I don't see how WotC or anyone else can own:
ANY dinosaur: For example- "Terror Bird" is an actual name of a real extinct critter.
ANY living animal, plant, fish, or giant variety thereof
ANY mythical monster: For example, Kraken
ANY mythical gods or entities: For example, Dagon
Assuming that you don't just rip off stat blocks of course.
Am I correct in this assumption?
-Darren
I think so - "common names" like Dagon, Thor, kraken, what-have-you are well within the "OK" areas.
Creative Director
|
You are indeed correct.
In fact, there's only a relatively few number monsters that they've claimed as product identity: beholder, carrion crawler, displacer beast, slaad, githyanki, githzerai, kuo-toa, yuan-ti, mind flayer, and umber hulk.
The rest are open season. Including ropers, rust monsters, purple worms, gelatnous cubes, otyughs, owlbears, and so on.
How about that extraplanar creature with four tenticled arms and a tube used for siphoning your brains the protrudes from its torso? Oh, lets add that it has strange psionic abilities that eminate from it's derrier :) Those aren't ok, right?
How about that extraplanar creature with four tenticled arms and a tube used for siphoning your brains the protrudes from its torso? Oh, lets add that it has strange psionic abilities that eminate from it's derrier :) Those aren't ok, right?
There are a ton of OGL mind flayer alternatives created to specifically fill this need. Ari Marmell has created a pretty well respected on in his PDF The Iconic Beastiary: Classics of Fantasy (available from Paizo in addition to the usual PDF suspects), the phrenic scourge. They're what Wolfgang Baur is using instead of illithids in the newest Custom Adventure module, Empire of the Ghouls, in fact.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
How about that extraplanar creature with four tenticled arms and a tube used for siphoning your brains the protrudes from its torso? Oh, lets add that it has strange psionic abilities that eminate from it's derrier :) Those aren't ok, right?
Are you perhaps talking about Phil, our sales guy? If so, the abilities emanating from his derriere are *not* psionic, no matter what he claims.
This totally strikes me as the perfect time to submit my "Varisia" adventure involving beavers and an awakened muskrat (Muskrat Love, it's a WiP). Let's see them put the OGL smackdown on that!
Contributor
|
There are a ton of OGL mind flayer alternatives created to specifically fill this need. Ari Marmell has created a pretty well respected on in his PDF The Iconic Beastiary: Classics of Fantasy (available from Paizo in addition to the usual PDF suspects), the phrenic scourge. They're what Wolfgang Baur is using instead of illithids in the newest Custom Adventure module, Empire of the Ghouls, in fact.
Similarly, Monte Cook has an "Ocular Tyrant" in Ptolus. It's an aberration that looks like a giant floating eye with smaller eyestalks that fire magical rays.
He also has characters with spells with names like "Mel's Acid Arrows" and "Mord's Magnificent Mansion."
Now, I wouldn't want to push it personally, but there are ways to get around some of the product identity rules.
Craig Shackleton
The Rambling Scribe
|
Similarly, Monte Cook has an "Ocular Tyrant" in Ptolus. It's an aberration that looks like a giant floating eye with smaller eyestalks that fire magical rays. He also has characters with spells with names like "Mel's Acid Arrows" and "Mord's Magnificent Mansion." Now, I wouldn't want to push it personally, but there are ways to get around some of the product identity rules.Craig Shackleton
The Rambling Scribe
Hey! There's my US-Copyright-Office-recipe-and-ingredients argument in action! Oh...that's another thread for anyone who cares...
Similarly, Monte Cook has an "Ocular Tyrant" in Ptolus. It's an aberration that looks like a giant floating eye with smaller eyestalks that fire magical rays.He also has characters with spells with names like "Mel's Acid Arrows" and "Mord's Magnificent Mansion."
To be fair: Those spells are SRD, their names just aren't. Now the Ocular Tyrant....I don't know where the law'd fall on that one.
|
Contributor
|
To be fair: Those spells are SRD, their names just aren't. Now the Ocular Tyrant....I don't know where the law'd fall on that one.
Similarly, Monte Cook has an "Ocular Tyrant" in Ptolus. It's an aberration that looks like a giant floating eye with smaller eyestalks that fire magical rays.He also has characters with spells with names like "Mel's Acid Arrows" and "Mord's Magnificent Mansion."
It does help with the spells though. I've been fooled a few times with other OGL products when I haven't had enough coffee into looking for spells in the wrong places. It's a nice gentle reminder of where to look.
The Ocular Tyrant does have a number of significant descriptive differences from the Beholder (like it has only 2 eyestalks). I haven't actually read the stat block, but I'm sure it's different as well. Ultima got away with the "gazer" so I think it would be hard to make a strong case against the ocular tyrant.
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
The Ocular Tyrant does have a number of significant descriptive differences from the Beholder (like it has only 2 eyestalks). I haven't actually read the stat block, but I'm sure it's different as well. Ultima got away with the "gazer" so I think it would be hard to make a strong case against the ocular tyrant.
I think it'd be hard for Wizards to walk into an American court of jurisprudence and not get some real "strong" jury reactions over suing somebody for the number of eyestalks on a make believe creature in a game that only 5% of the population even has a clue about.
Who'd want to risk it though. It'd be high drama on Court TV, I'm sure.
|
|
I think it'd be hard for Wizards to walk into an American court of jurisprudence and not get some real "strong" jury reactions over suing somebody for the number of eyestalks on a make believe creature in a game that only 5% of the population even has a clue about. Who'd want to risk it though. It'd be high drama on Court TV, I'm sure.
I really wonder that the industry is such a cash cow, and that "beholder" is so important that TMs and Copyright make that much difference financially. And if it made it to CTV--I'd definitely watch!
|
One of the more difficult things about patents and trademarks is protecting them within the limits of the law. Change the thing protected by 20% and it is no longer protected. FOr example, the name beholder is trademarked, but not the description. Use a different name and same desription and you are set.
Same thing applies to the abilities. When they close the d20 system down to a propriatary system again anyone can use Strength, Desterity, Constitution, Intelligence and Wisdom and Charisma, and by adding maybe Appearance or Vitality to the list you are free from worries as your system is now different.
Course, I am not a lawyer and the laws may have changed since I last learned that. :)
However, with a recent Bill before Congress (not sure if it has passed yet or not), attacks on Trademarks and Patents will be easier as they will be handled by the department and not the courts. This means challenging costs will drop substantially and filings will increase.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm not really interested in spending much time developing copycat mind flayers and beholders. There's PLENTY of monsters in the SRD and OGL sources, and an infinite number still waiting to be invented by our authors. I'd rather focus on all of the classic critters we CAN play with in an OGL product than the ones we can't.
James Jacobs
I'm not really interested in spending much time developing copycat mind flayers and beholders. There's PLENTY of monsters in the SRD and OGL sources, and an infinite number still waiting to be invented by our authors. I'd rather focus on all of the classic critters we CAN play with in an OGL product than the ones we can't.
here here i'm with u there copys are just that copys and i love the new goblins so focus away cant wait to see more
What's the position on monsters that never made it into 3rd edition from earlier editions?
How about yuan-ti? Open, or closed and shut off forever?
What's the position on monsters that never made it into 3rd edition from earlier editions?Almost all of those monsters are in the Tome of Horrors, whih is OGL. So that makes them available for Pathfinder, as far as I can tell.
Great! (Runs off to start digging out all those poor abandoned monsters)
How about yuan-ti? Open, or closed and shut off forever?
Those are gone, and good bye....
fortunatly, the ToH series has the Iphidians, which make an intereswting yuan-ti replacement. :)
|
Creative Director
|
How about yuan-ti? Open, or closed and shut off forever?Those are gone, and good bye....
fortunatly, the ToH series has the Iphidians, which make an intereswting yuan-ti replacement. :)
And more to the point... there's always the serpent folk from the extended Lovecraft mythos (Robert E. Howard used them a lot in his stories). They've got a strong presence in Freeport, and make EXCELLENT yuan-ti "replacements." Frankly... I like them BETTER than yuan-ti, and I suspect that they were a large part of the original inspiration for the yuan-ti in the first place.
They've got a strong presence in Freeport, and make EXCELLENT yuan-ti "replacements." Frankly... I like them BETTER than yuan-ti, and I suspect that they were a large part of the original inspiration for the yuan-ti in the first place.
..and then there's the Deep Ones.
follow up: I hope Paizo* doesn't filter out all mail from hotmail because I sent a query for 2 new monsters the other day from my hotmail account. I know you have to wait for replies but I'd hate to think that I'm waiting for nothing.
-Darren
*the gatekeeper account.
|
|
And more to the point... there's always the serpent folk from the extended Lovecraft mythos (Robert E. Howard used them a lot in his stories). They've got a strong presence in Freeport, and make EXCELLENT yuan-ti "replacements." Frankly... I like them BETTER than yuan-ti, and I suspect that they were a large part of the original inspiration for the yuan-ti in the first place.How about yuan-ti? Open, or closed and shut off forever?Those are gone, and good bye....
fortunatly, the ToH series has the Iphidians, which make an intereswting yuan-ti replacement. :)
YIG!!!!!
..and then there's the Deep Ones.
The sahuagin should make decent replacements for the deep ones; though, you'd have to do something else for hydrids--maybe an alternate sahuagin mutant... hmm. I'd rather use kua-toa (one of the non-SRDs that hurts the most for me), but, "o well."
They've got a strong presence in Freeport, and make EXCELLENT yuan-ti "replacements." Frankly... I like them BETTER than yuan-ti, and I suspect that they were a large part of the original inspiration for the yuan-ti in the first place.
Thanks you James for reminding me of the serpent people! Good stuff. Are the Freeport versions officially open?
So the non-SRD MM critters I'm most concerned about are listed below. Do you know of a suitable OGL substitute?
Here are the others too.
I believe one of the ToH's has a replacement for the mind flayer called the "encephalon gorger".
I believe one of the ToH's has a replacement for the mind flayer called the "encephalon gorger".
They're not a cheap illithid knock-off, either. They're darn creepy, in fact. Yurk!
What's the position on monsters that never made it into 3rd edition from earlier editions?Almost all of those monsters are in the Tome of Horrors, whih is OGL. So that makes them available for Pathfinder, as far as I can tell.
Hopefully some those will get the Paizo "tweak" before use. In my opinion the ToH conversions were largely mechanical, and almost mindless in some cases--not to fault NG for that; they were certianly the first to produce such a large-scale conversion-fest, and deserve a ton of credit for the sheer magnitude of that task. But, honestly, almost all of the ToH conversions could use revisiting (remember what WotC finally did to the disenchanter? Yeah, like that).
Uh, seriously . . . I'm not sure what the big deal is in finding replacements of all the non-SRD creatures.
I know that personally, if I get to a point in a Pathfinder AP where a little light bulb clicks on in my head and says to me "Hey, this BBEG/monster/mook is great, but it'd be better if it were [insert Non-SRD entity here]" no one at WotC is going to come to my house and slap my wrist.
If I come to the paizo message forums and post my thoughts, the WotC SRD Nazi's still won't come beating down my door.
There's no reason for a mad dash to find replacements for some of our favorite creatures. The only reason i could see for my part in being in a mad dash to make replacements is if i were actually working for paizo, and I'm not. But, I will sayt hat I have complete faith in those at Paizo that they do have any type of creature replacement (if any) is either already in process, or being planned for.
Er . . . sorry if this came out somewhat rantish. but seriously, there's no need to get your panties in a bunch.
|
Creative Director
|
Hopefully some those will get the Paizo "tweak" before use. In my opinion the ToH conversions were largely mechanical, and almost mindless in some cases--not to fault NG for that; they were certianly the first to produce such a large-scale conversion-fest, and deserve a ton of credit for the sheer magnitude of that task. But, honestly, almost all of the ToH conversions could use revisiting (remember what WotC finally did to the disenchanter? Yeah, like that).
They will indeed have some tweaking. In some cases to change stats in minor ways here and there (either to update to the current rules or to just mesh more nicely with how we're doing things in Pathfinder). They'll CERTAINLY have reimagined physical looks and ecological niches and all that.
Are Lovecraft beasties OGL?
Mi-go make awesome aberrations, and the gnoph-keh is cool for arctic adventures. (Among others...)
|
Creative Director
|
Are Lovecraft beasties OGL?
Mi-go make awesome aberrations, and the gnoph-keh is cool for arctic adventures. (Among others...)
That's kind of tricky... I'm pretty sure that the d20 CoC versions are not, but the concepts for the monsters are in a weird sort of public domain fugue. The fine folks over at Chaosium would certianly know. I do intend to talk with them about the possibility of doing d20 mythos monsters at some time along the road...
|
|
That's kind of tricky... I'm pretty sure that the d20 CoC versions are not, but the concepts for the monsters are in a weird sort of public domain fugue. The fine folks over at Chaosium would certianly know. I do intend to talk with them about the possibility of doing d20 mythos monsters at some time along the road...
Hopefully, the Chaosium guys are cool and all because my love for the Mythos is almost as old as my love for D&D.
What about monsters that first appeared in Tome of Horrors but were then later issued in a 3.5 version by WoTC?
For example, the Huecuva appears in ToH but is also in some 3.5 book (memory fails me - FF perhaps?)
Can the ToH Huecuva appear in Pathfinder or is it off limits because WoTC has created their own version?
|
Creative Director
|
What about monsters that first appeared in Tome of Horrors but were then later issued in a 3.5 version by WoTC?
For example, the Huecuva appears in ToH but is also in some 3.5 book (memory fails me - FF perhaps?)
Can the ToH Huecuva appear in Pathfinder or is it off limits because WoTC has created their own version?
As far as I understand it, yes, we can use the ToH version of the Huecuva but not the FF version.
As far as I understand it, yes, we can use the ToH version of the Huecuva but not the FF version.
Thanks! That's good to know.
Nothing to stop DMs from substituting beholders and such into the adventures for other monsters if we wish. I'm sure most DMs around here could manage to do this. :)
As for frog-like creatures to replace kuo-toa, how about bullywugs?
And if bullywugs are taboo, there are the tsuthars(sp) in the ToH. Pretty much evil frog people like bullywugs.
