D&D 5E Teleport /fly /misty step the bane of cool dungeon design is RAW in 5E

Alexemplar

First Post
I always saw the Ancients Paladin as less of an attempt to cram a 4e Warden into the Paladin, and more like a "Fair Folk Noble". The idea of the Elven champion in ornate armor and wielding a graceful longsword is not terribly uncommon in D&D (or LOTR that inspired it) alongside the Ranger/Druid/Wizard archetypes. There were a couple prestige classes in 3e and paragon paths in 4e that flirted with it- although I can't recall them immediately off the top of my head. It's what inspired them to make the Eladrin race for 4e, who are considerably more like your classic otherworldly fair-folk than usual D&D high elves.

And they mix arcane and fey magic (including moving between worlds) quite liberally with an appreciation for the power of nature.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
5E makes it far to easy (for some style of campaigns) to get these superpowers.

Question: Should these not rather be optional?

How do I restrict these without nerfing certain races / classes?

How do I partially restrict these? Is there stuff like a dimensional anchor in 5E?

Would a sorcerer / FS be totally nerfed if he aint getting these wings? What do I give him instead?

Is it politically uncorrect not to allow a monk to shadowstep out of any shackles?

If I want to have realistic Donjons and castles in my game do I have to add iron bars on each window and inside locks and bars to tower top trapdoors to prevent PCs shadowstepping or fly-avoiding every basic medieval obstacle versus unwanted entry into a compound?

Is that waterfall a mere beauty of nature and perfect scenery of the Teleport X-games or a real obstacle for the PCs?

Sir Braveinwood the eladrin paladin fearlessly shadowsteps on the back of the hovering Dragon does he have to roll athletics or acrobatics for this?


Start ranting please :)

Some of my pet peeves as well.

Obviously, in a world where magic exists, imprisonment requires different approaches. This part isn't new, bind and gag anybody who might be a spellcaster, don't let them sleep to regain spells, etc. Gagging them while hanging them by their wrists, an occasionally beating, raising and dropping them, dumping buckets of filth and such onto them seem like appropriate medieval ways to deal with them.

I've always gone with the idea that too much metal, particularly iron/steel, interferes with a druid's ability to shape change. Part of the reason why they don't wear metal armor.

Nobody gets wings in my campaign. At least not from a race or class standpoint. I get that the sprouting wings idea is supposed to be "cool." Not so much for me.

My biggest complaint is things like the 30-foot teleports, or the leaps made by storm sorcerers. Again, I get that the teleport thing is cool. And from a mechanical standpoint, it's mostly the same as moving 30 feet without provoking opportunity attacks. But that's kind of the issue for me. It was seemingly designed with RPG miniatures game design in mind, and not world building or the impact on the world at all.

It's not even a question of imprisoning somebody. Think about everyday life. Look out the window and teleport. Then teleport another 30 feet. And so on. People don't walk, they teleport. So yes, that's all gone too.

In most cases I don't worry about replacing them. Sometimes I do, but the classes have been so reworked anyway I can't say that I have something specific I've replaced them with. In a public campaign using RAW I just don't worry about the world impact. But anything that would drastically change the nature of my home campaign is just out.

And that's really my issue with them. They dramatically alter the nature of existing game worlds for them to be dropped into the campaign. Adding them as either optional, or for a world-specific purpose (such as adding psionic for Athas), is a better approach in my opinion. But then, they aren't designing games for me, they're designing games for what they see as the primary style of gamer now. I'm content to take the system they provide and tweak it.

About imprisonment, though, one thing to note is that in medieval times they didn't really have much in the way of imprisonment. If you were an outlaw (literally outside the law), then the protections of the law didn't apply to you. So killing you, for example, isn't murder. Severe punishments and death were the most common sentences, and they generally didn't lock somebody up and wait for a trial either, unless you were somebody very important.

So casting spells illegally? Cutting out the tongue and cutting off your hands on the spot wouldn't be out of line for a dark and gritty campaign. The threat of the law, such as it is, can be a very strong deterrent. Trial by combat actually was a thing, but so was trial by burning at the stake. If you died, then obviously you were guilty. The gods would protect somebody innocent.

If you do have things such as the teleportation abilities, then the laws and methods for dealing with those would be a thing too. While others have mentioned blindfolding, just plain gouging out your eyes is probably just as likely. Have fun with that if you don't have access to a regeneration spell.

Right now, when approaching Llorkh in my campaign, you're greeted by the bodies and half-dead criminals subjected to coffin torture - hanging from those narrow cages too small to let them sit, many with their eyes, tongue, and hands gone, left to die in their filth and the elements, and being eaten alive by ravens. It's no secret that suspected spell casters are treated with extra special "care" and it's also no secret that the Lord readily funds bounty hunters to find any who escape justice for crimes committed there.
 

DeJoker

First Post
Many movies and many books resolve the issue of imprisoning spell casters by placing a special set of manacles on them that prevents them from using magic. One of the more insidious version I saw of this is the one that creates an itching session as a side-effect which has the dual aspect of not only restrain the spell caster but slowly torturing them as well

Interesting stand -- so do you outlaw all magic as well -- I mean if one were to look closely at magic one would have to say that it would greatly impact any world where it exists (much like the industrial revolution did) and yet most GMs do not even consider the short and long term impacts of magic on their world and simply go on merrily in a manner that seemingly suggests that magic does not exist on a larger scale than an individual.

As for teleportation and flying and the like -- not only does it have that coolness factor but it is just plain fun ;) but still to nix them altogether seems rather harsh. I have never had to delete them, I just let the players shine with that and eventually they encounter villains that shine with it as well. Never had an issue with folks being creative with their abilities or spamming a certain thing because it works really well as my focus is on letting the players have fun and being creative about how I challenge them. Just because they have an ability I find challenging to challenge does not inherently make it a bad thing just means I have to be a bit more creative.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I see what you're saying, and, by and large I agree. Options are a good thing. But, there is a limit isn't there? I mean, we don't want fighters shout healing. :p
PDK already went there. It's acceptable because it's so underwhelming, I suppose.

Heck, if it makes sense that Oath of Ancient paladins get misty step, then why don't rangers get it? Or druids? Aren't they just a tied, if not moreso to nature stuff?
IDK, it all gets arbitrary at some point. I think the image of the ranger stepping suddenly out of the mists fits better than it does a paladin. ::shrug::

Oath of Vengeance only get Misty Step.
Avengers did a fair bit of teleporting and were mobile in general.

So, we have wizards, sorcerers and warlocks ... and paladins with this spell. Umm, one of these things is not like the others.
True. Only the wizard learned his powers from books and can swap out his spells on a day to day basis.

For me that's the problem. It mashes the casters together and makes them very bland.
Sure, but it means that "spell 13 is on class A's" list is no reason the same spell is inappropriate for class C.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
For me that's the problem. It mashes the casters together and makes them very bland. Again this is to me, not a general condemnation.

I'd prefer if the casters kept their spell lists a bit more distinct.
Or even where different types of casters do get the same spell, have it work differently for each type.

An example might in fact be Misty Step. For most casters it could work as normal but for Paladins it can only be used to move toward a known opponent, for example, and can NEVER be used in retreat.

Another simple example is Detect Magic. In my game I have it that both Clerics and Wizards get the spell, but only Wizards - because they're more finely attuned to magical energy and so on - get the information regarding strength of magic, enchantment type, etc. while Clerics simply get a yes-no but have a slightly greater range.

Other variables that can be tweaked by class include range, duration, casting time, spell level, etc.

1e and 2e had this sort of thing. In 3e they combined everybody's spell lists, probably to save space by not writing some spells up twice, which - while convenient for players when it came to looking things up - meant that a given spell always worked the same no matter who cast it...which really blurred the lines between arcane and divine. A mistake, IMO.

Lan-"throwing Bards into the mix just makes things even messier, as their effects should be sonic instead of magical"-efan
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
In 3e they combined everybody's spell lists, probably to save space by not writing some spells up twice, which - while convenient for players when it came to looking things up -
Did it really save all that much space? A spell name, block, & an "otherwise similar to..." entry didn't take up but a column-inch or so... ::shrug::

What I didn't like was that, while the single list was fine for looking up /one/ spell, it sucked for browsing through and familiarizing yourself with what your character could actually do based on casting class & level.

meant that a given spell always worked the same no matter who cast it...which really blurred the lines between arcane and divine.
In 1e, clerics even 'memorized' their spells, and clerics & magic-users could detect & dispel eachother's magic, and they both used the same 8 schools to classify spells. Having slightly different range or different material components or whatever didn't do much to differentiate them when they were casting the same spells, using the same Vancian system, with the same magical-energy-impressed-on-your-brain weirdness. ;)

Besides, at least 3e, like 1e, allowed for the same spell to be different levels to different classes. 5e's dumped that, as well.
 

DeJoker

First Post
For me that's the problem. It mashes the casters together and makes them very bland. Again this is to me, not a general condemnation.

I'd prefer if the casters kept their spell lists a bit more distinct.

Then you would definitely not like my way of doing it as I only have one single spell list that everyone uses but then again I only have 2 styles of magic and the difference is not in what you cast but how you cast it. Makes for a very simple and easy to use system and you do not have to wonder why that Arcane spell caster casts Spell A at level one and that Arcane caster casts it a level 2 and the Divine Caster casts it level 3 ... to me the level of the spell is based on its power and its power only So I only need one list of spells ... if you want to restrict who can cast what you restrict it either by having them not be able to cast the spell altogether or they do not get 2nd level spells as soon as another class does but you do not change the power level of the spell as the spell is not what you are restricting you are restricting the casters access to it.

Also I have never understood why, some Arcane and Divine casters can use Cantrips and others cannot not ?? If you can cast a 1st level spell you ought to be able to cast cantrips as well but if you cannot can anyone explain the aesthetics of that in a logical manner
 
Last edited:

Alexemplar

First Post
Also I have never understood why, some Arcane and Divine casters can use Cantrips and others cannot not ?? If you can cast a 1st level spell you ought to be able to cast cantrips as well but if you cannot can anyone explain the aesthetics of that in a logical manner

Some folks can cast spells. Some folks are so good at it that they can cast some spells at will.
 

Hussar

Legend
Then you would definitely not like my way of doing it as I only have one single spell list that everyone uses but then again I only have 2 styles of magic and the difference is not in what you cast but how you cast it. /snip

Yes, sir, you would be correct. I would not like that.
 

DeJoker

First Post
Some folks can cast spells. Some folks are so good at it that they can cast some spells at will.

Okay... then why are these 0 level spells rather than just say 1st level spells? If you can do as you say you should be able to pick any spell of your choice (of 1st level) that you have learned in such a manner but that is not how it works you pick a spell form a spell list that does not exist within the normal framework (1st to 9th for those who cantrips are not available). I agree that some class should be more of these than others but I abjectly disagree that any spell caster should not have access to these at all. I mean for those classes that do not have it what would be the harm in giving them 1 when they can cast 1st level spells and then an additional one much later on? Does upset the precious game mechanics in some way or is it just an issue of that is not how it has been done kind of thing which seems to propagate through all the versions of DnD every since 2nd Ed
 

Remove ads

Top