Teleportation Circles

[grickherder]

I like (maybe even love) that the rules for the PCs and NPCs are different. It's absolutely fantastic. One of my favorite features of old D&D like red box/rules cyclopedia was the idea that the players don't necessarily have access to the abilities of NPCs.

That said, I think it fits for higher level tiers for them to be able to make them.

So what does a permanent magical teleport circle let you do that the 8th level non permanent one does not?

It's cheaper and easier to use. 85 less gold per teleport and a +5 to the roll. It also makes its location a destination point rather than a departure point for those who know the sigils/coordinates. For casters of True Portal, it reduces the cost to 1000 gold and gives you a +5 to your arcana roll.

That's really not all that powerful or amazing. A level 20 ritual with equivalent costs would likely be more than fine. Perhaps even lower.

 

[Ahglock]

Seconded. I hope they'll never put rules for this in writing unless they also point out it's only available for npcs.

As it is teleportation circles are a plot device. The pcs will not be able to put a teleportation circle anywhere unless the DM wants them to. This is a good change!

I am literally boggled at this mindset.

 

[grickherder]

I am literally boggled at this mindset.

The idea that a given DM might want a given ability to be limited to the NPCs is hard to understand? That these same DMs might prefer to see their likes and dislikes reflected in the rules themselves rather than being houserules?

I imagine it is similar to the notion that some people have that magic items belong in the DMG rather than the PHB. Having things available in the PHB as something you can just buy, or do, creates the expectation that such will be available in the game. Then if a DM wants to not include those elements in the game, the DM has to then houserule against possible player expectations.

Imagine, for example, that all the monster races in the back of the MM were in the PHB's races chapter. Orcs, Dopplegangers, Minotaurs, the lot. That would create an expectation among the players that those races are available to be played as a default. Similarly, a ritual to create teleport circles (or make undead like zombies) creates the expectation that such an action is available to be played out.

Some DMs, rather than having to redefine player expectations after the fact (often things might go unclarified until it comes up), prefer to not have such options implicitly available.

Does that make sense?

 

[Ahglock]

Does that make sense?

Not to me it doesn't, hence why I am boggled. Never wanting something in the rules I just can not fathom. I can take things out easy peasy, and all I have to do is talk with my players about it. Not currently needing it, not fitting your campaign that I can understand. Never wanting the rules when it is so easy to remove something like this I just don't understand, it literally boggles me.

 

[shinobi_guyver]

I see what Ahglock is saying, and it makes sense.

It's easier to have all the rules in the books/manuals, and then the DM tells the players what won't be in the campaign. Which is simpler: house-ruling something out, or having to create house-rules from scratch to allow something that isn't explained in the book?

The PHB or DMG could have the rules for permanent circles and when the players bring it up, the DM could simply say that it doesn't work in their campaign. Sure, this could make Rule Lawyers angry ("Hey! It's in the rulebook, so I can do it!"), but it still comes down to the DM setting the rules for their setting.

Another reason the rules for permanent circles aren't in the current set of manuals is that it could be up to the DM to determine how they would be created/function in their campaign.

I remember seeing something about rules in a game manual that went something like:
"Rules are written on paper, not etched in stone tablets. Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts. The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game."

 

[Jack99]

I see what Ahglock is saying, and it makes sense.

It's easier to have all the rules in the books/manuals, and then the DM tells the players what won't be in the campaign. Which is simpler: house-ruling something out, or having to create house-rules from scratch to allow something that isn't explained in the book?

The PHB or DMG could have the rules for permanent circles and when the players bring it up, the DM could simply say that it doesn't work in their campaign. Sure, this could make Rule Lawyers angry ("Hey! It's in the rulebook, so I can do it!"), but it still comes down to the DM setting the rules for their setting.

Another reason the rules for permanent circles aren't in the current set of manuals is that it could be up to the DM to determine how they would be created/function in their campaign.

I remember seeing something about rules in a game manual that went something like:
"Rules are written on paper, not etched in stone tablets. Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts. The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game."

Just a heads up mate. The moderators of Enworld prefer that us normal mortals do not use colored text as default, as this is what they do, when they speak with their "moderator voice".

 

[grickherder]

Which is simpler: house-ruling something out, or having to create house-rules from scratch to allow something that isn't explained in the book?

It really can depend on the DM's creativity/experience and the social dynamic of the group. For example, in a game I'm running, all of my players are people I never met before I posted an add on the cork board of a local game store. I said I was going to run 4e as soon as it came out (I had KoTS only at that point). The players showed up expecting to try the new game and that we'd be playing it as is. For me to start house ruling things out would be contrary to the social dynamic and expectations. See below for what I think is the optimum solution though.

The PHB or DMG could have the rules for permanent circles and when the players bring it up, the DM could simply say that it doesn't work in their campaign. Sure, this could make Rule Lawyers angry ("Hey! It's in the rulebook, so I can do it!"), but it still comes down to the DM setting the rules for their setting.

It's not just the rules lawyer who will get angry. One of my players has made it his stated character goal to rebuild the last great human empire (where in the default points of light setting) and sees the restoration of magical transport and communication as key to that. If there was a make teleport circle ritual in the PHB and I suddenly said "no way" that would be very problematic. I find the need to come up with a homebrew ritual to be far easier to deal with than creating a false expectation and then dashing it later during play.

Another reason the rules for permanent circles aren't in the current set of manuals is that it could be up to the DM to determine how they would be created/function in their campaign.

This. This. This.

Teleport cirlce rituals (as well as necromantic rituals and others) belongs in the DMG. I don't think they need to exist at all, but if they were to, I'd want them in the DMG and not the PHB.

 

[grickherder]

Not to me it doesn't, hence why I am boggled. Never wanting something in the rules I just can not fathom. I can take things out easy peasy, and all I have to do is talk with my players about it. Not currently needing it, not fitting your campaign that I can understand. Never wanting the rules when it is so easy to remove something like this I just don't understand, it literally boggles me.

Well, I gave explaining it my best go. Things in the PHB are options for the player to use during the game. It tells the players what requirements they need to do something (levels, certain feets, gold cost, etc.,) and spells it out as something they can do. Imagine if a player really likes one of those things and starts building his character concept around it, just to find out in game 3 months later that you've decided to remove it.

Rules for everything is not an ideal. It is not always better to have rules for a given event, procedure, etc.,. Their existence creates an expectation that they will be used. Sometimes, that's not ideal. Sometimes it's better to create an expectation that the DM will making a ruling rather than use a rule.

 

[Stogoe]

Creating teleport circles is a story concern, and should be left up to individual DMs. Besides, each group is going to want to do it differently if at all.