January Rules updates 2010

[Byronic]

I don't know why people are still worrying about fluff. They get annoyed by it and then people try to break the laws of plausibility trying to defend it.

Perhaps people should just realize that 4th edition is simply going to be crap when it comes to fluff. There are and there will undoubtedly be more rules that simply go against all plausibility. If it really offends you that much, I say try another game. It's not going to become better with 4th edition because it's build from the ground up to have balanced crunch instead of verisimilitude.

I play Warhammer for suspense of it's excellent fluff and setting. I play 4th edition for more heroic tactical battles. And because my DM likes it.

 

[Camelot]

Here's an idea for a houserule for those who aren't comfortable with verticle teleportation as is.

Allow the character/monster to make an Acrobatics check even if they aren't trained in it, and give them a bonus to the check (+2, +5, +10, whatever you think works). This will reduce the falling damage.

This makes sense because teleporting keeps you in the same position you were when you were on the ground, unlike falling off a cliff, when you usually spin backwards, sideways, and it takes more agility to realign yourself.

In my opinion, teleporting up is a perfectly viable strategy. In a dungeon, they can only go up so high, usually ten, maybe twenty feet. Outside, there could be things to catch on to, like tree branches or buildings. Plus, the creature teleported now gets a save, because they are teleported into a position from which they will fall, so like Lord Ernie said, there's a chance that it will actually be detrimental to the teleporter.

 

[keterys]

When attempting to teleport a target, the caster needs perfect concentration and visualization to move a target seamlessly into the new location. With a willing target, this isn't too complex. With an unwilling target, this can be extremely difficult (requires an attack roll), especially (granting a save) if moving the target to a location where the target is unable to maintain state (ie, standing) or an environmental attack is in the way (hindering terrain).

Poof, some fluff BSing to back up the new rule.

 

[Journeymanmage]

...

If you really need an explanation, maybe teleportation magic requires a safe "landing" and if there isn't one the magic weakens allowing for it to be resisted.

and

When attempting to teleport a target, the caster needs perfect concentration and visualization to move a target seamlessly into the new location. With a willing target, this isn't too complex. With an unwilling target, this can be extremely difficult (requires an attack roll), especially (granting a save) if moving the target to a location where the target is unable to maintain state (ie, standing) or an environmental attack is in the way (hindering terrain).

Poof, some fluff BSing to back up the new rule.

And these are the best explanations I've heard.

 

[eamon]

When attempting to teleport a target, the caster needs perfect concentration and visualization to move a target seamlessly into the new location. With a willing target, this isn't too complex. With an unwilling target, this can be extremely difficult (requires an attack roll), especially (granting a save) if moving the target to a location where the target is unable to maintain state (ie, standing) or an environmental attack is in the way (hindering terrain).

This is a good interpretation. It doesn't fix the consistency issue as to what exactly hindering terrain is (and in particular, temporary or even long-term spell effects), and it's probably fuzzy around the edges where terrain isn't particularly hindering but is dangerous (so a DM might grant a save) - or vice versa. But it's workable, as long as people don't push it.

 

[Destil]

I can't say I'm happy vertical teleport is a-ok now. Perhaps this will be my first houserule.

Yeah, likewise, I'm pretty okay with nerfing this one potentially, though I have a small list of houserules already.