Owlbears and Otyughs, Oh My! Saying 'Bon Voyage' to our favorite OGL Monsters


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

If we're going the animal hybrid route again, it'd be nice if they had some kind of modular monster or template so that we could literally have everything in this thread as an option.

A swarm of piranhacondas...hehe.

Heck yes! Just have a combined animal monster and give it modular abilities based on different animals.

Gorillapotamus, elephanturtle, rhinocemoose.

The only drawback is if the GM uses too many and it'd start to feel like they're copying ATLA...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

If we're going the animal hybrid route again, it'd be nice if they had some kind of modular monster or template so that we could literally have everything in this thread as an option.

A swarm of piranhacondas...hehe.

Heck yes! Just have a combined animal monster and give it modular abilities based on different animals.

Gorillapotamus, elephanturtle, rhinocemoose.

The only drawback is if the GM uses too many and it'd start to feel like they're copying ATLA...

Copying from your favourite media is a time honoured GMing tradition, passed down through the ages!

... Though if the main antagonist faction employs primarily pyrokineticists and monks with a northern shaolin style, you may have a point in recommending them to give the Avatar RPG by Magpie Games a try.

This message is not sponsored by Magpie Games or the Apocalypse Engine, I just really think it's a neat game


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe its time to check this thread out, or do a hybrid animal version

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Am owlcat could be cool, but I think that's taken. How about a coyotecrow? Or a graverobbing vulturemole? Moles are pretty unsettling up close.

Owlkittens are technically a thing thanks to Headchomper from the Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous video games (he was a pet item you could have in both games)!

Wayfinders Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Maybe its time to check this thread out, or do a hybrid animal version

Oh that thread is hysterical. Thank you for sharing this one.

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think with that, my perspective would be that the dragon has sympathetic goals but is willing to use sinister means. It's nice, though, that we'll no longer have to worry about that sort of confusing contradiction with the new system. To a lot of people, an "evil" alignment on a character they want to root for just feels wrong.

Well, it should feel wrong (or at least not obviously right) to root for someone who will casually hurt innocent people (aka Evil).

I most sincerely hope removing alignment will not result in telling black and white one-sided stories.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Casually" is your way of running evil, not mine. :)

I also didn't say anything about removing nuance from play. The contradiction I was talking about was "Evil character we're meant to root for", which could rub people with your perspective the wrong way. I didn't run Evil as "casually hurting innocents", but if you do, there aren't going to be many very likable Evil characters.

Without alignment, there's no more Capital E Evil. There's just the character, and we interpret them subjectively. That's more nuance, not less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think with that, my perspective would be that the dragon has sympathetic goals but is willing to use sinister means. It's nice, though, that we'll no longer have to worry about that sort of confusing contradiction with the new system. To a lot of people, an "evil" alignment on a character they want to root for just feels wrong.

Well, it should feel wrong (or at least not obviously right) to root for someone who will casually hurt innocent people (aka Evil).

I most sincerely hope removing alignment will not result in telling black and white one-sided stories.

I mean, it's kind of hard to get much more black and white than "this guy has a G, so they're the good guy, and that one has an E, so they're the evil one."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think with that, my perspective would be that the dragon has sympathetic goals but is willing to use sinister means. It's nice, though, that we'll no longer have to worry about that sort of confusing contradiction with the new system. To a lot of people, an "evil" alignment on a character they want to root for just feels wrong.

Well, it should feel wrong (or at least not obviously right) to root for someone who will casually hurt innocent people (aka Evil).

I most sincerely hope removing alignment will not result in telling black and white one-sided stories.

I mean, it's kind of hard to get much more black and white than "this guy has a G, so they're the good guy, and that one has an E, so they're the evil one."

"This one is on my side of the issue, so they can do no wrong" does feel worse to me.

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"Casually" is your way of running evil, not mine. :)

I also didn't say anything about removing nuance from play. The contradiction I was talking about was "Evil character we're meant to root for", which could rub people with your perspective the wrong way. I didn't run Evil as "casually hurting innocents", but if you do, there aren't going to be many very likable Evil characters.

Without alignment, there's no more Capital E Evil. There's just the character, and we interpret them subjectively. That's more nuance, not less.

You are right. My answer was too hasty in the wording.

In my understanding of the alignments, Evil was perfectly fine with hurting innocent people. Not in the meaning that they would always been doing it, but in the meaning that, if it was required, they would definitely not feel bad about it.

I definitely liked that Ardax the White Hair was Evil. That makes for a far more interesting conundrum IMO than he being merely the tough guy on our side.

I feel it becomes too easy to sidestep the lesser evil dilemna without this.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'll miss the name Gripplis, believe it or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Mimic name is almost certainly unusable. And the concept of monster disguised as furniture to fool adventurers and eat them seems pretty clearly dnd-inspired.

So, good bye IMO.

IIRC the concept of "inanimate object that is actually alive and eats people" is a concept used widely outside of DnD. IIRC, Manley Wade Wellman has a short story about a house that does just that, and it's cropped up in other horror and fantasy fictions. Off the top of my head, there is the notorious B movie "Death Bed: The bed that eats" which is about a man-eating bed. Also the movie "Killer Condom", which yeah is something that exists


Will manticores and sphinxes be changed? Hell Hounds?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Wait and see. :-)

Wayfinders Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Will manticores and sphinxes be changed? Hell Hounds?

Changed? Maybe. Removed? I doubt it. All three come from mythology.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.
Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.

So basically, WotC's Open Game License is no longer "open", so Paizo has to scramble for similar monsters to avoid copyright infringements?

That sounds like a huge hassle more than anything else...

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.
Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.

So basically, WotC's Open Game License is no longer "open", so Paizo has to scramble for similar monsters to avoid copyright infringements?

That sounds like a huge hassle more than anything else...

And Pinkertons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ched Greyfell wrote:
I'll miss the name Gripplis, believe it or not.

C'mon folks, this comment deserves all of the favorites.

Wayfinders Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Grippli was an excellent name. I just imagined all those tree frog toes gripping trees and cave walls as cute little frogfolk climbed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.
Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.

So basically, WotC's Open Game License is no longer "open", so Paizo has to scramble for similar monsters to avoid copyright infringements?

That sounds like a huge hassle more than anything else...

My boiling blood sweat bubbles for battle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
JiCi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.
Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.

So basically, WotC's Open Game License is no longer "open", so Paizo has to scramble for similar monsters to avoid copyright infringements?

That sounds like a huge hassle more than anything else...

And Pinkertons

rage meter fills

Wayfinders Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, watching the D&D movie, Honor Among Thieves, gives an excellent indication of some of the creatures that Hasbro might consider iconic to the D&D universe.

Some of OGL monsters that appear in the movie include:

★ Owlbears

★ Mimics

★ Gelatinous Cube

★ Black Dragon

★ Red Dragon (though this one was apparently a specific fat D&D dragon named Themberchaud)

★ Rust Monsters

★ Intellect Devourer

And there's others like yuan-ti and displacer beasts, but I think those were always exclusionary content for D&D that were never OGL at all.

I have also noted that Hasbro has licensed adorable plush stuffed animals of many of these via Kidrobot, and they are super cute. So my guess is that these are ones that D&D might be extra protective of as their creations.

Extra reading: thegamer.com's list of classic D&D monsters in Honor Among Thieves.

Extra viewing: a brief Youtube Clip listing many of the monsters and showing their appearances in the film.


The stuffed displacer beast was a favorite with mine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

As an aside, watching the D&D movie, Honor Among Thieves, gives an excellent indication of some of the creatures that Hasbro might consider iconic to the D&D universe.

Some of OGL monsters that appear in the movie include:

★ Owlbears

★ Mimics

★ Gelatinous Cube

★ Black Dragon

★ Red Dragon (though this one was apparently a specific fat D&D dragon named Themberchaud)

★ Rust Monsters

And there's others like yuan-ti, displacer beasts and intellect devourers, but I think those were always exclusionary content for D&D that were never OGL at all.

I have also noted that Hasbro has licensed adorable plush stuffed animals of many of these via Kidrobot, and they are super cute. So my guess is that these are ones that D&D might be extra protective of as their creations.

Extra reading: thegamer.com's list of classic D&D monsters in Honor Among Thieves.

Intellect Devourers are definitely a thing in Pathfinder...Honestly Pathfinder has done a way better job with them then WotC did, so losing them makes me a sad panda.

Wayfinders Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The displacer beasts in the movie were really quite gorgeous. I could see wanting one of those plushies if I was a kid.

Thanks for the correction on the Intellect Devourer being OGL. I edited my previous post!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
rage meter fills

Not sure what's filling your rage meter. Is it the idea that we're putting off doing non-OGL versions of the classic D&D dragons longer? Or is it the idea that we're doing this at all in the first place? Or is it the idea that we have to do this because we need to?

Regardless of the reason, my advice to anyone who's getting angry about these changes is to take a deep breath and find your inner peace for now and to assume that we've got our game's best interest at heart.

If you've found that Paizo has ultimately made decisions for the game that you enjoy in the past, please trust us to continue to approach this with the same care and deliberate work that we have before.

If you've found that Paizo continues to take the game in directions that vex and frustrate you, maybe Paizo games aren't for you. That's fine! Not everyone needs to like the same things and there are a LOT of options out there for tabletop RPGs.

In any event, it takes a lot of time to make these changes and we want to do them right while also trying to remain transparent about what and how and why AND manage expectations. So... patience is the main thing I'm asking for folks for now.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

James, I'm 99.9% sure that Freehold DM was joking like they were in the post just above that one.

That said, I agree with everything in your post.

I mentioned in another thread that the remaster feels to me as if the Pathfinder butterfly is finally breaking free of its chrysalis, and I meant it.

I was very upset when PF2 was announced because I loved PF1 so much, but I've been completely converted.

The new system is by far the best I've ever seen, and honestly the last bits of adherence to the "traditions" of D&D have been the parts of PF2 that I liked the least.

It's sad that the change was forced by such unethical behavior of that other company, but I'm convinced that it's all going to turn out for the best.

I'm so excited to see what the creatives at Pathfinder will do now that the 'shackles' of the OGL and the D&D legacy features are entirely gone.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I assumed they were talking about the Pinkertons stuff, personally. If it was about the Remaster, it's kind of a hostile 'joke'.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

James, I'm 99.9% sure that Freehold DM was joking like they were in the post just above that one.

That said, I agree with everything in your post.

I mentioned in another thread that the remaster feels to me as if the Pathfinder butterfly is finally breaking free of its chrysalis, and I meant it.

I was very upset when PF2 was announced because I loved PF1 so much, but I've been completely converted.

The new system is by far the best I've ever seen, and honestly the last bits of adherence to the "traditions" of D&D have been the parts of PF2 that I liked the least.

It's sad that the change was forced by such unethical behavior of that other company, but I'm convinced that it's all going to turn out for the best.

I'm so excited to see what the creatives at Pathfinder will do now that the 'shackles' of the OGL and the D&D legacy features are entirely gone.

I'd like to assume they're joking, but the internet has trained me to never assume. ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can get feeling upset about certain monsters going away, I feel that towards a couple like the mimics and gelatinous cubes. But none of that anger should be directed at Paizo since they're not at fault here, and personally my excitement to see what new monsters they make outweighs that, or seeing how they're able to put a new spin on some of the classics.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
rage meter fills

Not sure what's filling your rage meter. Is it the idea that we're putting off doing non-OGL versions of the classic D&D dragons longer? Or is it the idea that we're doing this at all in the first place? Or is it the idea that we have to do this because we need to?

Regardless of the reason, my advice to anyone who's getting angry about these changes is to take a deep breath and find your inner peace for now and to assume that we've got our game's best interest at heart.

If you've found that Paizo has ultimately made decisions for the game that you enjoy in the past, please trust us to continue to approach this with the same care and deliberate work that we have before.

If you've found that Paizo continues to take the game in directions that vex and frustrate you, maybe Paizo games aren't for you. That's fine! Not everyone needs to like the same things and there are a LOT of options out there for tabletop RPGs.

In any event, it takes a lot of time to make these changes and we want to do them right while also trying to remain transparent about what and how and why AND manage expectations. So... patience is the main thing I'm asking for folks for now.

Oh no! I was responding to the Pinkertons!

refrains from making "It's All About The Pinkertons, Baby" music video, if only barely

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

Oh no! I was responding to the Pinkertons!

refrains from making "It's All About The Pinkertons, Baby" music video, if only barely

Oooh that makes sense then; thanks for clarifying! :-)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wonder if darkvision will get a name change.

Afterall, it was (to my knowledge) WotC who coined the term when changing it from TSR's infravision, and it has long become ubiquitous to D&D fantasy creatures and characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CynDuck wrote:
I can get feeling upset about certain monsters going away, I feel that towards a couple like the mimics and gelatinous cubes.

In your game, you're free to infringe on other people's copyrights as much as you want. The odds are pretty good that WotC will not send Pinkertons to your home if a Mind Flayer shows up in your Pathfinder game.

The thing about creatures that won't be in the Monster Core 1 or 2, but were in already in a PF2 book is that you have stats for that sort of thing so it's very easy to use in your PF2 game.

So we're only really going to be losing [insert monster here] in forthcoming Paizo publlished adventures, but the sheer volume of dangerous things in Golarion is sufficiently deep and broad that we're not going to be hurting for thematically appropriate antagonists most likely ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
but the sheer volume of dangerous things in Golarion is sufficiently deep and broad that we're not going to be hurting for thematically appropriate antagonists most likely ever.

Especially not with this available.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And the beauty of GMing is that you can always switch out monsters for things you think will work better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cori Marie wrote:
And the beauty of GMing is that you can always switch out monsters for things you think will work better.

Or have the minis for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I wonder if darkvision will get a name change.

Afterall, it was (to my knowledge) WotC who coined the term when changing it from TSR's infravision, and it has long become ubiquitous to D&D fantasy creatures and characters.

Ah, infravision and ultravision. Those were the days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I wonder if darkvision will get a name change.

Afterall, it was (to my knowledge) WotC who coined the term when changing it from TSR's infravision, and it has long become ubiquitous to D&D fantasy creatures and characters.

Frankly, I would like to see far fewer ancestries and playable options with darkvision or whatever word it may or may not change to be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

^1000%. It's too common as a "default ability". Non-subterranean creatures like goblins and hobgoblins shouldn't even have it. Frankly, even some subterranean ancestries could stand to go without it--it's an effectively magical ability, after all, and plenty of creatures live in pitch-black environments in the real world and do just fine without it.

This isn't me saying I want less darkvision due to realism, by the way. I want less darkvision because it doesn't feel special anymore, because it messes with a lot of flavor text, it can be overwhelming to a GM who suddenly has to describe way more terrain than they're ready for because "oh, this person can see infinite distance", and because it can make horror a lot more challenging to run. I like using darkness in my horror games, and remembering, "wait, this PC can see everything on the map" can be incredibly frustrating. Instead of monsters lurking at the corners of a PCs' vision trying to lure them out, I have to roll constant Stealth checks to have them lurk behind bushes. It's a lot more literally dicey.

Frankly, I'd love Darkvision to become an Uncommon feat for all ancestries who currently get it. By default, just give them low-light vision, or nothing at all. Failing that, just hand it out less. Nephilim don't need to be able to see in the dark; that's a boring and flavorless benefit that just makes them less compatible with ancestries like kobolds.

I'm sure this won't happen, and that's okay, but I'd sure be thrilled if it did.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Infinite distance? Pfui.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
rage meter fills

Not sure what's filling your rage meter. Is it the idea that we're putting off doing non-OGL versions of the classic D&D dragons longer? Or is it the idea that we're doing this at all in the first place? Or is it the idea that we have to do this because we need to?

Regardless of the reason, my advice to anyone who's getting angry about these changes is to take a deep breath and find your inner peace for now and to assume that we've got our game's best interest at heart.

If you've found that Paizo has ultimately made decisions for the game that you enjoy in the past, please trust us to continue to approach this with the same care and deliberate work that we have before.

If you've found that Paizo continues to take the game in directions that vex and frustrate you, maybe Paizo games aren't for you. That's fine! Not everyone needs to like the same things and there are a LOT of options out there for tabletop RPGs.

In any event, it takes a lot of time to make these changes and we want to do them right while also trying to remain transparent about what and how and why AND manage expectations. So... patience is the main thing I'm asking for folks for now.

Although it was for another comment, please understand Mr. Jacobs that many of us switched to Pathfinder because Paizo simply updated WotC's 3rd edition with tweaks, and it felt less jarring to use that system than going with the 4th edition. We saw how Pathfinder reoriented the D20 rules, and even Pathfinder's 2nd edition felt like a proper update for a 20-year old system.

What's concerning is that the Remaster edition was announced just 4 years after P2E, as opposed to letting 10 years go by between P1E and P2E. What's also rather disturbing IMO is why you guys are remastering Pathfinder.

There's no beating around the bush here: you need to change everything ASAP to avoid being sued by either Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro following the former's plans to monetize the OGL, despite not going through with it... yet. There's basically a sense of urgency to "change everything" or else you're gonna have to "read the rules about copyright infringements".

Finally, even if you say that "the monsters will remain in Golarion"... but for how long? How long until you must remove them completely and possibly discontinue previous book sales due to that? What about the 1st edition books, which we bought as PDF on your website?

I know you're doing this in good faith Mr. Jacobs, but there are concerns for players and masters alike since the announcement, and a whole rework of the Bestiaries come off as a real shock for everyone.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
If we end up wanting to use [a “classic” dragon] in an ORC adventure before we have an "official remaster" we'll probably just present a bespoke stat block with that dragon referenced by its name, not as "red dragon" or the like.

Honestly, this is my general dragon preference anyway. Unique dragons was one thing I really liked about Monte Cook’s Arcana Unearthed / Evolved line from back in the day.

Wayfinders Contributor

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Previous books were made under OGL, an agreement that WOTC currently has to honor. They're not going away.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What I'd really like for dark vision is a minor nerf that allows creatures to hide in darkness even from darkvision. i would much rather, for example, that two groups of creatures with darkvision be able to sneak past one another without ever knowing the other was there, than for darkvision to make darkness based stealth automatically irrelevant.

I wouldn't even mind if most monsters got better darkvision, though I'd like for both players and enemies to be able to sneak around and/or want for a light source.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

14 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Although it was for another comment, please understand Mr. Jacobs that many of us switched to Pathfinder because Paizo simply updated WotC's 3rd edition with tweaks, and it felt less jarring to use that system than going with the 4th edition. We saw how Pathfinder reoriented the D20 rules, and even Pathfinder's 2nd edition felt like a proper update for a 20-year old system.

What's concerning is that the Remaster edition was announced just 4 years after P2E, as opposed to letting 10 years go by between P1E and P2E. What's also rather disturbing IMO is why you guys are remastering Pathfinder.

There's no beating around the bush here: you need to change everything ASAP to avoid being sued by either Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro following the former's plans to monetize the OGL, despite not going through with it... yet. There's basically a sense of urgency to "change everything" or else you're gonna have to "read the rules about copyright infringements".

Finally, even if you say that "the monsters will remain in Golarion"... but for how long? How long until you must remove them completely and possibly discontinue previous book sales due to that? What about the 1st edition books, which we bought as PDF on your website?

I know you're doing this in good faith Mr. Jacobs, but there are concerns for players and masters alike since the announcement, and a whole rework of the Bestiaries come off as a real shock for everyone.

My response would largely be the same: Please engage in Patience and Trust.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Something to keep in mind here is that a more practical question than “what monsters can Hasbro successfully claim are protected by copyright” is “what monsters are Hasbro likely to try to claim are protected by copyright. This could be a legal battle that literally can’t be won, regardless of the merits, due to the respective bankrolls involved.

In other words, whether color-coded Dragons are legitimately protected by copyright may matter far less than whether Hasbro is willing to sue competitors into oblivion claiming that they are. Even participating in that fight may be a losing proposition.


James Jacobs wrote:
My response would largely be the same: Please engage in Patience and Trust.

Oh, I'm trusting you and your team and I'm not in a hurry. I just wish it was in a less dire period ^^;

Luke Styer wrote:

Something to keep in mind here is that a more practical question than “what monsters can Hasbro successfully claim are protected by copyright” is “what monsters are Hasbro likely to try to claim are protected by copyright. This could be a legal battle that literally can’t be won, regardless of the merits, due to the respective bankrolls involved.

In other words, whether color-coded Dragons are legitimately protected by copyright may matter far less than whether Hasbro is willing to sue competitors into oblivion claiming that they are. Even participating in that fight may be a losing proposition.

WotC isn't above sueing businesses simply for refering the OGL the wrong way... Even then, you cannot trademark a dragon, a color and a breath weapon...

HeroForge, a small miniature-making business, once introduced squid heads and tentacles for their own figures. WotC sued HeroForge over copyright infringments due to being too similar to the mind flayer (spoilers: it wasn't). While it was resolved out of court, HeroForge still had to take those assets down, as if WotC scared them off anyway.

Several creators switched from 5E to P2E following WotC's new plans for the OGL. I swear, I've seen people ditching D&D altogether because it has become dangerous to even use the OGL.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

A dire period is also called a comma--a period holding a knife under the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
HeroForge, a small miniature-making business, once introduced squid heads and tentacles for their own figures. WotC sued HeroForge over copyright infringments due to being too similar to the mind flayer (spoilers: it wasn't). While it was resolved out of court, HeroForge still had to take those assets down, as if WotC scared them off anyway.

Oh, I found a way around that.

WotC can jump off a fiscal cliff.

151 to 200 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Owlbears and Otyughs, Oh My! Saying 'Bon Voyage' to our favorite OGL Monsters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.