GSL NPC/Monster Blocks

[CapnZapp]

This is from the SRD, which I hope will clear up things:

For example, you may not reprint the statistics of a kobold wyrmpriest or the lich template in a Licensed Product, nor may you define these 4E References. You may, however, print a kobold wyrmpriest lich that you create and that is relevant to your Licensed Product.​

Thanks. This actually is easy and clear.

So you can't reproduce the stats for a Goblin Cutter (because if you could, nothing would prevent you from repackaging the entire Monster Manual) - okay.

But you could create for instance a "Goblin Wirer", which would be a new entry in the list of goblin monsters. This Goblin Wirer could even be a minion of the same level as the existing Cutter, only perhaps with a different set of ability scores and/or a different weapon. Yes?


Now, most monsters are presented in the MM as a small set of specific monsters. There isn't a generic "Dwarf" for instance, but there is a set of dwarf monsters (namely two: the Dwarf Hammerer and the Dwarf Bolter). So in an adventure which features dwarfs, I don't see not being able to use* these two guys as a terribly restrictive rule, as you can create new iterations to your hearts desire (Dwarf Axeguard, Dwarf Matron, Dwarf Whatever).
*) I know you can use them, you can only not give full stats for them. But I completely understand this is effectively a ban on using them, especially when the alternative is so much easier on the reader/DM.

My question is instead for those monsters that don't come as a set of prepackaged monsters.

My first thought went to the Red Dragon, but then I realized it does come as a set (Young, Adult, etc). So you'll simply create a "Red Dragon Terror" or a "Skirmishing Red Young" with appropriate stats and you're fine.

Instead, let's take the Balhannoth as the example (perhaps the only monster in the entire Manual which have only the one "straight" entry?). Whatever trick you're trying to pull here ("Balhannoth Guard", "Sneaky Balhannoth" etc) you'll be redefining the given entry right?

What I'm saying here is that "Goblin Cutter" is of the form XY where you have two parts. A "Goblin Wirer", say, would be XZ which isn't redefining XY in any way. For the Balhannoth, the story is different because they give X and you can't create XZ or XS without that being a redefinition of (extension really) of the concept X.

So while you can do a "Goblin Guard" you can't do a "Balhannoth Guard" (or "Human Guard" for that matter). You'll have to rename it or reference it in general terms: "Xyzzy Guard" or "Tentacle Monster Worm Guard". Right?

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Gilwen]

The way I understand the lincese is that you could have a Balhannoth Guard, I don't think the multipart name has anything to do with it. As long as I can reference the term Balhannoth I think I could derive from it. What you can't do is copy wholesale the text entries or stat blocks without changing them a bit. You'd have to have yoru own flavor text etc. What you can't do is take balhannoth and give it say different powers or rewrite it's flavor text, etc.

Take Fireball for instance. If I didn't rename or change it I can only reference the name in my works and tell ppl where the reference came from. But if I created it as Firesphere (assuming firesphere isn't in the GSL SRD) give it my own flavor text and change the damage slightly for good measure and anyother changes I might want to make I can reprint that completely verbatium in any product that I want that I make for 4e.

Keep in mind I'm still analyzing it and I'm not a lawyer.
Gil

 

[tomBitonti]

As I understand it (And Scott Rouse has said as much in other threads on the GSL forums at the WOTC boards), while you can't reprint powers and monster statistic/abilities verbatim, you CAN print the applied mathematical values.

You might want to start at what the GSL seems be trying to channel you into doing -- either, simply naming a creating and providing a reference, for example, "The room has two Goblin Cutters (see the Monster Manual), both marked on the reference map with a G" -- or, when you truly have a new monster variation, supplying the statistics for that, while following the regimen provided by the GSL. (My read is that the instructions are very specific.)

If you take the existing Goblin Cutter and simply reskin it for the purpose of being able to provide the entire statistics, I think you will find yourself swimming upstream against the GSL. (If you did that too blatently, would you be in violation?)

 

[Urizen]

You might want to start at what the GSL seems be trying to channel you into doing -- either, simply naming a creating and providing a reference, for example, "The room has two Goblin Cutters (see the Monster Manual), both marked on the reference map with a G" -- or, when you truly have a new monster variation, supplying the statistics for that, while following the regimen provided by the GSL. (My read is that the instructions are very specific.)

If you take the existing Goblin Cutter and simply reskin it for the purpose of being able to provide the entire statistics, I think you will find yourself swimming upstream against the GSL. (If you did that too blatently, would you be in violation?)

Thanks for the feedback.

Yeah, that seems like the easiest way to go, but the problem, is that products that don't have full entries (like, say, an adventure) make it more difficult on the DM, not easier.

I understand that any adventure requires prep work on the part of the DM, but looking up important statistics for an NPC or monster can be a pain.

 

[Urizen]

Instead, let's take the Balhannoth as the example (perhaps the only monster in the entire Manual which have only the one "straight" entry?). Whatever trick you're trying to pull here ("Balhannoth Guard", "Sneaky Balhannoth" etc) you'll be redefining the given entry right?

Am I understanding this correctly?

I think you could make a "Sneaky Balhannoth," because the original entry is Balhannoth. You aren't redefining balhannoth. you're creating what amounts to a new creature.

I could be wrong though.

 

[Urizen]

Looking more closely, I now see that you write out some powers in full and only references others. But I still don't see your point.

I don't have my books here, so is the difference that Thunderbreak and Thundercloud (which you provide in full) are new original powers and Divine Fortune and Cure Serious Wounds (where you don't) existing PHB powers?

Or is that you have a theory about what elements of a power you can reproduce and what elements you can't? If so, what elements are those?

Sorry if I'm dense, but I'd appreciate it if you'd explain your idea more in full for us non-GSL-experts.

Yes, I'm wanting to reproduce enough elements of a power so as to make it useable, but not break the GSL agreement.

As far as I can tell. I can reproduce the math parts like such:

m Mace (standard; at-will) +23 vs. AC; 1d8 + 6

Other entries, like the Plague of Doom Power are reprinted to a certain point, and then the rest of the power is referenced:

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

The reason for doing this, is to provide GMs with, at the very least, the applied mathmateical values ( saves, damage, etc) but not reprint everything about the power.

This way, the GM still has to refer to the Players handbook to find out exactly how Plague of Doom works, but he doesn't have to crunch the numbers. We've done that part for him.

 

[Urizen]

You know.

I'm going to admit defeat on this subject.

To be clear. I don't have any problems creating new monsters. I'm only worried about NPCs that are existing races, like a dragonborn, or a human, elf, etc.

But none of it matters now.

I'm going to produce my NPC blocks like this and hope people don't hate me for it. This format is less than optimal. It doesn't help to clarify specifics of a power, but it's legal:

Blind Jones Level 8 Soldier
Medium Humanoid (Human) XP 350
Initiative +5 Senses Perception +4
HP 73; Bloodied 36
AC 24; Fortitude 23, Reflex 20, Will 19
Speed 6

Alignment Lawful
Skills Athletics +12, Diplomacy +10, Intimidate +10
Str 17 (+7) Dex 12 (+5) Wis 10 (+4)
Con 16 (+7) Int 14 (+6) Cha 13 (+5)
Equipment: scale armor, greataxe + 2

Suggested Powers:

We suggest you use the following Fighter Exploits and Class Features for Blind Jones:


m Greataxe (standard; at-will) +13 vs. AC; 1d12 + 6 damage

m Sure Strike (Fighter Attack Exploit; see the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook)

M Reckless Strike (Fighter Attack Exploit; see the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook)

M Rain of Steel (Level 5 Fighter Attack Exploit; see the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook); 1d12

Unbreakable (Fighter Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook)

Combat Challenge (Fighter Class Feature; see the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook)

 

[Roger]

My opinion on such things is that one is better off building custom powers and abilities for non-PC entities anyway, even if the GSL didn't encourage it quite so strongly.

I might make a slight exception for artifacts that grant class powers, but that's about the only one that comes to mind.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Scribble]

My opinion on such things is that one is better off building custom powers and abilities for non-PC entities anyway, even if the GSL didn't encourage it quite so strongly.

I might make a slight exception for artifacts that grant class powers, but that's about the only one that comes to mind.


Cheers,
Roger

I tend to agree... When I first saw the restriction I thought it was kind of too much. But once I started playing 4e, I found the monsters in the MM and such almost feel more like examples, rather then the base.

Even the official adventures and dungeon adventures tend to change the powers and such to suit the needs of the particular monster/npc.

I admit there are certain situations where this restriction will be a PiTA, but overall less so then I first thought.

 

[Urizen]

Very good observations guys.