Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Stats for the Lonely ones


Pathfinder Campaign Setting General Discussion


Im reading the new Gazeteer and got the the Gnome entry and read this

Others discovered that
the Second World had shadows of its own, and warped
their minds and bodies into dangerous forms capable
of defending themselves. The descendents of these
curmudgeonly misanthropes, called the Lonely Ones by the
gnomes themselves, are known to humanity as spriggans

I have alway loved Spriggans, they have always been one of my favorite low level enemies when will we get a chance to see stats for Pathfinder Spriggans


Joey Virtue wrote:

I have alway loved Spriggans, they have always been one of my favorite low level enemies when will we get a chance to see stats for Pathfinder Spriggans

Wouldn't the stats be the same as in the Monster Manual II? Or do you mean "fluff", not "crunch"?


A little of both since MMII is not OGL they will have to do differnt stats

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Yeah; we can't use the Monster Manual II spriggan because it's not open content. The name is from myth, though, so we CAN use that. Also; the spriggan is in the Tome of Horrors, and THAT'S open as well. It's most likely we'd go with the Tome of Horrors stats.


Doesn't "overwriting" existing 3.5 materials sort of defeat the purpose of backwards compatibility in some sense? (I'm only asking for the sake of argument -- to be honest, one spriggan is as good as another as far as I'm concerned.)


If its not open content then really it doesnt exsist to them, but like he said Tomb of Horrors is open content so they will more then likey use that one


you mean as evil as another right?


Joey Virtue wrote:
If its not open content then really it doesnt exsist to them, but like he said Tomb of Horrors is open content so they will more then likey use that one

I guess I got the impression that the makers of Pathfinder weren't into using "non-Open content with the serial numbers filed off" like Brain Scourgers, Floating Spherical Eye-Monsters and Spriggans-but-not-Closed-Content-Monster-Manual-II-Spriggans.


Like James said Spriggans are a creature of myth so WOC cant really claim the name


Joey is correct, Spriggans are creatures of ancient mythology; WoTC cannot claim intelectual property rights on them or the name. Now, if Paizo decided to copy wholesale the stats and descriptions, that would be a violation.

Paizo doesn't want to get into the whole "Brain-scourger/mind flayer" business because they wish to avoid liability


Rhavin wrote:
Paizo doesn't want to get into the whole "Brain-scourger/mind flayer" business because they wish to avoid liability

I don't want to get into a legal discussion (because I suspect none of us are lawyers) so let's leave mind flayers and beholders out of it.

Let me put it another way: I would find it odd if Pathfinder included some information on demodands in Varisia (say), then said "Don't worry -- Pathfinder demodands use the completely Open stats for demodands from the Tome of Horrors which are totally unrelated to any non-Open demodands one might find somewhere else. Those other demodands don't exist even though we're claiming to be backwards compatible with 3.5 materials that mention them."

(Feel free to replace "demodand" in the example above with any other creature that appears both in WotC form and "Open" form.)

Taldor

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
Rhavin wrote:
Paizo doesn't want to get into the whole "Brain-scourger/mind flayer" business because they wish to avoid liability

I don't want to get into a legal discussion (because I suspect none of us are lawyers) so let's leave mind flayers and beholders out of it.

Let me put it another way: I would find it odd if Pathfinder included some information on demodands in Varisia (say), then said "Don't worry -- Pathfinder demodands use the completely Open stats for demodands from the Tome of Horrors which are totally unrelated to any non-Open demodands one might find somewhere else. Those other demodands don't exist even though we're claiming to be backwards compatible with 3.5 materials that mention them."

(Feel free to replace "demodand" in the example above with any other creature that appears both in WotC form and "Open" form.)

I too would find it odd.

But if WotC had put centaurs, unicorns or nereids in the MM2, I would still expect a Paizo-compatible version because they are fairly well-known parts of the mythological worlds which underpin most western fantasy.

Spriggans also belong to that mythological world.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Correct, being backwards compatible doesn't necessarily mean that they account for every splatbook out there(especially since they can't use the material from them), but it means that if you want to use material from those books in your version of Golarion, you can import it with minimal(or no) alteration.

Spriggins in Golarion are going to have slightly different stats and/or abilities than the ones in the MMII have, but that is no different then the fact that Minotaurs in the Monstrous Manual are different then Minotaurs in the DragonLance Campaign Setting. Or Planetouched in the MM, vs PlaneTouched in Faerun.

Most campaign settings adapt creatures to match with their views of the world being designed. Golarion has to do so with the added thought of what is open content and not as well of course. But the benefit of their compatibility with 3.5 means that if you prefer the spriggins from the MMII when you see a spriggin in PF, just use one of those instead. Same way Ranger/Rogues can be swapped out for scouts, or your barbarian can become a Bear Warrior or anything else that fits your world.

Golarion, and PFRPG, have changed some of the parts from 3.5, but they are still all modular enough you can swap in and out the pieces you prefer.

-Tarlane


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Tarlane wrote:

Correct, being backwards compatible doesn't necessarily mean that they account for every splatbook out there(especially since they can't use the material from them), but it means that if you want to use material from those books in your version of Golarion, you can import it with minimal(or no) alteration.

Spriggins in Golarion are going to have slightly different stats and/or abilities than the ones in the MMII have, but that is no different then the fact that Minotaurs in the Monstrous Manual are different then Minotaurs in the DragonLance Campaign Setting. Or Planetouched in the MM, vs PlaneTouched in Faerun.

Most campaign settings adapt creatures to match with their views of the world being designed. Golarion has to do so with the added thought of what is open content and not as well of course. But the benefit of their compatibility with 3.5 means that if you prefer the spriggins from the MMII when you see a spriggin in PF, just use one of those instead. Same way Ranger/Rogues can be swapped out for scouts, or your barbarian can become a Bear Warrior or anything else that fits your world.

Golarion, and PFRPG, have changed some of the parts from 3.5, but they are still all modular enough you can swap in and out the pieces you prefer.

-Tarlane

Well put, Tarlane. The question of backwards compatibility comes up repeatedly on the boards since Paizo announced their plans, and that's the best explanation I've seen so far.


GeraintElberion wrote:


I too would find it odd.

But if WotC had put centaurs, unicorns or nereids in the MM2, I would still expect a Paizo-compatible version because they are fairly well-known parts of the mythological worlds which underpin most western fantasy.

Spriggans also belong to that mythological world.

I would agree with this theory if James had mentioned creating new stats for the spriggan based on its role in Cornish mythology rather than just off-handedly saying he'd use the Tome of Horrors version (which is just cribbed from the AD&D Fiend Folio/Monster Manual 2 like demodands, tri-flower fronds, froghemoths and just about everything else in that book).

Taldor

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:


I too would find it odd.

But if WotC had put centaurs, unicorns or nereids in the MM2, I would still expect a Paizo-compatible version because they are fairly well-known parts of the mythological worlds which underpin most western fantasy.

Spriggans also belong to that mythological world.

I would agree with this theory if James had mentioned creating new stats for the spriggan based on its role in Cornish mythology rather than just off-handedly saying he'd use the Tome of Horrors version (which is just cribbed from the AD&D Fiend Folio/Monster Manual 2 like demodands, tri-flower fronds, froghemoths and just about everything else in that book).

But beyond the generic nasty-fey stuff (mischief-making, malicious - reflected in CE alignment, access to flare, scare and shatter, plus sneak-attack) the only stand-out ability of Spriggans is that they swell to giant-size. That ability is in the Tome of Horrors.

If you have a problem with them being a type of gnome then that's been solved by making Galorian gnomes more fey.

So... the ToH Spriggans fit the folklore quite well and have some lovely dnd heritage to boot. Your argument only stands if the the AD&D Spriggan was detached from the folklore, but it wasn't.

It should also be noted that in past Pathfinder adventures James Jacobs has lifted a a ToH monster and then tweaked it a little to fit better with his conception of the beast (Bunyip and Tentamort are both flagged as ToH, but are actually different) so perhaps that's what he means?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

hogarth wrote:
I would agree with this theory if James had mentioned creating new stats for the spriggan based on its role in Cornish mythology rather than just off-handedly saying he'd use the Tome of Horrors version (which is just cribbed from the AD&D Fiend Folio/Monster Manual 2 like demodands, tri-flower fronds, froghemoths and just about everything else in that book).

To be honest... until we DO put a spriggan into a product, I'm not sure if we'll use the ToH stats or do something new. Take the redcap, for example. They're from mythology, and they also got statted up in one of WotC's newer Monster Manuals. We couldn't use the WotC stats because they were closed content. There's several other versions of the redcap out there in various OGL sources, but we chose instead to do our own thing with them and introduced them in Pathfinder #4 as a new monster. We did the exact same thing with the wendigo in Pathfinder #6.

When it comes time for spriggans, though, I'm pretty sure we'll use the ToH version. Here's another way to look at it: I'm a huge fan of the first monster books for 1st edition; Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, and the Fiend Folio. I suspect that 90% of the monsters in those books are in Golarion somewhere. And when these guys DO show up, we'll almost always use the SRD or the Tome of Horrors incarnation of them for stats. That includes spriggans, demodands, tri-flower-fronds, and froghemoths.

Especially froghemoths.

Redcaps and wendigos weren't in those first three books, so therefore I was less attached to them as D&D monsters and more attached to them as mythological/literary monsters, and so I decided to go with the entirely new monster route.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

GeraintElberion wrote:
It should also be noted that in past Pathfinder adventures James Jacobs has lifted a a ToH monster and then tweaked it a little to fit better with his conception of the beast (Bunyip and Tentamort are both flagged as ToH, but are actually different) so perhaps that's what he means?

Correct. Sometimes when we use a monster from Tome of Horrors or other Open Sources, some of their abilities are just not appropriate for Golarion. A CR3 monster with an instant-kill vorpal bite is no fun, for example, so I nerfed the bunyip's bite a little. I've even tinkered a bit here and there with SRD monsters (see the big sidebar about rakshasas in Pathfinder #9).

And also... just as we reimagined a fair amount of flavor for our goblins and ogres and kobolds and derros and so on... what you're seeing with the spriggans is, in the end, simply more reimagining like that.


Derroes ? Where ?


GeraintElberion wrote:
It should also be noted that in past Pathfinder adventures James Jacobs has lifted a a ToH monster and then tweaked it a little to fit better with his conception of the beast (Bunyip and Tentamort are both flagged as ToH, but are actually different) so perhaps that's what he means?

The Tentamort is a perfect example of what I'm wondering about. I don't see how taking some old non-Open AD&D monster like the tentamort (which was 100% fabricated from someone's feverish imagination, AFAIK, not from mythology) and converting it to an Open version is acceptable for Pathfinder, but converting other old non-Open D&D/AD&D content is not.

Is it just a matter of "Someone else did it first and didn't get sued, so it must be O.K.?" (I swear I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse; I'm just trying to clarify it in my head.)

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

Another point: Yes, the monsters are going to be close enough that you can eyeball, but there will be differences. Wouldn't you like a monster book that has the CBM (or whatever the term is for the mechanic that handles bullrush/overrun/grappling/etc) instead of having to calculate it out yourself or the effects of the modified toughness feat? Sure, you won't need to buy it, but wouldn't you (or someone else) want to buy it? There's absolutely no reason why you can't use your old monster books, esp if you're still using 3.5 instead of pathfinder RPG, but if you are using PFRPG, wouldn't it be easier if you had a book with those stats factored in?

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

hogarth wrote:
I don't see how taking some old non-Open AD&D monster like the tentamort (which was 100% fabricated from someone's feverish imagination, AFAIK, not from mythology) and converting it to an Open version is acceptable for Pathfinder, but converting other old non-Open D&D/AD&D content is not.

Tome of Horrors content was published by Necromancer Games and was released open content. Necromancer Games licenced those monsters from Wizards. So they are legally open content and are not "old monsters with the serial numbers filed off."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
Is it just a matter of "Someone else did it first and didn't get sued, so it must be O.K.?"

As opposed to, "Someone else did it first and it's good, why recreate the wheel?"

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

James Jacobs wrote:
A CR3 monster with an instant-kill vorpal bite is no fun

*frowns* What about that is wrong?!? Sometimes players get a little big for their britches.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Tome of Horrors content was published by Necromancer Games and was released open content. Necromancer Games licenced those monsters from Wizards. So they are legally open content and are not "old monsters with the serial numbers filed off."

Ah! The official licensing from WotC was the part I missed. So Wizards did essentially release those creatures as Open Content after all.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

hogarth wrote:
Ah! The official licensing from WotC was the part I missed. So Wizards did essentially release those creatures as Open Content after all.

No. Wizards didn't release it open content. Necromancer licenced the 1E versions of those monsters and released their 3E take on the 1E monsters open content. Wizard's 3E take was not released open content.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Ah! The official licensing from WotC was the part I missed. So Wizards did essentially release those creatures as Open Content after all.
No. Wizards didn't release it open content. Necromancer licenced the 1E versions of those monsters and released their 3E take on the 1E monsters open content.

That's why I said "essentially"; if they perpetually, irrevocably licensed those creatures to someone who released them as Open Content, it's not really any different than releasing the same creatures themselves as Open Content (in my view).

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

hogarth wrote:
it's not really any different than releasing the same creatures themselves as Open Content (in my view).

except that the ToH and MM monsters are different. Also, the ToH version is open content while the MM version is not.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Seldriss wrote:
Derroes ? Where ?

Derros appear in Pathinfder #7, but their role there isn't THAT huge. They'll be a bigger part of the upcoming "Into the Darklands" book.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

hogarth wrote:

The Tentamort is a perfect example of what I'm wondering about. I don't see how taking some old non-Open AD&D monster like the tentamort (which was 100% fabricated from someone's feverish imagination, AFAIK, not from mythology) and converting it to an Open version is acceptable for Pathfinder, but converting other old non-Open D&D/AD&D content is not.

Is it just a matter of "Someone else did it first and didn't get sued, so it must be O.K.?" (I swear I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse; I'm just trying to clarify it in my head.)

It's a sort of complex issue. When Tome of Horrors came out, they got permission from WotC to update a lot of the older monsters from 1st edition to 3.0. They did so, and as soon as they did that, those monsters became open content. Since then, WotC has updated some of those monsters as well, resulting in TWO versions of several of these creatures. One version is usable only by Wizards of the Coast, and one version is usable by anyone who does an open content OGL game. Since the vast majority of the books WotC produced for 3rd edition were NOT open content, they couldn't use the open content of the monsters (doing so would have forced them to open the entire book), but since they own the backstock of D&D, they COULD update these older monsters on their own.

A better example than the tentamort, honeslty, is the froghemoth. Here's a monster that wasn't part of mythology; a monster created by Gygax for "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks." It didn't get updated to 3.0 in the Monster Manual, but DID get updated in the Tome of Horrors. When I wanted to put a froghemoth into a Dungeon adventure, I couldn't use the Tome of Horrors version because Dungeon wasn't an open product. I had to build a new version of the creature for use in Dungeon as a result, which means that there's two versions of the creature floating around now. Now, if I wanted to put a froghemoth into Pathfinder, I couldn't use the version I created for Dungeon, since that version is closed content to me. But I CAN use the Tome of Horrors version. I can even tweak and update the ToH version, although I still have to credit the ToH in our OGL at the back of the book.

Alternately, let's look at the bullywug. This creature has NOT been updated in an open book; it appeared only in the closed "Monsters of Faerun" book that WotC put out not long after they started doing 3rd edition product. Bullywugs are not based on real-world myth, and therefore you can't use them unless you get WotC's permission or are working on an official D&D branded book. But the CONCEPT of a frog-man is open, so when we decided we wanted a bullywug-like race in Golarion, we started from scratch and the result is Pathfinder #2's boggard.

And in the end... this is an entirely different thing than "backwards compatibility." Different monsters based on the same stories or ideas in OGL, d20, and D&D are all from the same edition of the game; they're compatible by their very nature. Backwards compatibility doesn't enter the scene until we start doing Pathfinder RPG products and decide we want to include, say, a tarry demodand in an adventure. At that point, we'll need to update the tarry demodand from the Tome of Horrors to our new rules set. Whether or not the Pathfinder RPG tarry demodand is backwards compatable with the 3.5 rules is a different situation than the one that arose with the bunyip and tentamort in Pathfinder #1.


I'll be happy as long as any such creatures not in the SRD but yet remain OGL and are subsequently used get stats when suggested for use in AP's. If I don't have to go out and buy Tome of Horrors for baddies used just to get the right stats for a game, that would be my only fear.

I assume any such creatures (such as the redcaps) would be given stats if used in an upcoming AP, so I won't worry about it unless that's not the case. (for example, I'd hope I wouldn't need to buy any WotC products that stat out Drow in order to play the Second Darkness AP if I intended to use the Drow as suggested, and that any Drow encountered in the AP would already have stats to refer to instead of "see so-and-so, page #" to get any stats that isn't otherwise available on a free online SRD).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

DarkArt wrote:

I'll be happy as long as any such creatures not in the SRD but yet remain OGL and are subsequently used get stats when suggested for use in AP's. If I don't have to go out and buy Tome of Horrors for baddies used just to get the right stats for a game, that would be my only fear.

I assume any such creatures (such as the redcaps) would be given stats if used in an upcoming AP, so I won't worry about it unless that's not the case. (for example, I'd hope I wouldn't need to buy any WotC products that stat out Drow in order to play the Second Darkness AP if I intended to use the Drow as suggested, and that any Drow encountered in the AP would already have stats to refer to instead of "see so-and-so, page #" to get any stats that isn't otherwise available on a free online SRD).

We print full stat blocks for all creatures that show up in an adventrue if that creature has any class levels, advancements, templates, or is from a non-SRD source. The only drow in the SRD is a 1st level warrior, so pretty much ALL drow that appear in Second Darkness will indeed have full stat blocks.

Same with spriggians if/when they ever show up in an adventure.

Andoran

James Jacobs wrote:
I'm a huge fan of the first monster books for 1st edition; Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, and the Fiend Folio. I suspect that 90% of the monsters in those books are in Golarion somewhere.

I hope that will include the flumph.

If not, I'll just put them in anyway. ;)

Sam


Samuel Leming wrote:

I hope that will include the flumph.

If not, I'll just put them in anyway. ;)

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the 1st edition flavour of the next few Pathfinder adventure paths:

* Against the Flail Snails
* Vault of the Trillochs
* Queen of the Nilbog Pits


hogarth wrote:

* Against the Flail Snails

* Vault of the Trillochs
* Queen of the Nilbog Pits

I would buy all of those. ALL OF THEM!


James Jacobs wrote:


We print full stat blocks for all creatures that show up in an adventrue if that creature has any class levels, advancements, templates, or is from a non-SRD source. The only drow in the SRD is a 1st level warrior, so pretty much ALL drow that appear in Second Darkness will indeed have full stat blocks.

Same with spriggians if/when they ever show up in an adventure.

Huzzah! Thanks for the reply, James.


and what await to my beloved displacer beast or the mindflayer one? those guys are in the 1st 3.0 et 3.5 mm... ¿?


Thread necromancy much?

Displacer Beasts and Mindflayers are not open content, along with a few other monsters.


Fabius Maximus wrote:

Thread necromancy much?

Displacer Beasts and Mindflayers are not open content, along with a few other monsters.

i know, and a shame of that. really the displacer was a great monster... i suggest a minute of silence for her!!

the minflayers actualy never likes me the same for the "freholder" but the displacer... i mean, i actualy use that beast in my pfrpg games, but i would love to see her at the bestiary


There is, however, the Coeurl from "The End of Eternity", part 4 of the Legacy of Fire AP. It's based on the same monster the Displacer Beast was based upon. But the Coeurl does not seem to be Open Content, either, so you'd have to buy the book, or know someone who owns it.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Stats for the Lonely ones All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.