeous was in a lot of your early books. St. Cuthbert too. Glad the mystery is solved. 



> _originally posted by Orcus_
> *Most importantly, however, this is a work in progress. Dont forget that the SRD will be updated for 3.5. It would not surprise me to see versions of those creatures in the 3.5 SRD even though they had been removed from the current SRD. *






> _originally posted by Gez_
> *What makes me wonder is the names "tanar'ri" and "baatezu". They will probably become subtypes in D&D 3.5, judging from the revised Pit Fiend stat block. If they become subtypes, like (fire) or (incorporeal), they may be put again into the SRD*




I live on hope...


----------



## CWD (Feb 18, 2003)

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...


----------



## Wyvern (Feb 19, 2003)

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 (Feb 19, 2003)

CWD said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (Feb 19, 2003)

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 (Feb 20, 2003)

afstanton said:
			
		

> *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 (Feb 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Why*



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> *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 (Feb 20, 2003)

CWD said:
			
		

> *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 (Feb 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Why*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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 (Feb 20, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Source?
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Why*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *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 (Feb 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why*



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> *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.


----------



## CWD (Feb 20, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Source?
> *




My publisher's correspondence with WotC, actually.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> *
> 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. *



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.

Oh, yeah. See my sig below.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 21, 2003)

*You mean something like this...*



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *In this case, anyone can take the concept of the beholder creature and make their own version or interpretation of that creature.*




http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41675


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 21, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. *





Look for the "Voiceless Ones" coming to Arcanis and they are going to be usable OGL. 


Eric Wiener
Paradigm Concepts, Inc.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: You mean something like this...*



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> *
> http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41675
> 
> *



First off, see my sig below.

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


----------



## Knightfall (Feb 21, 2003)

*Kraken Lord*

Check this out!

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41738

*Haven't* set the creature as OGC yet cause I want to get it fine-tuned by BOZ.  Who know's maybe I'll let him have it for the Creature Catalog.

{EDIT}

Of course, if someone wanted to pay me for it, I'd have to consider it. 

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Orcus (Feb 21, 2003)

*HEADLINE: Sky Not Falling*

As it turns out it looks like WotC is going to be very generous in allowing people to request and be granted permission to use the monsters that were removed. This is just a different way to achieve the same result: the d20 publishers get to use the monsters, they just have to get permission rather than use the OGL.

This should have ZERO impact. My understanding is that all who ask are being given permission. Now, in addition to the OGL text, people will have to put something like "Mind Flayers and Carrion Crawlers are not Open Game content and are copyright WotC and are used by permission" or some other type of text.

Of course, you do still have to ask permission.

Clark


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: HEADLINE: Sky Not Falling*



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> *This should have ZERO impact. My understanding is that all who ask are being given permission.*




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



> _Originally posted by Psion_
> *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.*




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


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: HEADLINE: Sky Not Falling*



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> *
> This should have ZERO impact. My understanding is that all who ask are being given permission. Now, in addition to the OGL text, people will have to put something like "Mind Flayers and Carrion Crawlers are not Open Game content and are copyright WotC and are used by permission" or some other type of text.
> 
> Of course, you do still have to ask permission.*



So, all you have to do is ask nicely and ye shall receive the permission?

Or are we missing a step in the process?


----------



## Strutinan (Feb 21, 2003)

The Psycholus 

Have at.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: You mean something like this...*



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: HEADLINE: Sky Not Falling*



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

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




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 (Feb 21, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *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 (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.)
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 21, 2003)

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 (Feb 21, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (Feb 27, 2003)

*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.
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 27, 2003)

*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 (Feb 27, 2003)

That looks rather slick...

What's the pending release date on this?

Edit: Never mind, found the answer.


----------



## Frilf (Feb 27, 2003)

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


----------



## philreed (Feb 27, 2003)

*Thanks.*

We work a lot.

Hey, call me when you get the chance.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 27, 2003)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The description was a large six legged black catlike being with tentacles ending in rough pads rising from its shoulders. It was never quite where it appeared to be, weapons missing it as a result. (No not just hard to hit, but the creature appearing 'displaced'. Unlike the displacer beast the creature feeds off of the id as well as the flesh of its victims.
> 
> ...




I must correct you here...

The Couerl (as the creature was known) was never displaced... it had the ability to neutralise energy outside its body - someone shot it with an energy pistol (called a vibrator - I kid you not) and it accidentally revealed its powers by stopping the beam hitting it. It could also interfere with the electical bonding in the ships super strong hull metal, turning it to dust, alter electrical currents in electronic locks etc. etc. Also it was intelligent and could make tools!

I can't imagine how the displacer beast could ever be associated with the Couerl!


----------

