aku |
I'll assume the question is meant seriously...
Beholders are not open-game-license material. WotC never opened them up for general public use and thus Paizo can't use them. There are a few other creatures like this, notably mind-flayers..
i didnt even notice the mindflayer. not open content? that is crazey talk i thought all the books where open content...now i hate 4th ed that much more
DM Jeff |
Correct. And since I see the question pop up more often, the more times it is out there the more helpful. So, here are the off-limits non-OGL monsters (list may not be complete):
Beholder
Cambion
Displacer Beast
Dracolich
Dragonspawn
Flameskull
Githyanki
Githzerai
Hook Horror
Kruthik
Kuo-Toa
Mind Flayer
Otyugh
Owlbear
Sahuagin
Shadar-Kai
Shifter
Slaad
Umber Hulk
Warforged
Yuan-Ti
BobChuck |
nothing in 4th edition is open content, that was third edition and 3.5.
Not everything in 3rd editon was open content. Anything related to any setting, including greyhawk, was not available, hence the wacky spell and item names. Certain monsters that WotC and D&D could realistically claim as having created were also not open content, such as beholders and mind flayers; Order of the Stick has fun with this (or maybe got a real C&D order, which is even funnier): http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0032.html
Sean K Reynolds Contributor |
Mark Moreland Director of Brand Strategy |
i didnt even notice the mindflayer. not open content? that is crazey talk i thought all the books where open content...now i hate 4th ed that much more
It really has nothing to do with 4th edition, since the decision to withhold certain monsters as proprietary intellectual property was made when 3.5 and the OGL were still in their earliest stages. You'll note, though, that nowhere in the 3.5 core books did Wizards include the OGL statement or declare any content within the books to be open content. That declaration came with the release of the SRD, which was a completely separate document (which happened to not include several monsters, character creation rules, city creation statistics, and a few other elements which do appear in the printed version of the PHB, DMG, and MM).
aku |
They've been that way since 3e, actually, along with the carrion crawler, mind flayer, displacer beast, and a few others.
well i have every 3.5 book so really i dont need an update..i just like to see new stuff.. i hope to see more of the dungeon denizens and beastery annuals. P.S. the completes re worked like the warlock and dread necro
Shar Tahl |
Correct. And since I see the question pop up more often, the more times it is out there the more helpful. So, here are the off-limits non-OGL monsters (list may not be complete):
Beholder
Cambion
Displacer Beast
Dracolich
Dragonspawn
Flameskull
Githyanki
Githzerai
Hook Horror
Kruthik
Kuo-Toa
Mind Flayer
Otyugh
Owlbear
Sahuagin
Shadar-Kai
Shifter
Slaad
Umber Hulk
Warforged
Yuan-Ti
These three from this list are in Pathfinder Bestiary
OtyughOwlbear
Sahuagin
erian_7 |
well i have every 3.5 book so really i dont need an update..i just like to see new stuff.. i hope to see more of the dungeon denizens and beastery annuals. P.S. the completes re worked like the warlock and dread necro
The Complete Series from WotC is also not Open Game Content. None of that will be reworked for Pathfinder. Nor is the Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, etc. etc. Pretty much every WotC book except for the PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, and Unearthed Arcana are closed content. Of those four, not all parts are open.
aku |
aku wrote:well i have every 3.5 book so really i dont need an update..i just like to see new stuff.. i hope to see more of the dungeon denizens and beastery annuals. P.S. the completes re worked like the warlock and dread necroThe Complete Series from WotC is also not Open Game Content. None of that will be reworked for Pathfinder. Nor is the Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, etc. etc. Pretty much every WotC book except for the PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, and Unearthed Arcana are closed content. Of those four, not all parts are open.
sad face
Gorbacz |
aku wrote:well i have every 3.5 book so really i dont need an update..i just like to see new stuff.. i hope to see more of the dungeon denizens and beastery annuals. P.S. the completes re worked like the warlock and dread necroThe Complete Series from WotC is also not Open Game Content. None of that will be reworked for Pathfinder. Nor is the Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, etc. etc. Pretty much every WotC book except for the PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, and Unearthed Arcana are closed content. Of those four, not all parts are open.
The SRD includes elements of
PHB
DMG
MM
Epic Level Handbook
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Unearthed Arcana
Spell Compendium (domains)
Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |
hogarth |
Gorbacz wrote:It also contains parts of Deities and Demigods, which I think is the original source of the domain material you're crediting to the Spell Compendium.The SRD includes elements of
PHB
DMG
MM
Epic Level Handbook
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Unearthed Arcana
Spell Compendium (domains)
Likewise, no part of Unearthed Arcana is in the SRD. Many parts of Unearthed Arcana are Open Content (which is not the same thing as being in the SRD).
Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |
Joshua J. Frost |
From what I've been told, Pathfinder is technically 3.5 compatible... but not really.
It is actually compatible.
Roll up 4 Pathfinder RPG characters. Play them straight out of the PRPG book.
Now use any monster from the 3.5 handbook, adjusting nothing in their stats and abilities except for calculating their CMB/CMD.
Have the 4 Pathfinder RPG PCs fight the 3.5 monster.
A fight will happen, dice will be rolled, abilities (on both sides) will be used, and everyone will have fun.
Result: backward compatibility.
Now, if you're saying that it's not backward compatible because some of the non-open 3.5 content requires extra work to make compatible, that's a different story. We can't really take into account material we can't use, but are confident a 3.5 Warlock, for example, could be played mostly as is side-by-side with a PRPG Wizard.
Rezdave |
Roll up 4 Pathfinder RPG characters. Play them straight out of the PRPG book.
Now use any monster from the 3.5 handbook, adjusting nothing in their stats and abilities except for calculating their CMB/CMD.
Have the 4 Pathfinder RPG PCs fight the 3.5 monster.
A fight will happen ...
And the 3.5 Ed. monster will be mercilessly crushed by the PFRPG Power-creep.
Backwards compatible mechanically, but not always functionally.
IMHO,
Rez
Snakey |
Joshua J. Frost wrote:Roll up 4 Pathfinder RPG characters. Play them straight out of the PRPG book.
Now use any monster from the 3.5 handbook, adjusting nothing in their stats and abilities except for calculating their CMB/CMD.
Have the 4 Pathfinder RPG PCs fight the 3.5 monster.
A fight will happen ...
And the 3.5 Ed. monster will be mercilessly crushed by the PFRPG Power-creep.
Backwards compatible mechanically, but not always functionally.
IMHO,
Rez
It's not "power-creep", it's reasonable adjustment. The 3.5 monsters are notoriously miss-CRed, so in PF, some have been brought-down in power, and some have been boosted. That's why there is a new bestiary, with new write-ups. IF you use the old monsters, you'll have to use common sense when it comes to balance, but honestly, they pretty-much work right out of the box. A lot of mechanical issues from 3.5 were addressed in PF, so there will be some discrepancies with the way some things work, but Paizo's eye for balance is top-notch.
David Fryer |
Caedwyr wrote:Use two of the 3.5 Monsters instead of one? 3.5 was never known for having reliably accurate monster CRs anyways, so the fact that the listed CR doesn't match up isn't a new situation.Boneclaws, anyone?
Dragons are a major culprait too. When I did my dragon conversions many of them had way too many HD for their CR, some of them had 10 or more HD higher.
BobChuck |
I've noticed that these forums do not believe in "on-topic", and things tend to turn into shouting matches rather quickly if the topic in question is not settled in a timely manner. Things are too polarized.
I've already abandoned my "party roles" thread, as it went off topic pretty quickly, got yanked back on topic for 5ish posts, then veered off to discuss Fighters being underpowered at the level cap. The discussion isn't "wrong", but it is rather polarized, and definately not on-topic.
The only way to 'fix' it would be to aggressively redefine the current culture of the forums; it's just easier to bring the topic up again later.
Besides, this thread is called "WTF"; what do you expect an on-topic discussion to look like?
Joshua J. Frost |
Joshua J. Frost wrote:Roll up 4 Pathfinder RPG characters. Play them straight out of the PRPG book.
Now use any monster from the 3.5 handbook, adjusting nothing in their stats and abilities except for calculating their CMB/CMD.
Have the 4 Pathfinder RPG PCs fight the 3.5 monster.
A fight will happen ...
And the 3.5 Ed. monster will be mercilessly crushed by the PFRPG Power-creep.
Backwards compatible mechanically, but not always functionally.
IMHO,
Rez
Mechanically, yes. Functionally? Buy a Bestiary.
Joshua J. Frost |
spalding |
Since the OP was *ahem* very vocal about his unhappiness with the monsters missing, what are the chances of paizo doing some sort of "pay to play" with those monsters?
I know it is probably a question that will get me attacked to no end, but I was just curious.
It can't be done by Paizo... it's intellectual property... Wizards owns said creatures and isn't letting anyone else have them for gaming purposes... so it doesn't matter what Paizo might want to do, they can't touch them at all.
The One Who Makes You Angry |
The One Who Makes You Angry wrote:It can't be done by Paizo... it's intellectual property... Wizards owns said creatures and isn't letting anyone else have them for gaming purposes... so it doesn't matter what Paizo might want to do, they can't touch them at all.Since the OP was *ahem* very vocal about his unhappiness with the monsters missing, what are the chances of paizo doing some sort of "pay to play" with those monsters?
I know it is probably a question that will get me attacked to no end, but I was just curious.
Thats why I was wondering about some sort of "pay to play". Now I know that is not realistically what paizo wants to do (nor do I want them to do it!), but I was just curious if that was possible.
I don't know the ins and outs of the OGL all that well.
David Fryer |
PulpCruciFiction |
Thats why I was wondering about some sort of "pay to play". Now I know that is not realistically what paizo wants to do (nor do I want them to do it!), but I was just curious if that was possible.
I don't know the ins and outs of the OGL all that well.
Sure, it's theoretically possible for Paizo to obtain a license to use monsters that aren't open content. But in order for them to obtain one, WotC would have to be willing to offer it, and Paizo would have to want to seek it.
James Jacobs Creative Director |
Laddie |
Once Paizo is done updating the content we all know and love, they'll be able to move in new directions like you're seeing with the Advanced Player's Guide. True, you won't be seeing a 'beholder' or 'dracolich' any time soon, but you can't copywrite the basic ideas behind a laser-spitting eyeball or an undead dragon. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to seeing what new party-mashers Paizo can come up with that can become the new world's most popular role playing game monsters.
Zurai |
Paizo's already remade some of WotC's non-OGL creatures in their own way. WotC's Bullywugs, for example, became Paizo's Boggards. I doubt you'll ever see an official Paizo recreation of the Beholder simply because it's such a strange corner-case creature, but stuff like Dracoliches are almost certain to be done in Paizo fashion at some point.
Mark Moreland Director of Brand Strategy |
The funny thing is that while Beholders are WotC IP, their aquatic variant - Eye of the Deep - is open content thanks to Tome of Horrors.
Just because something's open content doesn't mean Paizo will ever use it though. While they could use an eye of the deep or a slaad lord, once they start including partial elements, they're going to get even more fans crying on the boards that their favorite closed content monster isn't included. As long as there are no floating eyes (or swimming eyes, or whatever) in Golarion or the Pathfinder RPG, then it's easier to say "those just aren't part of our game."
Gorbacz |
Gorbacz wrote:The funny thing is that while Beholders are WotC IP, their aquatic variant - Eye of the Deep - is open content thanks to Tome of Horrors.Just because something's open content doesn't mean Paizo will ever use it though. While they could use an eye of the deep or a slaad lord, once they start including partial elements, they're going to get even more fans crying on the boards that their favorite closed content monster isn't included. As long as there are no floating eyes (or swimming eyes, or whatever) in Golarion or the Pathfinder RPG, then it's easier to say "those just aren't part of our game."
Dear Yoda, you might want to check the 3rd part of Legacy of Fire. An Eye of the Deep is there, ready to go "zam-zam" with it's eye rays.
Also, Neothelids vs. Illithids, same story.