Teleportation

[ferratus]

I don't think the game designers had in mind when they made the spell that it would be used to ruin games anymore than putting knock in the game was to step all over the rogues. It was to allow parties without rogues to be able to function.

The problem with knock is not that it allows the wizard to pick locks. It is that it allows the wizard to pick locks better than a rogue who focused all his skills on picking locks.

The problem with teleport (or plane shift if you prefer Lanefan) is not that it allows you to travel quickly. The problem with teleport is that it makes travel unnecessary, renders logistical problems obsolete, and renders almost all defenses moot.... unless you have another wizard cast anti-teleport.

 

[Elf Witch]

This made me giggle, as when I was a newbie DM my first campaign world was built around - you guessed it - a teleport network. It wasn't a perfect setting by any means, but the teleport network was one of the (rather shamefully few) things that worked out pretty well in the long run.

Lan-"the campaign name 'Telenet' in my .sig in fact comes from teleport network"-efan

LOL my first time behind the screen I let my players use skills and options and those blasted kits. It was a munchkin paradise and after several months all I wanted was to kill every last one of their's PCs.

 

[Manbearcat]

DnD attracts pretty smart people I don't think they need to be treated like idiots and protected from a possible abuse of a spell.

But the problem with the above is that it misrepresents the issues with the actual RAW rules (non-abusive) mechanics of the spell. Teleport isn't a problem (for those who have a problem with it, such as myself) due to corner cases and synergistic combinations (Scry, Buff, Teleport, Assassinate). It is a problem due to the fact that at mid-level it absolutely circumvents standard genre tropes (much in the same way that unconstrained Divinations circumvents investigation and intrigue) such as Oregon Trail attrition, overland travel (and the organic plot points that can derive from it - caravans, roadside inns, bandits, etc etc), harrowing pursuit evasion/narrow escapes, anxiety-inducing navigation of treacherous terrain or extreme environments, or cloak and dagger travel via subterfuge, stealth and uncanny wits through a city in which you are wanted or a target (of the guard, local thieves guild, or worse). And on and on.

Once you've narrowed the scope of your game by cutting these possible adventure paths/scenes out of the picture, the level of potential, genre-relevant dynamism of your game is choked to its last breath.

Yes, there are all manner of contrived conventions that DMs of 20 + years can use to short-circuit a wizard's repertoire...but the game can quickly turn into a trite effort of rock/paper/scissors and you find the entirety of your prep and in-game effort is built around trying to foresee the numerous ways that your resident Generalist Wizard PC can checkmate the excitement out of the collective fiction and circumvent anything resembling a climactic plot-point so that the session/adventure turns into a "why are we even bothering?" moment for everyone at the table who isn't the cynical Generalist Wizard. And possibly even worse yet is when the contrived conventions become so painfully transparent that they illicit a facepalm from the players (and from the DM inside is own head....maddened that he has to use such nonsense....maddened that he cannot let his Generalist Wizard go full bore...lest the game become fully unhinged).

Yes, I know that not everyone has those problems and some have never seen them manifest ever. I've had this same conversation with a few other posters on here. Nonetheless, there actually are very practiced, very proficient 20 + year GMs out there who would like a module that either constrains these spells via limited, hard-coded mechanics or moves them down the line to a higher level. They aren't foolish or afraid of cutting the spells out of the game or reaching social accord with their players to "play nice" with those spells. They are just worn out by the games that those spells, read as written, produce. Keep those beloved spells in the core for all I, and others, care. All we ask for is a supported (designer created, play-tested, quality controlled) module that allows the game to retain the elements listed above for a bit longer than through level 9.

 

[Elf Witch]

The problem with knock is not that it allows the wizard to pick locks. It is that it allows the wizard to pick locks better than a rogue who focused all his skills on picking locks.

The problem with teleport (or plane shift if you prefer Lanefan) is not that it allows you to travel quickly. The problem with teleport is that it makes travel unnecessary, renders logistical problems obsolete, and renders almost all defenses moot.... unless you have another wizard cast anti-teleport.

And it should allow the wizard to pick the lock better than the rogue because it is a spell and a limited resource and the wizard using it has given up a spell slot that would be better used for a different spell and it does nothing for traps.

The rogue can pick locks all day ,if there is no danger he can take 10 or 20 on it and he is not using up a limited resource. It does not take away from his combat abilities. He also has the skills to detect traps.

Well it is in my game and does not do any of that. There are a lot of other spells that make logistical problems obsolete shall we take all of those out of the game as well. There are counters to teleport just as there are counters to other spells meant to get around defenses shall we take out those spells as well.

 

[Elf Witch]

But the problem with the above is that it misrepresents the issues with the actual RAW rules (non-abusive) mechanics of the spell. Teleport isn't a problem (for those who have a problem with it, such as myself) due to corner cases and synergistic combinations (Scry, Buff, Teleport, Assassinate). It is a problem due to the fact that at mid-level it absolutely circumvents standard genre tropes (much in the same way that unconstrained Divinations circumvents investigation and intrigue) such as Oregon Trail attrition, overland travel (and the organic plot points that can derive from it - caravans, roadside inns, bandits, etc etc), harrowing pursuit evasion/narrow escapes, anxiety-inducing navigation of treacherous terrain or extreme environments, or cloak and dagger travel via subterfuge, stealth and uncanny wits through a city in which you are wanted or a target (of the guard, local thieves guild, or worse). And on and on.

Once you've narrowed the scope of your game by cutting these possible adventure paths/scenes out of the picture, the level of potential, genre-relevant dynamism of your game is choked to its last breath.

Yes, there are all manner of contrived conventions that DMs of 20 + years can use to short-circuit a wizard's repertoire...but the game can quickly turn into a trite effort of rock/paper/scissors and you find the entirety of your prep and in-game effort is built around trying to foresee the numerous ways that your resident Generalist Wizard PC can checkmate the excitement out of the collective fiction and circumvent anything resembling a climactic plot-point so that the session/adventure turns into a "why are we even bothering?" moment for everyone at the table who isn't the cynical Generalist Wizard. And possibly even worse yet is when the contrived conventions become so painfully transparent that they illicit a facepalm from the players (and from the DM inside is own head....maddened that he has to use such nonsense....maddened that he cannot let his Generalist Wizard go full bore...lest the game become fully unhinged).

Yes, I know that not everyone has those problems and some have never seen them manifest ever. I've had this same conversation with a few other posters on here. Nonetheless, there actually are very practiced, very proficient 20 + year GMs out there who would like a module that either constrains these spells via limited, hard-coded mechanics or moves them down the line to a higher level. They aren't foolish or afraid of cutting the spells out of the game or reaching social accord with their players to "play nice" with those spells. They are just worn out by the games that those spells, read as written, produce. Keep those beloved spells in the core for all I, and others, care. All we ask for is a supported (designer created, play-tested, quality controlled) module that allows the game to retain the elements listed above for a bit longer than through level 9.

But who decides what is genre relevant? The ability for wizards to travel instantaneous has always been a part of the genre I have seen it many books I have read since I started reading fantasy when I was sixteen.

I have been playing since the 70s and I have never seen it what you are describing where every single time teleport is used to get around all those things.

It is a very easy counter use a teleport spell that has a risk involved these things were not a huge issue back in the days of 1 and 2E I didn't start hearing about it until 3E and players figuring out if they combine this and this and this they are almost unstoppable. It is the same as multiclassing on the face of it you sacrificed some power to get other things and have your character concept well in the hands of powergamers some multiclass builds are over powered. The answers for some is to ban multiclassing. My answer is to say look this concept is over powered you need to change it.

Not everyone wants to play LOTR or Conan maybe I want teleport and flying airships in my DnD.

There seems to be a lot of I don't like this in my game so I don't want it in the game at all.

I really hope the 5E has teleport in it as option I hope it has dials as well to allow the DM the choice on how to use it in their game.

 

[ferratus]

It is right up there why would you create a portal at every camp sight? And if you do that then what is the difference between traveling through the portals to avoid the trip and teleporting?

The difference is that you still have reason to travel using griffons, you don't annhihilate the narrative flow of most adventures, and you don't obliterate all the enemy's defenses. The three problems are still there with at whim teleport, and they aren't there with linked portals.

Perhaps you think they are creating permanent magical items, rather than just locations where they can teleport from?

The one big problem with teleport is scry. Scry is one of the most broken spells in the game as far as I am concerned you should only be able to scry on someone you know well seeing someone once should not be enough unless you have an item off of them with their essence in it. And you should never be able to scry on a place you have never seen or been easily.

I don't really see any problems with Scry. Sure, you might cut a mystery or two short, but if you already know who you should be scrying on, there probably isn't much information that you need to get. What information that you can gleam (ie. where the location of the target is, what he is doing at any given moment, etc.) are often good ways to push the plot forward.

No, the teleport is definately the second biggest problem in the scry-buff-teleport chain, with buff being the first.

And as much as I like teleport I don't like teleport without error there should always be a risk involved.

If teleport only puts you in the vague area of where you want to teleport (within 5 miles) then two of my objections to at-whim teleport disappear.

I don't care about the chance of failure in a teleport spell. It is often better odds than I can get vs. a save or die spell, so what do I care about a chance of death? I have a chance of death greater than a teleport spell gone awry every day. A 75% chance of killing the opponent easily with little risk otherwise? Sign me up, because I likes them odds.

 

[ferratus]

I have been playing since the 70s and I have never seen it what you are describing where every single time teleport is used to get around all those things.

Sure, but you could believe others have problems. There have been people on this thread that have no problems with 3e teleport, some that have problems with 3e teleport but not 1e teleport. Then there some others who have had problems with at-whim teleport period.

For example, I can tell you that I once gave an aerie full of wyverns to players but they didn't fly them once because I didn't give it to them before the wizard learned teleport and fly. I couldn't very well give them to them much earlier, otherwise the wyverns would have been more powerful than the PC's. So just when overland flight on the backs of monsters becomes a viable option to PC's, teleport renders it obsolete.

It is a very easy counter use a teleport spell that has a risk involved these things were not a huge issue back in the days of 1 and 2E I didn't start hearing about it until 3E and players figuring out if they combine this and this and this they are almost unstoppable.

3e definately made spellcasters even more insufferable, mostly because it was a lot easier to get the XP to climb to higher levels of magecraft. If it takes a couple of years to reach the level required to cast teleport, most games will break up and the campaign will end simply because people move on to other things.

But if you are playing a D&D 2e game where you didn't count XP (the heresy) or started players above level one (the horror!) often enough, then you certainly would find many of the same problems that you found in 3e in regards to spellcasters.

The answers for some is to ban multiclassing. My answer is to say look this concept is over powered you need to change it.

Yeah, but we are all talking about changing teleport, not banning it. Nobody wants to ban teleport, we just want to change how it works so it isn't as problematic.

Not everyone wants to play LOTR or Conan maybe I want teleport and flying airships in my DnD.

If you give group teleport, why do you need airships?

From Cracked:

Now, the 2009 film has a major plot point where Kirk needs to be teleported onto the Enterprise, but the Enterprise is moving at warp speed at the time. Scotty figures out a way to do it, and the movie celebrates this achievement as being the first time anyone has ever been transported to an object moving that fast. But that isn't the point.

The Enterprise is shooting off at Warp 3 just before Scotty and Kirk beam aboard. Warp 3, by the way, is 27 times the speed of light. Or 5 million miles a second. That means that by the time Kirk has finished saying, "I really liked you in Shaun of the Dead," the Enterprise would be out of the solar system. A distance Scotty has no trouble overcoming with his transporter.

So, uh, why do we need spaceships again?

Read more: 7 Movies That Ignored World Changing Discoveries | Cracked.com 7 Movies That Ignored World Changing Discoveries | Cracked.com

 

[ferratus]

And it should allow the wizard to pick the lock better than the rogue because it is a spell and a limited resource and the wizard using it has given up a spell slot that would be better used for a different spell and it does nothing for traps.

Sure, but there is a reason why I joked we could fire the rogue character after we picked up a wand of knock in my last 3e game. If a major part of the rogue's abilities are overshadowed by a wizard's minor spell slot, then it can be a little emasculating for the skill based rogue. This is even worse in 1e and 2e where you wouldn't be able to pick a lock reliably until... right about when the wizard picked up a knock spell.

The rogue can pick locks all day ,if there is no danger he can take 10 or 20 on it and he is not using up a limited resource. It does not take away from his combat abilities. He also has the skills to detect traps.

Yep, but the time when you as a thief fail a lockpicking roll, and the wizard casts knock from a scroll, is really, really humiliating. You suddenly realize you could have been a better thief to deal with the occasional lock than you are now with a spell, and you'd be able to cast fireball by now.

Well it is in my game and does not do any of that. There are a lot of other spells that make logistical problems obsolete shall we take all of those out of the game as well. There are counters to teleport just as there are counters to other spells meant to get around defenses shall we take out those spells as well.

I don't mind magical counters. But I'd like an actual shield to be able to block magic missiles, just like the shield spell can. So to do I not want tactics, terrain, logistics, and defensive fortifications invalidated by teleport just because I didn't have a wizard cast anti-teleport. Let me have tactics, terrain, logistics, and defensive fortifications something I can use when fighting wizards... because I can't do magic unless I hire it, and I can't afford spell protection better than my higher level enemy.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And it should allow the wizard to pick the lock better than the rogue because it is a spell and a limited resource and the wizard using it has given up a spell slot that would be better used for a different spell and it does nothing for traps.

The rogue can pick locks all day ,if there is no danger he can take 10 or 20 on it and he is not using up a limited resource. It does not take away from his combat abilities. He also has the skills to detect traps.

But how many locks does he actually have to pick in any given day?

And what if the Wizard writes a few scrolls of Knock, or gets a Wand of Knock? Suddenly it's not really such a limited resource anymore. Also consider - the Thief has his Open Lock skill trained with his skill points. He invested a character resource permanently. The Wizard can decide each day whether he wants to prepare a Knock. If the Wizard knows there are no locks to expect, he can slot something else. If the Rogue knows this, he's still stuck with his ranks in Open Lock / Thievery.

Maybe you want to do away with Scrolls and Wands? But I hardly believe that, since you also don't want to give up any-distance-and-location Teleports. It seems to me there is no interest (by you at least) in reducing the Wizard's power level, and no interest in raising that of non-spellcaster either to deal with Wizards (see my thread with the fighter-suppresses-magic-protection).

 

[Black Knight Irios]

If you have to have been there in person already anyway, then why not just have linked portals? It also leads to ramifications in the wider campaign world. For example people would start banning mages from setting foot in castles or walled cities for security reasons, because he can sneak in with teleportation and assassinate the king.

You could use many of the alternatives of teleport as well: Spider Climb, Fly, (improved) Invis., Silence, Dimension Door, Etherealness, Gaseous Form, the list goes on. Nice examples by Elf Witch, by the way, as well.

I'm well aware I can ban a problematic spell, I'm just letting you know why teleport is problematic, and how it can be done better. Why is a broken spell necessarily better than one that you come up with yourself?

I don't know if your suggestion ist better it is different for sure.

i) If the mass spells are in the DM's hands, then there is no reason not to put them in the PHB spell list instead of teleport. Let's make a specific spell that is an avoid-TPK spell at 5th level that doesn't have teleport's problems.

Just tell WotC to print it. And what does it exactly? Meta-spell: avoids a TPK once a day?

ii) Why does contingency need to be higher level than teleport? It is less useful than teleport, so why isn't it less powerful? Gamist thinking no doubt.

Oh yeah, the uses of Contigency are almost infinite and they can be used defensively, offensively and for utility. This spell's utility does not match my description of weaker than teleport.

iii) If linked portals work just fine, why do I have to ban the teleport spell? Why not just have the teleport spell work that way from now on? One works just fine, the other has problems, so it seems a no brainer.

Having the spell and just banning it if it disturbs your game seems like a no brainer to me. I highly advocate that WotC adds some disclaimers to certain spells to warn DMs that they might not work in certain campaign types.

Interesting for me is that you still avoid a discussion about scry and its brothers even so one can blame scry as much for 'scry-buff-teleport' as teleport.
What would you say if I wanted WotC not to print all divinations that give you concrete information or visual confirmation. I mean anyone who wants them can write them themselves, can't they.
Or I can just ban them in my game if they would ruin my investigation based adventure.
Which of those to options seems more useful to a larger playerbase. Again I would add a disclaimer to the divinations to inform DMs that they might be not suited for the adventure they are creating.

In the case of D&D teleport, I would have though that it is trivially easy for any GM who is familiar with it from a past edition to "invent" it again! Just cut-and-paste.

My emphasis: What do you propose should a new DM do. Starting from scratch. A new DM can surely ban teleport just fine, read above for my suggestion about a disclaimer.

There's not even a balance question. Should teleport be 1st level? 3rd level? 5th level? 9th level? A far as I can tell, the answer to that question depends entirely on the level at which you're happy for overland travel not to matter in your game anymore.

Yeah plane hopping and gating is possible but we are not able to move faster from a to b. Overland Flight negates a crapton of encounters as well. Sometimes you don't care about the way only the destination. I think I sound rather repetitive ban teleport if the way is that important in your games.