In a product that I'm contributing to, we have several statblocks of NPCs which use powers from the PHB. The GSL prevents reprinting of powers, I understand that, but does it violate the GSL if I include the mechanical effects of power in the statblock?
My interpretation is that all the information needed to "run" the NPC or monster should be allowable in the statblock without needing to reference other books. Is that wrong? I'd think that the GSL is there to foster well-written 3PP and requiring that a DM have 2 (or more) books open to run an encounter is counter-productive.
For example, here as some powers which are part of an NPC fighter's statblock:
Precise Strike (standard; encounter) • Weapon
+17 vs. AC; 1d8 + 7 damage
Dizzying Blow (standard; daily) • Reliable
+13 vs. AC; 3d8 + 9 damage, and immobilized (save ends).
Unbreakable (immediate reaction; when hit by an attack; encounter)
Fighter reduces the damage by 8 hit points.
Combat Challenge
Every time Fighter attacks an enemy, whether that attack hits or misses, Fighter can mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of Fighter's next turn. In addition, whenever an adjacent enemy shifts, Fighter makes a melee basic attack against that enemy (as an immediate interrupt).
Do any of these entries violate the GSL? If so, how do I reference the powers correctly?
Many thanks in advance for an answer.
Do any of these entries violate the GSL? If so, how do I reference the powers correctly?
Many thanks in advance for an answer.
As many of the responses to these types of post begin, if you have questions that require an "official" answer, you should probably not ask on a message board. Rather, you should contact WotC directly or consult a lawyer versed in such matters.
That being said, the way I read the GSL, and I think this part is pretty self-explanatory, is that if you provide information from any of the sources covered in the GSL that would allow the user of your 3P product to bypass the purchase of the related WotC product, then you are in violation.
For example, you can reference the names of the powers, but just giving the mechanical effects instead of the whole entry would be in violation because a person buying your product would not have to buy a Player's Handbook to find out what the powers do; if you have a PH, you can write out the power on index cards or whatever have you in order to use it, but with your statblock the PH is not necessary.
I am looking for an official response about how the GSL should be used in regards to NPCs.
Email customer service and/or Scott Rouse directly, its a much better way to get official confirmation about such things.
As many of the responses to these types of post begin, if you have questions that require an "official" answer, you should probably not ask on a message board. Rather, you should contact WotC directly or consult a lawyer versed in such matters.
What is an official forum, if not a conduit for communication between a company and its customers? Also, I believe that others have tried to contact WOTC customer service re: this issue and recieved no response. I'm not going to consult a lawyer for an issue that should have a clear policy by the designers of the GSL.
For example, you can reference the names of the powers, but just giving the mechanical effects instead of the whole entry would be in violation because a person buying your product would not have to buy a Player's Handbook to find out what the powers do; if you have a PH, you can write out the power on index cards or whatever have you in order to use it, but with your statblock the PH is not necessary.
In no way does having an efficient statblock prevent people from buying the PHB to create their own characters. I do not believe that anyone would try to reverse engineer a complete character from entries in an NPC statblock. If they are so hellbent on stealing content, they would just download the pdf which is readily available if you look for it.
What you're suggesting, that a simple power name reference in a statblock is the only allowable recourse, would be unfortunately clunky. I can't believe that WOTC is trying to sabotage 3PP so disastrously, by forcing DMs to make their own power cards for each NPC.
Again, I just want a clarification on what WOTC policy is regarding NPCs.
I am looking for an official response about how the GSL should be used in regards to NPCs.
In a product that I'm contributing to, we have several statblocks of NPCs which use powers from the PHB. The GSL prevents reprinting of powers, I understand that, but does it violate the GSL if I include the mechanical effects of power in the statblock?
My interpretation is that all the information needed to "run" the NPC or monster should be allowable in the statblock without needing to reference other books. Is that wrong? I'd think that the GSL is there to foster well-written 3PP and requiring that a DM have 2 (or more) books open to run an encounter is counter-productive.
For example, here as some powers which are part of an NPC fighter's statblock:
Precise Strike (standard; encounter) • Weapon
+17 vs. AC; 1d8 + 7 damage
Dizzying Blow (standard; daily) • Reliable
+13 vs. AC; 3d8 + 9 damage, and immobilized (save ends).
Unbreakable (immediate reaction; when hit by an attack; encounter)
Fighter reduces the damage by 8 hit points.
Combat Challenge
Every time Fighter attacks an enemy, whether that attack hits or misses, Fighter can mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of Fighter's next turn. In addition, whenever an adjacent enemy shifts, Fighter makes a melee basic attack against that enemy (as an immediate interrupt).
Do any of these entries violate the GSL? If so, how do I reference the powers correctly?
Many thanks in advance for an answer.
Everything looks fine except combat challenge since that is pulling the full text entry verbatim from the DMG.
Combat Challenge: (See page 76 of the Players handbook for more information).
What is an official forum, if not a conduit for communication between a company and its customers? Also, I believe that others have tried to contact WOTC customer service re: this issue and recieved no response. I'm not going to consult a lawyer for an issue that should have a clear policy by the designers of the GSL.
I would say a forum is a conduit for everyone to have input; the company may or may not respond. Scott seems to be pretty good at responding, which he did in this thread, but his response did not state official policy for all NPCs. It analyzes the one you have listed. From that, you may be willing to extrapolate that back to all NPCs. Not being able to get in touch with CS is a problem, I agree, but it is not a reason to not try that route.
In no way does having an efficient statblock prevent people from buying the PHB to create their own characters. I do not believe that anyone would try to reverse engineer a complete character from entries in an NPC statblock. If they are so hellbent on stealing content, they would just download the pdf which is readily available if you look for it.
What you're suggesting, that a simple power name reference in a statblock is the only allowable recourse, would be unfortunately clunky. I can't believe that WOTC is trying to sabotage 3PP so disastrously, by forcing DMs to make their own power cards for each NPC.
I stand corrected; I did not reference that you can use the specific mechanical expression for that NPC for the powers, as you clearly have. Writing out the power, flavor, and then showing the calculation would be invalid.
To address your other point about stealing, however, it is not about the consumer stealing the PH so much as the 3PP providing an avenue for the consumer to avoid buying the PH. for example, as Scott pointed out, your entry of Combat Challenge would not be appropriate. As written, someone who picked up your product would not need the PH to find out what CC does because it is spelled out. Actually, I believe the response given by thurak is how the GSL states the handling of such instances.
Again, I just want a clarification on what WOTC policy is regarding NPCs.
Hopefully you can get in touch with Scott and get your official response. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post it here as well so we can all benefit from it.
In the case of Combat Challenge, I'd simply write:
Combat Challenge: (See page 76 of the Players handbook for more information).
Doesn't the GSL terms prohibit page number references? I'm old and my memory is failing, but I vaguely recall that...
In many cases (say if you want to use a specific, unmodified creature out of the Monster Manual for an adventure), you have to reference page numbers and the book.
Wotc set it up that way to prevent publishers from simply C&P'ing all of the information into a document and selling it.
The Ogl was bad like that. It allowed people to simply download the system reference document, cut and paste any rules or monsters they needed and do whatever they wanted with it.
This way, you actually need to be creative.
Wizards wants 3pp to develop exciting new material, not just rehash their IP.
The problem is when, say, you are creating an NPC (such as a Dragonborn fighter for an adventure), it becomes a pain in the butt for the game master to have to reference multiple books just to use the content you are creating.
Now you might say, just create new creatures, and that's all well and good. But sometimes it's also good to use monsters and creatures such as tieflings and dragonborn in things like adventures, because people are already familiar with them, and may already be using those creatures in existing campaigns.
It makes the supplements/adventures more appealing if people have something familiar, something that can be used with any game.
Citation
You may, as needed, cite the source of a 4E Reference for ease of player use. When you do so, you may cite the Core Rulebook the 4E Reference comes from by title alone. The proper format for such citation is: See the [Core Rulebook Title]. The first citation of a particular Core Rulebook in your Licensed Product should appear in small caps. Later Citations may appear in italics. You may alter the citation to fit your running text. Examples:
This encounter uses the rules for Aquatic Combat (see the D&D 4E DUNGEON MASTER’S GUIDE).
Hazard: Treacherous Ice Sheet (see the D&D 4E Dungeon Master’s Guide).
Monsters (see the D&D 4E MONSTER MANUAL): Bugbear Strangler, 2 Bugbear Warriors, and 3 hobgoblin soldiers.
Since the grimlocks have blindsight, you should review the rules for that sense, which are found in the D&D 4E Monster Manual.
The evil wizard might use a power to push a PC off the ledge. See the D&D 4E PLAYER’S HANDBOOK for rules on Pull, Push, and Slide and on Falling.
Adamantine Strike (Level 27 Fighter Encounter Attack Exploit; see the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook.)
(emphasis mine, some formatting removed)
It clearly says in the SRD that citation needs to be title only. Whether that's changed or not in the upcoming revision is something we'll find out in the near future.
It's worse than I thought.
You can't actually say which page, so people have to take more time looking through the book instead of flipping right to the page they need.
Thanks for the information.
So the rule doesn't exist out of meanness or anything like that. But it is there.
Of course, I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill.
I just believe that most supplements/adventures should reduce the amount of work a GM or Player needs to do rather than add to it.
Assuming I'm correct as to why the rules exists, it's not a terrible reason. Especially if they plan to regularly have reprints that include the errata, and therefore the potential for pages changing. In the end, it is what it is. It's not a deal breaker, certainly.
Everything looks fine except combat challenge since that is pulling the full text entry verbatim from the DMG.
Thanks for your response, Scott. I believe the text was actually pulled from the MM as an example of how to word a complicated class feature in a statblock. Are the other posters correct in that the only way to reference Combat Challenge is to write "See Player's Handbook"?
I agree with many of the posters here that the only reason I have for including the full description (or even an abbreviated one) is to make the DM's task easier. As the policy seems to stand now, any power that is simple with its mechanics can be summarized but compicated ones need to be referenced.
This seems counterintuitive. How can we alleviate the situation so that 3PP statblocks aren't noticeably more annoying to play with than the Wizards counterparts?
Thanks for your response, Scott. I believe the text was actually pulled from the MM as an example of how to word a complicated class feature in a statblock. Are the other posters correct in that the only way to reference Combat Challenge is to write "See Player's Handbook"?
Note that you can modify the class feature a little, and then there should be no problem.
For a fighter type I would just add to his attacks "Effect: The target is marked by the BLAH"
And at the bottom line "Menacing Mark: If a target marked by the BLAH shifts or makes an attack that doesn't inlcude BLAH, it may make a basic melee attack against the target."
or "Stopping Mark: If an enemy is hit by an opportunity attack of BLAH it immediately ends its move, if the opportunity attack was provoked by movement."
I wouldn't give both to an NPC since this makes an NPC difficult to run for the DM and copies player rules too much.
Note that most monsters in the DMG have powers and features similar but not equal to the PCs. By making up unique features and powers, you will circumvent the citing problem.
The downside is, that basically, this approach prohibits you from using any DMG templates if you want to publish anything.
I'm pretty sure that slightly altering the language of a power instead of directly copying it is not a safe plan. Copying an idea in different words is still copying an idea.
Sure. Therefore it shouldn't be the same but something different. Just changing the wording wouldn't do the trick. But in my example I did not just change the wording, but also how it works - a fighter can choose if he wants to mark, the NPC always marks if it hits with an attack. Also the NPC has only one of the two combat challenge features.
Also I would not duplicate the curse or hunters quary mechanic - I would just let the NPC deal an additional die of damage. Everything else would be to cumbersome for the DM.
That's re-defining the power/class feature,which is forbidden under section 4.1 of the gsl.
You can't change how a power/class feature in the PHB works and give it the same name.
That's re-defining the power/class feature,which is forbidden under section 4.1 of the gsl.
Uh, I know. That's why the NPC fighter wouldn't have a "Combat Challenge" feature, but a "Menacing Mark". The menacing mark does something what the Combat Challenge class feature also does, but it's only a part of it, not the class feature.