I know I saw a couple of folks mention the use of Tome of Horrors from Necromancer. But, I thought I would start a thread just to give the idea a bit of a push. Necro has published 3 Tome of Horrors, and all three have some great little beasties that are waiting to be used. Since these are open for all to use, it would be great to see them work their way into a Pathfinder or into a Gamemastery module. I am ok with seeing them reprinted in a Pathfinder Book, especially if they were featured in that issue. for all the work that went into them, I feel like they have not seen a lot of use in published modules outside of Necro's own adventures.
I agree . . . to some extent; I mean if they use ToH that is cool, I believe they would reprint whatever they are using in the book (they said as much), but I also wouldn't mind if Paizo kept cranking out new monsters or altered some of ToH's to better fit the Pathfinder setting.
Creative Director
|
We are going to be cranking out new monsters. Six per month in Pathfinder, at a minimum. Not sure how long we can or will want to keep that pace up, but for now... we'll be doing lots of monsters.
Also, not all the monsters in the Tome of Horrors are created equal; some just don't fit in with what we're doing in Pathfinder. The monsters from TOH 1 have the advantage of nostalgia; a lot of them are from earlier editions, updated to the current rules.
We'll certainly pick up monsters now and then from OGL sources, but in the end, the monster has to be right. In cases where an SRD monster will work just as well, I'll generally go with the SRD just because that keeps the really obscure/exotic/unusual monsters just that: exotic and unusual.
I bought ToH2 and was impressed at all the open content stuff. Then I bought ToH3 and found that it was way less open than ToH2. All of the monster names, for example, are open in volume two and closed in volume three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bought ToH2 and was impressed at all the open content stuff. Then I bought ToH3 and found that it was way less open than ToH2. All of the monster names, for example, are open in volume two and closed in volume three.
Tome 3 is actually more open/OGC than Tome 2. (Tome 2 listed the N'gathau as closed content). Tome 3 is completely 100% open (with the exception of a couple of references to Lucifer's palace, etc). ALL of the monster names, stats, text, etc in Tome 3 are 100% OGC.
Scott Greene
Necromancer Games
and there you go, straight from the source.
Tome 3 is actually more open/OGC than Tome 2. (Tome 2 listed the N'gathau as closed content). Tome 3 is completely 100% open (with the exception of a couple of references to Lucifer's palace, etc). ALL of the monster names, stats, text, etc in Tome 3 are 100% OGC.
Scott Greene
Necromancer Games
The reason that I misunderstood is that what you write above isn't what the book actually seems to say.
Any and all material or content that could be claimed as Product Identity pursuant to section 1(e), below, is hereby claimed as product identity . . .
There's nothing like that in ToH2. I'm not a lawyer and might be misinterpreting, but section 1(e) specifically allows creatures to be included as product identity.
That being said, I'll take your declaration of intent as much clearer than my admittedly-amateur interpretation of the OGL any day. :)
I love all three Tome of Horrors books. I don't love every monster in them, but enough to more than justify buying all three. Personally, as much as I love the "golden oldies" in volume 1, I really like new monsters like the crucifixion spirit even more.
The reason that I misunderstood is that what you write above isn't what the book actually seems to say.
Any and all material or content that could be claimed as Product Identity pursuant to section 1(e), below, is hereby claimed as product identity . . .There's nothing like that in ToH2. I'm not a lawyer and might be misinterpreting, but section 1(e) specifically allows creatures to be included as product identity.
That being said, I'll take your declaration of intent as much clearer than my admittedly-amateur interpretation of the OGL any day. :)
Yep- monsters could be claimed as PI. But that was never Clark's (Peterson) intent (or mine) with the Tome series. Its all about sharing and stuff. :-)
Look at the third paragraph, page 245. Starts with "Designation of Open Content".... "All text within this product, excluding text on the inside or outside of the front and back covers..." So- all text (monster names, descriptive text, stats, etc.). All open.
Also- in the section you quoted, part 4, the only parts of the book (text-wise) that are claimed as PI are "Infernus", "Malefacta", "Unholy Schism", "Plane of Molten Skies". (Im just referring to text within the book here [monster-wise], not the book's title, or Necromancer's name, etc...which are all PI as well.)
All other monstery text (monster names, descriptions, stats, etc)....completely open.
Thanks so much for the clarifications! This is really helpful.
Look at the third paragraph, page 245. Starts with "Designation of Open Content".... "All text within this product, excluding text on the inside or outside of the front and back covers..." So- all text (monster names, descriptive text, stats, etc.). All open.
You didn't quote the whole sentence.
All text within this product-excluding any text on the inside or outside of the front or back cover or on the Credits page-is hereby designated as Open Game Content, subject to the Product Identity designation below. (emphasis mine)
Also- in the section you quoted, part 4, the only parts of the book (text-wise) that are claimed as PI are "Infernus", "Malefacta", "Unholy Schism", "Plane of Molten Skies". (Im just referring to text within the book here [monster-wise], not the book's title, or Necromancer's name, etc...which are all PI as well.)
All other monstery text (monster names, descriptions, stats, etc)....completely open.
The bit I quoted said that anything that could be claimed as PI was hereby claimed as PI, "including but not limited to" a bunch of examples (including part 4). It's at the top of the column that contains part 4 (which wasn't what I was intending to quote). I don't understand part 4, I admit; all the negatives make my head spin.
I'm not saying any of this to argue with you; I fully accept your authority in declaring what's open and what's not. :) I'm just trying to explain why it looks like volume three is a lot more closed than volume two to my completely-non-lawyer eye. Thanks again for helping me to understand.
I'm not saying any of this to argue with you; I fully accept your authority in declaring what's open and what's not. :) I'm just trying to explain why it looks like volume three is a lot more closed than volume two to my completely-non-lawyer eye. Thanks again for helping me to understand.
No worries. Its all good. Likely just worded differently than Tome 2. Anyway- with the exception of the names in part 4 (Infernus, etc)...all the monstery stuff (except artwork of course) is OGC. :)
|
We are going to be cranking out new monsters. Six per month in Pathfinder, at a minimum. Not sure how long we can or will want to keep that pace up, but for now... we'll be doing lots of monsters.
Also, not all the monsters in the Tome of Horrors are created equal; some just don't fit in with what we're doing in Pathfinder. The monsters from TOH 1 have the advantage of nostalgia; a lot of them are from earlier editions, updated to the current rules.
We'll certainly pick up monsters now and then from OGL sources, but in the end, the monster has to be right. In cases where an SRD monster will work just as well, I'll generally go with the SRD just because that keeps the really obscure/exotic/unusual monsters just that: exotic and unusual.
Hello James,
can I reason from your answer that the six new monsters per month will be "connected" to the adventure path part of the same month?
Reasons for my attempt at "reasoning" ;-) :
- You mentioned that the "back matter" would support each month's adventure, and critters would be "back matter", wouldn't they?
- PF is all about adventure paths: which sense in including monsters not usable in the adventure path?
- You indicated in your answer above, that not the complete range of monsters in ToH was usable in your campaign world. So again: Why include monsters in PF which wouldn't be usable in your very own campaign?
I'd be happy if things were planned that way. You also mentioned that each PF issue would contain material ready to expand the ap to a DM's own liking. Monsters which enhance a setting's ecology, would certainly facilitate this, same as NPCs and NPC organisations, history tid bits, and local variations on standard feats/ skills/ class standards...
Are my assumptions correct? ;-)
Greetings,
Günther
I believe they indicated that earlier. Although each monster won't necessarily make an appearance within the adventure, they will be thematically tied to it. That way, if you've got a side-trek situation that comes up, you could easily borrow one of the new monsters in Pathfinder to fill that need. Also, if you needed to adapt the adventure (say for a larger-than-average party), you could probably take one of the new monsters and weave them into the adventure as well.
Aside from that, just look at the extra monsters as...well, extra monsters...to be used however you wish. Somewhere down the line, after they've done enough of these, I could easily see a Paizo-inspired "monster manual" coming out as a product offering, too. But, as with all things, we'll have to wait and see...
My two-cents,
--Neil
|
|
Hello Neil,
thanks for this information.
You are right, but to me much of PF's appeal stems from the fact that everything needed for an adventure can be found in one volume.
Take in contrast to PF e.g. Dragon: It's already no easy task to find something in back issues. You are helpless without one of the online indices.
So having everything belonging to a certain subject in one book would be most helpful for me. I'd be looking forward to a monster book, too, of course. ;-) Or, if possible, to Dragon Compendium II (-> different thread). ;-)
Greetings,
Günther
|
Creative Director
|
All of the new monsters in Pathfinder are either in the adventure or relate thematically in some manner to the adventure. For example, in Pathfinder #1 we have (Spoilers!):
1: Goblin Dogs: Mounts used by goblins (in the adventure)
2: Runespawn: Creepy mutant monsters (in the adventure)
3: Giant Gecko: Big lizards (in the adventure)
4: Sandpoint Devil: Creature inspired by the Jersey Devil (not in the adventure, but it lives in the adventure region)
5: Attic Whisperer: Creepy undead creature that haunts old attics (not in the adventure, but tied to Varisia thematically)
6: Goblin Snake: A naga-like monster with a goblin head (not in the adventure, but tied thematically to goblins, who ARE in the adventure)
All six of the new monsters are creatures you can use in your own games, of course. And all of them are OGL as well, so they can be used in other d20/OGL products also.
|
Creative Director
|
You also mentioned that each PF issue would contain material ready to expand the ap to a DM's own liking. Monsters which enhance a setting's ecology, would certainly facilitate this, same as NPCs and NPC organisations, history tidbits, and local variations on standard feats/ skills/ class standards...
Are my assumptions correct? ;-)
They are indeed!
All of the expansionary material is bundled with the AP. It can also be used outside of the AP in other games with ease, and will very likely be utilized and referenced in other Pathfinder Adventure Paths as well, although generally not as strongly as in the AP in which the support material first appeared.
|
All of the expansionary material is bundled with the AP. It can also be used outside of the AP in other games with ease, and will very likely be utilized and referenced in other Pathfinder Adventure Paths as well, although generally not as strongly as in the AP in which the support material first appeared.
This is all good, I like that everything needed for an adventure is contained within the Pathfinder issue in which the adventure appears.
Where it starts to break down, however, is if Goblin Dogs become iconic to the setting, how can they reapper in future Pathfinder adventures? Those who have Pathfinder#1 wouldn't need Goblin Dog reprinted as one of the six new creatures in Pathfinder#7, for example. While those who have Pathfinder#7 would be at a loss if they didn't own Pathfinder#1.
I mentioned this in another thread without any reply, so I thought I'd try again. What if Goblin Dog (as a ficticious example) appeared in Pathfinder#7 as:
Goblin Dog (2) CR 1/2
hp 8 each; Pathfinder#1 pgXX
[OGL substitute: ToH Rat, Giant Sewer pgXX ]
[Core substitute: MM Dog, Riding pgXX ]
The idea is, without reprinting creatures that appeared in past Pathfinder issues, these creatures can reappear in future Pathfinder issues by referencing the issue number of creature's original appearance. However, for those those who don't have the required back-issue of Pathfinder, they're able to substitute something nearly as cool from some other OGL source, or at least something that works from the Monster Manual. At least until a "Monsters of Pathfinder" volume is released.
|
This is all good, I like that everything needed for an adventure is contained within the Pathfinder issue in which the adventure appears.
Where it starts to break down, however, is if Goblin Dogs become iconic to the setting, how can they reapper in future Pathfinder adventures? Those who have Pathfinder#1 wouldn't need Goblin Dog reprinted as one of the six new creatures in Pathfinder#7, for example. While those who have Pathfinder#7 would be at a loss if they didn't own Pathfinder#1.
They'll likely do the same thing they did in Dungeon. That is, the stat block for the Goblin Dog will appear within the adventure as needed, but the full monster entry will not appear in the "New Monsters Section." That way, the goblin dog will be fully usable within the context of the adventure, but if you want the full monster entry you'll have to purchase a copy of Pathfinder #1.