Revised GSL TODAY!

[Mistwell]

It appears my earlier optimism was misplaced:



[from Paizo's website]

Ah well.

That's a shame.

Too little I understand. I disagree with it, but I understand why someone could take that position.

But too late? That I do not get. Unless their think either a) D&D 4e will go under in 6 months, or b) Paizo will go under in 6 months, I do not get the "too late". If they started someone working on it now, they could come out with their product in 6 months or less. So, it's not "too late". They've just made a choice that they wouldn't make as much money if they decided to put someone on 4e instead of devoting that person to Pathfinder.

Which I think is erroneous. I suspect there would be very strong sales for a Paizo 4e product. It's a shame we apparently will not ever see that product.

 

[JVisgaitis]

But too late? That I do not get.

I think he means too late for Paizo themselves to consider it as a feasible alternative since they already went down the Pathfinder road. Its a shame too. Paizo does some great stuff.

 

[Orcus]

The only thing about this that affects me is that you still can't put the monsters IN the adventures. I'm sorry, but I'm spoiled by the WOTC adventures, and it's VERY nice not haivng to get out my Monster Manual during combat. I don't even need much prep work. Unless publishers use their own monsters, I'll probably pass on buying any 3rd party adventures.

You hit on the core argument I made to Scott for about an hour on this point.

I said that purchasers want stat blocks in their adventures. Because if they dont have them, then they have to go to their MM, copy the stats onto a sheet, slip it in the page of the module, etc. Its harder on the DM.

If the concept is to drive purchasers to the core books, you are doing the OPPOSITE.

I am not going to fail to give the purchaser what they want. If all I can do is say "kobold skirmisher (see MM)," then I wont do that. I'd prefer to use a shortened stat block for simple monsters. So what will I do?

I will just make a cheesy substiution. Instead of a Level 1 kobold skirmisher you will fight a "level 1 kobold dragonfang" with the exact same damn stats as a kobold skirmisher except maybe HP 26 instead of 27 or something. I would make a change so small and a cosmetic name change that the monster would really be the same, but I can claim it is different enough that I am not just reprinting the monster.

Because if I do it this way, I get to put the whole damn stat block in the product! And that is what people want! So instead of incenting me to drive them to the MM you are incenting me to create a new monster that is a tiny twist on an old one just to get past that restriction, which is dumb to make me do. It means, if they are smart, NOT A SINGLE 3P module will ever include just a straight monster from the MM. Not one. And that is dumb.

What they dont want is a web site of monsters or someone doing monster cards. That, in my view, is what really drove the objection to this change. Because, taking out that issue, it doesnt make any sense to object to this.

But I blew my skill check on that and lost apparently.

Now, will there be parts of an adventure where I just list some core monsters? Sure. Maybe a random encounter table. Or in an overview of a wilderness area I might say, "In the Forest of Doom you can find werewolves, medusae and spirit devourers" or something like that. But you dont need the stat block for something like that. However, for set piece encounters, you can bet your bottom dollar I wont just say "8 ettercap fang guards" and make you go look it up. No, I will create "ettercap web guardians" that are level 4 soldiers with maybe 55 hp instead of 56 and with greatswords instead of greataxes. Then you have basically the same monster, but not I can put the whole freaking stat block in teh adventure because I just "created a new monster."

 

[Gilwen]

This is the biggest question I have at the moment. Any comments about the kosherness of this?

<snip>

You_can_apply the mathematical values for powers without reprinting the power verbatim, but some powers need to be reprinted to be fully understood. Those, you'll still have to refer to.

here's a sample statblock I_think_is going to be just fine for my upcoming book: Scarrport, City of secrets.

---------------

Talfordinate Wicking, Thunder Priest of Velun Level 16
Controller (Leader)
Medium Humanoid (Human) XP 1,400
Initiative +8
Senses: Perception +11
Aura of the Sky God Aura 5; all enemies in the aura gain vulnerable 5
thunder.
HP 131; Bloodied 66
AC 28; Fortitude 28, Reflex 28, Will 33
Resist 10 thunder
Speed 6
Action Points 1

m Mace (standard; at-will) +23 vs. AC; 1d8 + 6
r Holy Thunder (standard; at-will) * Thunder
Range 5; +27 vs. Reflex; 1d6 + 12 thunder damage and the target is pushed 5 squares.
R Plague of Doom (standard; encounter) Range 10; +27 vs. Fortitude; 3d8 + 12 damage; (Level 13 Cleric Encounter Attack Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook); -3

R Thunderbreak (standard; encounter) * Thunder
Range 10; +27 vs. Will; 2d8 + 12 thunder damage, and the target is
deafened and dazed until the end of Wicking's next turn.

A Purifying Lightning (standard; daily) * Lightning
Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 3d10 + 12 lightning damage and
ongoing 10 lightning (save ends)(See the D&D 4E Player's Handbook.).

A Thunder Cloud (standard; daily) * Thunder
Area burst 2 within 10; +27 vs. Reflex; 2d10 + 12 thunder damage and
ongoing 5 thunder (save ends); Miss: half damage.

Divine Fortune (free; encounter)
(Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's Handbook)

C Healing Word (minor; twice per encounter)
Close Burst 10; (Cleric Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook); +4d6

C Mass Cure Light Wounds (standard; daily)
Close Burst 5; (Level 10 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E
Player's Handbook); +3

M Cure Serious Wounds (standard; daily)
Melee touch; (Level 6 Cleric Utility Prayer; see the D&D 4E Player's
Handbook)

Alignment Good

Skills Religion +15, Insight +18, Diplomacy +16, History +15

Str 14 (+10) Dex 11 (+8) Wis 21 (+13)

Con 14 (+10) Int 14 (+10) Cha 16 (+11)

Equipment robe of thunderbolts +4, symbol of the storm +6

 

[Orcus]

Yeah, really. The OGL was a super-sweet deal for the 3pp, no doubt about it. I am not sure how people got to the point where they thought that failing to give you the super-sweet deal of a lifetime is somehow a "kick in the teeth".

I am reminded of Veruca Salt...

Everyone needs to back up.

First of all, you cant compare the OGL to the GSL. They arent the same.

Really, you should compare the d20 STL to the GSL. And they are basically very much the same. The OGL let you use the SRD without the restrictions or the benefits of the d20 STL. The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.

And now, amazingly, the GSL permits something really great--you can use OGL content (meaning you can pour in stuff from the d20 SRD) in the SAME product that also uses content from the GSL. That is an amazing concession! That actually exceeded my expectations.

Frankly, I wish Scott had adopted a few of my other suggestions. For instance, I proposed total ease of use. I said just release all of 4E under the OGL, dont make an SRD, just say all of it is OGC, BUT (and here is the fun part) declare it ALL as PI and then have a 4E license to use that PI that includes the stuff from the old d20 STL that they have in the GSL now. That way they have total control and we have a license and a system that we are all used to using. Less scary. More consistency. More control for Wizards. Its the perfect solution. But you know how companies are about adopting ideas they didnt think of themselves (though Scott liked it).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E.

so what can we look forward to clark??? on your site you look to be working on some optional rules...any monsters/adventures/classes you have in mind??

 

[Orcus]

I also think it's to more or less head off "name squatters" at the pass? IE people who pick a random class from D&Ds past, publish it as their own, and then claim they had it first when WoTC decides to update one of it's earlier edition classes, just for the purpose of doing so...

They arent worried about that because that wouldnt work in any event.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Now, will there be parts of an adventure where I just list some core monsters? Sure. Maybe a random encounter table. Or in an overview of a wilderness area I might say, "In the Forest of Doom you can find werewolves, medusae and spirit devourers" or something like that. But you dont need the stat block for something like that. However, for set piece encounters, you can bet your bottom dollar I wont just say "8 ettercap fang guards" and make you go look it up.

you know that is what WotC did with thunderspire...there is like 3 or 4 pages of optional encounters that onyl list monster names...I think it works out well

 

[Orcus]

And, as both a lawyer and someone who has disagreed with Clark in the past a lot, let me just say I heartily agree with Clark on this topic. I think Joe's analysis and advice was, well, not what I would offer on this topic. This new version is a huge improvement, and I would personally be very comfortable operating under it.

I feel bad for Joe and I'm sorry I was so harsh on him, but I had to nip that in the bud right out of the chute. I appreciate where he is coming from. He's right to call attention to the provisions that remains and to let people make up their own minds. But what he doesnt have is actual publishing experience with the license and a historical understanding of the licneses since their infancy and inception, which, by fortunate accident, I do. The GSL is essentially no more risky than the old d20 STL which lots of people used for a long time. Similar and often identical provisions. It is not scary in any way. Plus, as I think I previously pointed out, if you want a barometer for whether or not Wizards is going to "use the license for evil" just see what they have already done--the very first change they make is an improvement, an expansion, an addition of content, a reaction to the comments of the community, a removal of the poison pill and over all good guy good partner good neighbor attitude. If you STILL want to say they are the evil empire, then I just cant save you from that at this point. You're just going to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Look, do I love every part of it? No. Should they have just listened to me from day 1? Yes. Should they have adopted all my suggestions? Yes. Did they? No. Should this have all happened much much faster? Hell yes. But is this a great change and now a license that is on par with prior licenses and totally acceptable to people who did 3E products for years? Absolutely.

Thanks, Mistwell, by the way

 

[Mistwell]

I think he means too late for Paizo themselves to consider it as a feasible alternative since they already went down the Pathfinder road. Its a shame too. Paizo does some great stuff.

The Pathfinder road is not mutually exclusive with putting a guy on 4e as well. So, it's not too late.