D&D Bestiary?

[jivex5k]

Personally I hope they straight up use it.

Maybe small tweaks to stats and appearance, but I love the names.

I hope they embrace it rather than purposely try to avoid it.

 

Nothing worse than seeing poorly designed monsters with crappy names.

 

IE: A kobold that they call: "findar" with a slightly larger frame.

Just call it a kobold damnit...

[Vaesark]

I'm not 100% sure but I think that Obsidian doesn't have the license for a new D&D game and thats why they are creating a completely new world, so no kobolds, drows or anything that could get them a lawsuit.

[rjshae]

D&D has no ownership rights to German mythology. PE can use the name kobold to their heart's content.

[Vaesark]

D&D has no ownership rights to German mythology. PE can use the name kobold to their heart's content.

 

I had absolutely no idea o_O *google search* aaaahh cool, I'll get into this in detail...

I have to say in my defense that I was referring to the kobolds used in D&D, if the physical description and lore is too similar lawyers can do jugglery with the copyright laws to put a lawsuit, copyright wars were declared for much less... some are really bloody and can last for months or even years...

[HansKrSG]

I'm not 100% sure but I think that Obsidian doesn't have the license for a new D&D game and thats why they are creating a completely new world, so no kobolds, drows or anything that could get them a lawsuit.

 

Most monsters in the D&D books are based on real life myths, and is not the IP of Wizards of the coast. The only ones I can name from memory are: Drow, Illithid (Mind Flayers), Githzerai and Githyanki. Kobolds are "a sprite stemming from Germanic mythology" (shamelessly copied from wikipedia), so anyone can call their monsters kobolds, no copyright on these tankfully.

 

That said, I do not hope they copy paste the monster manuals, but use what they feel is appropriate for their setting, based on their own imagination, or from myths and folklore.

[Frisk]

I would not expect an immense variety of monsters in the game....but I really hope to see some "different" ones - different from those seen in virtually every other game, that is. However, given the large variety of D&D creatures, it may be a but hard to come up with something truly original.

[Elerond]

I would like to see mix of new and typical fantasy monsters, just like they did with races and classes.

[Wirdjos]

I would like to see mix of new and typical fantasy monsters, just like they did with races and classes.

 

This is the sort of thing I would prefer. Better yet, I would like to a handful of same-old-same-olds with a twist. Take some of those well known D&D creatures based on mythological begins and make them more like their source material. Or take a creature and fully flesh it out, imagine its biology and change its image based on that. I'm really found of things that are both familiar and new at the same time.

[Heresiarch]

Frankly, I would prefer Witcher-style monsters, which is based on the original myths instead of some PnP bestiary book. Just without elves and dwarfs as it is already the case it seems. D&D Orcs, trolls, gnolls, drow, kobolds and the likes have gone pretty stale by now.

[el pinko grande]

D&D Orcs, trolls, gnolls, drow, kobolds and the likes have gone pretty stale by now.

 

I'd add that the World of Warcraft variations on these creatures are pretty stale, as well.

[Katrar]

I hope they lean heavily on the tried and true (the familiarity of the D&D monster manual types of monsters), empowered by the quality writing we all expect, and add their own flourish, their own personality with some key monsters of their own design.

 

Here's the thing... budget. I don't know how many of you have ever actually tried to come up with a proper monster ecology, IE a writeup-breakdown, in depth description, history, etc of a monster. It's a long road to walk down to do properly. And I hope you are all of like mind that a proper monster is not just a nicely drawn picture. Passing up decades of entrenched fantasy monster ecologies would be idiotic, in my opinion. Better to take something good and make it special with your own (speaking of OE) contribution. Then you have a solid foundation, and you have that little bit extra that makes it unique.

[Eryss]

They've done a good job so far at being familiar but with some twists. I'd bet the same thought will go into the monsters.

[mokona]

I would like to see monsters that are familiar in name and appearance. Whether familiar because of nods to real-world source material or because they're staple fantasy fiction (yes, D&D) creatures.

 

Having said that, novel interpretations of existing fantasy creatures can be cool if done carefully.

 

Take an example: the Aumaua race has a name that is completely unfamiliar to me and might be completely made up (or not). That is a huge drawback for the race. I hope that the race has some familiar connection such as appearance since otherwise it's completely foreign.

 

It takes much more time to build in the player's mind a concept that is completely new with no reference points to existing knowledge. Player's have limited time and limited mental resources to dedicate to learning "new" monsters. A few new monsters are cool but populating your game completely without using existing monsters is wasteful, foolish, and harmful to player's ability to fully enjoy the game.

[JWestfall]

I want ettins, trolls, slimes, ghosts, reapers, gazers, wisps, sea serpents, and daemons. And food-snatching gremlins. Dragons are fine, but the only viable strategy when encountering them should be to flee.

[Jigawatts]

Beholders and Mind Flayers are really the only two big time D&D monsters that PE can't use, as they are IP protected by WotC, there are others on that list also (like the Gith races) but none of them are of the caliber that beholders and mind flayers are. Someone mentioned eariler Drow not being available, that is untrue as drow are part of the Open Gaming License, for example Pathfinder has drow in its bestiary and in its campaign setting. Pretty much every other standard D&D "monster", the good folks at Obsidian could use free and clear (and I hope they do).

[Merlkir]

That is a huge drawback for the race. I hope that the race has some familiar connection such as appearance since otherwise it's completely foreign.

 

It takes much more time to build in the player's mind a concept that is completely new with no reference points to existing knowledge. Player's have limited time and limited mental resources to dedicate to learning "new" monsters. A few new monsters are cool but populating your game completely without using existing monsters is wasteful, foolish, and harmful to player's ability to fully enjoy the game.

 

Good grief. "Players are lazy, let's just give them what they're used to." Sounds familiar? Sounds like any publishers we know?

 

Eternity is what they hope will become an entire series of games, set in that world. Let them make something of their own, jesus. It's not a drawback if there's ONE race which is completely alien, which is the case with Eternity.

 

And knowing their approach to races, they probably will do something similar with monsters, as someone already speculated. Let them go wild if and when they wanna, it's pretty much sure by now the game won't be full of bizarre aliens.

[.Leif.]

They could get around the problems with using Mind Flayers by simply calling them Star Spawns, which is what they were to begin with. Thankfully nobody owns Weresharks.

[Calmar]

Of the top of my head, yuan-ti, mind flayers, umber hulks and beholders were the only monsters exlusive to D&D in the Icewind Dale games. The vast majority such as orcs and goblins, skeletons and shadows, giants and dragons can be encountered in a large variety of sources. I enjoy a mix of classic monsters and home-made ones.

[Gorth]

I don't think they need to copy "Mindflayers". If sufficient mechanics in the setting is based on souls, it wouldn't be a far stretch to imagine soul sucking monsters. Add tentacles by all means if that makes them scarier, but something that devours souls rather than minds seems more appropriate. Could lurk in swamps too.

 

Probably some variant of the archetypical orc too. Strong, brutish and warlike. Makes excellent cannon fodder for adventurers that have graduated from the College of Ratslaying.

 

Personally I would love to see a focus on critters that works with the game mechanics (i.e. souls, spirits whatever). Banshees, Pixies, Demons, Hags etc. Celtic lore is full of the stuff.

 

[cosmin haraga]

how about numbers - how many types of monsters/ etherials / animals / fauna / bandits do you expect?

 

also do we get the same gang or several levels think: orc, orc sarge / orc boss with different - in a obvious way look

[DimuthuK]

Inventing new monsters may not be too hard. An animals abilities and features are related to their environment. So it would be cool if they looked at the environments they were creating and thought about what creatures would evolve and be successful in them. I assume this would naturally lead to original ideas.

[MantisDreaming]

Thankfully nobody owns Weresharks.

 

Don't be so sure

 

 

I can't understand why people would ever be against the creation of at least some new monsters! Ones who's stats and weaknesses we can't recite from memory. I'm fine with some common tropes of creaturedom but I know we can count of Obsidian to have a blast crafting this world as well as its unique inhabitants.

Edited October 24, 2012 by MantisDreaming

[Gromnir]

I hope they lean heavily on the tried and true (the familiarity of the D&D monster manual types of monsters), empowered by the quality writing we all expect, and add their own flourish, their own personality with some key monsters of their own design.

 

Here's the thing... budget. I don't know how many of you have ever actually tried to come up with a proper monster ecology, IE a writeup-breakdown, in depth description, history, etc of a monster. It's a long road to walk down to do properly. And I hope you are all of like mind that a proper monster is not just a nicely drawn picture. Passing up decades of entrenched fantasy monster ecologies would be idiotic, in my opinion. Better to take something good and make it special with your own (speaking of OE) contribution. Then you have a solid foundation, and you have that little bit extra that makes it unique.

 

...

 

obsidian is people'd by gamers who has been making and playing games for decades. am suspecting that if fergie walked into office today and asked general populace to come up with 30 detailed monster blocks, complete with stats and little sketch, he could have 150 response by tomorrow. bet they got loads o' ideas that were never submitted in previous game developments that they would love to use in this game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[jivex5k]

I'm not saying I don't want original monsters.

 

I just don't want cheap feeling re-hashes with a proprietary name thrown on top.

 

Like: An orange orc called a Ragork.

 

With so many monsters already well defined most "original" monsters aren't very original these days.

Edited October 24, 2012 by jivex5k

[The Guilty Party]

I'm pretty confident that they are more creative than changing the vowel in a monster's name to avoid copyright and calling it a day.

 

I'd rather explore a world with monsters that I've never heard of than say 'ah, kobolds again, I know how this works. Oh and there's an ogre mage, gotta silence him'.