Director of Brand Strategy
|
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.
Okay then! Anyone want an omelette? There's only a little bit of face in the eggs. I find that they really compliment all those feet I've been eating.
:D
...WotC would have to be willing to offer it, and Paizo would have to want to seek it.Neither of which is likely to happen any time soon.
I thought so upon reading the first statement. The only solution is to buy the old books and convert them for you home game (which shouls be no big problem). I would be very careful about posting those conversions anywhere public, though.
Stefan
|
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.
I'm also looking forward to seeing how dracoliches will reappear. Some form of death dragon needs to be invoked, inducing proper fear of dragons beyond level 20.
Are the Arcanis versions of mindflayers open content?
Actually what I think would be awesome is to ramp up the mindflayer equivalent for Pathfinder and make them more like the Wraith in Stargate Atlantis. Basically turning them into a form of psychic vampires who suck your life force out, leaving just an empty dry husk.
A list of non-OGL monsters
So how does one find out which monsters are OGL and which not, apart from not finding them in 3rd party publications? Is there an index somewhere?
A list of non-OGL monstersSo how does one find out which monsters are OGL and which not, apart from not finding them in 3rd party publications? Is there an index somewhere?
The WotC SRD lists all the WotC OGL monsters.
|
|
If it's not on this list it's not open content.
Just follow the yellow brick road..uh, I mean the link. ;-)
|
The WotC SRD lists all the WotC OGL monsters.A list of non-OGL monstersSo how does one find out which monsters are OGL and which not, apart from not finding them in 3rd party publications? Is there an index somewhere?
The SRD lists all WotC OGL monsters taken from Monster Manual I, Epic Level Handbook and Expanded Psionic Handbook.
Oh and there are two open monsters in Monster Manual II, which was about the moment WotC decided to go screw the whole OGL thing and publish (almost) everything as closed content.
However, at one point in the early years of 3.0 WotC gave Necromancer Games permission to print several monsters (Dark Creeper/Stalker, Shadow Demon, Nabasu, Jubilex, Orcus, Eye of the Deep, Slaadi Lords, Demodands, and several more) in the Tome of Horrors. As ToH is OGL, by this virtue those monsters were "opened", even though many of them were printed with new stats in subsequent WotC publications.
|
|
Beats me, but I think one of those was Scorpionfolk - weren't they WotC originally ? I'm having shady memories of that terrible board game with VHS tape, wasn't a Scorpion-man the main boss there ? Or am I really old and not drinking enough coffee ? :)
Weren't there scorpionfolks from Sumerian/Babylonian mythology?
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.
Well, actually, Paizo can easily make a "Mindbreaker" that looks just like a mindflayer and does the same thing. Nobody is stopping Paizo from doing that and the other retro-clones do it all the time. So you call the Githyanki "Astral Raiders" (I do on my oldschool blog). If you can stomach a name change then you can toss in any of these monsters. Nothing stops you from using the 3.5 books (as has been pointed out), so either way, your problem is solved.
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."
Right, it's nice to see the old favourites get a fresh paint job, but I don't think people really want to see Pathfinder completely married to established open content either. It's nice to see new things stand on their own feet...or tentacles or fins or...wings?
|
Beats me, but I think one of those was Scorpionfolk - weren't they WotC originally ? I'm having shady memories of that terrible board game with VHS tape, wasn't a Scorpion-man the main boss there ? Or am I really old and not drinking enough coffee ? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonStrike_%28board_game%29
also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8LBpMuSTrQ
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh and there are two open monsters in Monster Manual II, which was about the moment WotC decided to go screw the whole OGL thing and publish (almost) everything as closed content.Aren't those OGL monsters created by other creators that WotC republished?
Both the razor boar and the scorpionfolk were from the Creature Collection I. It was hailed as the success of the OGL formulae that WotC would include and reference such monsters in their own books.
And yes, with some exceptions (Unearthed Arcana, XPH) this book does seem to represent a 'sea change' in WotC's plans with the OGL system.
That said, I like the use of OGL monsters in Pathfinder. I know that Green Ronin has benefitted from their products being referenced in PF.
(Necromancer would as well, but I already bought the ToH series)
Aside the second: Aren't Reaper's gith minis called 'astral reavers'?
As a throwback to the compatibility issue- I've been running RotRL as-is(mostly) with Pathfinder characters. The only adjustment I've made is to calculate CMB/CMD as needed(thanks PF GM screen!) and to slow the advancement due to 6 characters in the group. Everything has been running quite well.
|
|
As a throwback to the compatibility issue- I've been running RotRL as-is(mostly) with Pathfinder characters. The only adjustment I've made is to calculate CMB/CMD as needed(thanks PF GM screen!) and to slow the advancement due to 6 characters in the group. Everything has been running quite well.
+1, I am on Sins of Saviors and didn't run into any trouble so far.
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."
Making Golarion and their game (and far more importantly, the modules and APs) just that much worse.
I'm glad they aren't considering the above.
As a throwback to the compatibility issue- I've been running RotRL as-is(mostly) with Pathfinder characters. The only adjustment I've made is to calculate CMB/CMD as needed(thanks PF GM screen!) and to slow the advancement due to 6 characters in the group. Everything has been running quite well.
Good to know. I have the AP and plan on running it with PFRPG characters once the homebrew game we're currently in finishes up next year. I was wondering whether I should try and do any conversions or leave as is. I think I'll leave as is. Thanks!
What problems would arise if one just applied a lich template to a dragon?
|
Creative Director
|
Well, actually, Paizo can easily make a "Mindbreaker" that looks just like a mindflayer and does the same thing. Nobody is stopping Paizo from doing that ...
Not quite true. I'm stopping Paizo from doing this. I don't think that disrespecting WotC's wish to maintain control over the monsters they've identified as their protected intellectual property is good for either Paizo OR WotC. With a few exceptions (such as the eye of the deep, which we made sure to make look as different from a beholder as we could, and which I doubt we'll ever use again), I'd much rather focus on monsters that we make up, monsters from myth and legend and cryptozoology, monsters from public domain sources, and monsters that ARE already open content.
It's easy to get hung up on the fact that there's 11 monster types that WotC has kept to themselves and forget the fact that there's a few hundred that they did not. We can still use otyughs, bulettes, rust monsters, aboleths, ankhegs, intellect devourers, aasimars, tieflings, all of the demons and devils, the dragons, black puddings, invisible stalkers, mimics, owlbears, gelatinous cubes, sahuagins, and xorns, to just scratch the surface of things that they probably COULD Have claimed as product identity. They didn't. That's worth keeping in mind.
|
Creative Director
|
What problems would arise if one just applied a lich template to a dragon?
None whatsoever. In fact, you'll note that for both the lich AND the vampire, we removed the requirement that you have to be humanoid to get into the class. So if you want a dragon lich in your Pathfinder game, all you need to do is put the template right on to the dragon. Dragons are, in fact, PERFECT candidates for the lich template.
|
|
It's easy to get hung up on the fact that there's 11 monster types that WotC has kept to themselves and forget the fact that there's a few hundred that they did not. We can still use otyughs, bulettes, rust monsters, aboleths, ankhegs, intellect devourers, aasimars, tieflings, all of the demons and devils, the dragons, black puddings, invisible stalkers, mimics, owlbears, gelatinous cubes, sahuagins, and xorns, to just scratch the surface of things that they probably COULD Have claimed as product identity. They didn't. That's worth keeping in mind.
To be honest, most of the eleven are creatures I have never used. In fact as a player of 29 years I have only ran up against one of the monsters on the no touchy list.
Neither of which is likely to happen any time soon.
Yeah, Set's Oblivion's Eye is way the hell cooler than a beholder, anyway.
Not quite true. I'm stopping Paizo from doing this. I don't think that disrespecting WotC's wish to maintain control over the monsters they've identified as their protected intellectual property is good for either Paizo OR WotC. With a few exceptions (such as the eye of the deep, which we made sure to make look as different from a beholder as we could, and which I doubt we'll ever use again), I'd much rather focus on monsters that we make up, monsters from myth and legend and cryptozoology, monsters from public domain sources, and monsters that ARE already open content.It's easy to get hung up on the fact that there's 11 monster types that WotC has kept to themselves and forget the fact that there's a few hundred that they did not. We can still use otyughs, bulettes, rust monsters, aboleths, ankhegs, intellect devourers, aasimars, tieflings, all of the demons and devils, the dragons, black puddings, invisible stalkers, mimics, owlbears, gelatinous cubes, sahuagins, and xorns, to just scratch the surface of things that they probably COULD Have claimed as product identity. They didn't. That's worth keeping in mind.
Well, ok, you have stopped this from happening, and that is your perogative. However, nothing LEGAL stops you from making a "Carcass Scavenger" (Labyrinth Lord's Carrion Crawler) or a "Phase Tiger" (the LL equivalent to the Displacer Beast).
I don't think that the choice of making an alternative version of a WotC IP creature is being disrespectful myself, it is filling a niche that they have chosen to remove (at their own choice, no foul there) but that some people may want to use out of nostalgia, converting an older module or just because they like that idea as presented originally.
Really, why would you use a creature like a bulette in the Pathfinder game? Probably because it is a creature that many of us are already familiar with, not just because WotC allows you to.
|
Creative Director
|
Well, ok, you have stopped this from happening, and that is your perogative. However, nothing LEGAL stops you from making a "Carcass Scavenger" (Labyrinth Lord's Carrion Crawler) or a "Phase Tiger" (the LL equivalent to the Displacer Beast).
Just because something's not illegal doesn't make it a good thing to do.
Well, ok, you have stopped this from happening, and that is your perogative. However, nothing LEGAL stops you from making a "Carcass Scavenger" (Labyrinth Lord's Carrion Crawler) or a "Phase Tiger" (the LL equivalent to the Displacer Beast).Just because something's not illegal doesn't make it a good thing to do.
Most legal things aren't all that fun to do. In the context of the conversation, however, it is still your perogative to do this for the official game world.
I think what sort of gets my goat more than the IP or Not-IP issue is that if you want an illithid for your game, just whip one up, it doesn't matter and isn't worth posting any angst about. Nobody will know unless you post about it anyway. I use all sorts of weird things in my game. Who cares? As long as we aren't making it a product and it is just in the context of the game, it is all well and good.
Well, ok, you have stopped this from happening, and that is your perogative. However, nothing LEGAL stops you from making a "Carcass Scavenger" (Labyrinth Lord's Carrion Crawler) or a "Phase Tiger" (the LL equivalent to the Displacer Beast).Just because something's not illegal doesn't make it a good thing to do.Most legal things aren't all that fun to do. In the context of the conversation, however, it is still your perogative to do this for the official game world.
I think what sort of gets my goat more than the IP or Not-IP issue is that if you want an illithid for your game, just whip one up, it doesn't matter and isn't worth posting any angst about. Nobody will know unless you post about it anyway. I use all sorts of weird things in my game. Who cares? As long as we aren't making it a product and it is just in the context of the game, it is all well and good.
Don't confuse what Paizo can do with what we, the gamers, can. You can make a PRPG game that completely revolves around Illithid and Githyanki. But the moment you start mass producing and selling your games, the lawyer machine would get cranked up.
(And I'm sure there are more details involved, but the basic point is YOU can use whatever IP you want for whatever game system you choose. Just keep it in your own game room and nobody gets hurt.)
(And I'm sure there are more details involved, but the basic point is YOU can use whatever IP you want for whatever game system you choose. Just keep it in your own game room and nobody gets hurt.)Except for the githyanki and beholders, one presumes.
Um, no. WotC CANNOT STOP us, the gamers, from continuing to use their 'IP' creatures in a AD&D, 3.5, PRPG, GURPS, or <insert gaming system here> if they wish. How would they even know? I believe the term is 'Fair use' or something... IANAL.
However NOBODY can make something using those monster and distribute it to others without WotCs permission, whether for free or profit.
Um, no. WotC CANNOT STOP us, the gamers, from continuing to use their 'IP' creatures in a AD&D, 3.5, PRPG, GURPS, or <insert gaming system here> if they wish. How would they even know? I believe the term is 'Fair use' or something... IANAL.
However NOBODY can make something using those monster and distribute it to others without WotCs permission, whether for free or profit.
No, I mean that nobody's getting hurt except the githyanki and the beholders.
Ah say, ah say, that was a joke, son, a joke, ya hear?
(Nice boy but about as sharp as a bag fulla hammers.)
You know what, maybe I'm tired and need to step away from the keyboard. But while your clarification of what you meant is appreciated, your follow up 'joke', really falls flat and to be honest, pisses me off. Just a bit.
Yes, I'm a cranky old bastard and need to hobble off to bed.
Shalom.
I, for one, don't see enough Foghorn Leghorn anymore. Perhaps I've found a new home!
|
i thought pathfinder was backwards compatible? if you have all these books, just use the beholder from them. make your own fluff.
what is allowed by ogl: anything that comes out of your own head.
HOw many times are you going to ask if PFRPG is backwards compatible? You know the answer to the question already (yes), yet after a quick perusal of your last 50 posts its clear that:
1- you don't play PFRPG. (I play PF)
2- you play 4e (I have no prob here, btw)
3- you posted this question 5 times in my count.
We have a lot of new people on the boards who arrived after the launch of 4e and PFRPG. If you are generally trying to be helpful, try stating that PFRPG is backwards compatable as fact rather than a question. By questioning it when you know that answer, it just sounds like you're trolling or trying to be antagonistic.
Honestly, by the way your posts read, your repeated questioning of backwards compatibility reads as a criticism and possible flame bait. I don't think that is your purpose, so please consider this a helpful suggestion. If, however, the sarcasm suggested by the posts is intentional, I will happily call for oil and torches to eliminate the edition wars troll before its too late.
Don't confuse what Paizo can do with what we, the gamers, can. You can make a PRPG game that completely revolves around Illithid and Githyanki. But the moment you start mass producing and selling your games, the lawyer machine would get cranked up.
(And I'm sure there are more details involved, but the basic point is YOU can use whatever IP you want for whatever game system you choose. Just keep it in your own game room and nobody gets hurt.)
I realize that and was saying two different things.
1) We (as GMs) can just grab the source from a 3.5 book or make one up, easily.
2) Paizo CAN make any of these monsters, with an altered name and changes to the statistics, this has been done legally several times.
Therefore, I am not confused, there are two different approaches, I was addressing the OP with one, and a Paizo staff member with the other.
|
|
There were many "close call" conversions of WotC IP in the past. Most of them have gone under the radar, mostly due to the fact that the publishers were small PDF companies, and that ultimately it all played into the hands of WotC (more material = more appeal of D&D).
Now, the situation in somewhat different. Paizo is a direct, in-your-face competitor of WotC. That means that Paizo team must be careful not to give even a slight opportunity for WotC (or anyone else for that matter) to sue them into oblivion.
So, you won't be seeing any Paizo "hacks" of non-OGL monsters - due to a) respect Paizo has to WotC IP (as voiced many times by James and Erik) b) possible legal risks attached.
This also means that Paizo won't be thrilled to see such conversions on this messageboard, even if fan-made. This place is owned by Paizo after all, so whatever happens on their turf ...
|
|
I'm sorry but i didn't call it a Dracolich, I called it an Undead Dragon.
Oh hold on a second... someone call Wizards of the Coast, because Blizzard stole the dragonlich.. not just once.. but for 3 different dragons in World of Warcraft!!! *gasps*
Wizards can't do anything about a dragon type named Undead Dragon with stats and no flavor text (referring indirectly to the Dracolich or just no text at all.)
The same go for all the other monsters.
Because you know what.. WoW also has a Beholder.. two of them.
|
|
If you can point me to an undead dragon named "Dracolich" and a floating ball with one big central eye and several eyestalks named "Beholder" in WoW I will be much obliged. Groblutsnak, 80 lvl Orc Shaman, Dragonblight-EU :)
Exactly, which is why stat-wise anyone can do a conversion of them and give them a new name and Wizard can't do anything about it, particular if it's just numbers on paper.
I never said I wanted Paizo to convert them, Paizo has already said they're not going to make wannabes.
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.
Much as I am loathe to admit it, Paizo's OGL Proteans are just plain better, crunch- and fluff-wise, than the slaadi were/are. {sighs}
Oh well, Wapner's on soon, then dinner at 3:30PM {goes back to rocking in chair}
Seriously, the Paizo gang does a bang up job with their monster "replacements" than the non-OGL iconic monsters. Grab the Bestiary and give them a try yourself. :)
If you want some really classic monsters put some thought towards picking up a copy of Tome of Horrors Revised. Pick up Creature Collection while you're at it and between those two books, there's enough monsters to make you forget all about beholders and githyanki. If you can't handle not having gith and beholders in your game, pick up one of the sixteen hundred WotC books they're strewn across, adjust the CR and CMB and you should be set.
If you think proof of lack of pristine and seamless backwards compatibility* X + legal loopholes not optioned on your behalf Y = XY internets, congratulations, here's the twenty thousand internets you have won. Feel free to trade in all those internets for the chance to think about the game you enjoy and whether or not simple adjustments to floating eyeballs prevents you from enjoying everything else Pathfinder has to offer.
* Prolly bears mentioning that any possible lack of seamless conversion tends to fall more on the shoulders of the backwards side of the deal though.
|
Creative Director
|
It may have been this thread... may have been another...
But have many folks noticed that we changed the lich AND the vampire templates so that they can be applied to ANY living creature? As in... there's basically rules for what amounts to dracoliches in the Bestiary already...
EDIT: This by no means should be taken as a hint that we'll never build some sort of undead dragon template, of course...
It may have been this thread... may have been another...
But have many folks noticed that we changed the lich AND the vampire templates so that they can be applied to ANY living creature? As in... there's basically rules for what amounts to dracoliches in the Bestiary already...
EDIT: This by no means should be taken as a hint that we'll never build some sort of undead dragon template, of course...
^_^ Naturally ... a lich will o' wisp is just all kinds of nasty. Just sayin'
This by no means should be taken as a hint that we'll never build some sort of undead dragon template, of course...
Please don't. You would deprive a great number of people of the joy of incessant whining at the unfairness of it all. Have a heart. It's Christmas.