D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Oofta]

A cataclysm is not the same as the end of the world. Krynn had a cataclysm (literally called The Cataclysm iirc) and it was still there after the fact, albeit worse for wear.

I was proposing that the TC spell didn't exist. A DM that sets up important goals that cannot be achieved is a bad DM in my book. So if TC didn't exist, there would be an alternative.

I don't see a significant difference from TC not existing and the spell or target not being available to the group whether or not it's just labeled as a "different style". The DM always decides the scenario and decides if the group needs to get somewhere that is a mile away or 10,000 miles.

 

[Mort]

I was proposing that the TC spell didn't exist. A DM that sets up important goals that cannot be achieved is a bad DM in my book. So if TC didn't exist, there would be an alternative.

While it's not something to do "all the time," having 2 competing issues that are very difficult/impossible to both solve is a pretty good choice to give to a party. The enemy is invading on 2 fronts, whichever the group makes it too will have a much higher likelihood of holding. The group now has to weigh the ins and outs of the enemies possible successes and which is the "better" option. Both choices have pluses, both choices have minuses and either has implications for the campaign going forward. Such decision points tend to enhance the fun at the table and can make for fun and memorable campaigns.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I was proposing that the TC spell didn't exist. A DM that sets up important goals that cannot be achieved is a bad DM in my book. So if TC didn't exist, there would be an alternative.

I don't see a significant difference from TC not existing and the spell or target not being available to the group whether or not it's just labeled as a "different style". The DM always decides the scenario and decides if the group needs to get somewhere that is a mile away or 10,000 miles.

I was contrasting teleport (just as applicable as TC) existing with not existing. It's kind of necessary for me to do so in order to demonstrate that there can indeed be an important distinction between a campaign where teleport does and doesn't exist.

It seems like you're struggling with the idea of a traditional sandbox, and I'm not sure why. The DM typically pre-establishes the state of the world, and then sets the PCs loose in it. The DM only decides the initial state.

The only way the DM would be at fault in this scenario would be if there were only one way to find out about the cult's plot, and it were impossible (without teleport) to actually reach the ritual site in time from that location. However, that isn't the case. It is far more likely that the DM seeds many different ways for the players to find out. Not even the DM knows when or where the PCs will find out about the plot.


Let me try a different example with lower stakes. A traditional 4 class party. Unfortunately, after a few sessions, the cleric player needs to take a hiatus because of circumstances. The DM decides the cleric will remain in the starting town doing the work of the church, until the player can rejoin.

The players recently learned of a new, unexplored continent, and decide to travel there. Unfortunately, shortly after they arrive, the rogue is eaten by a dragon. They manage to slay it and recover his corpse, but the nearest town is a month away by boat.

In the campaign where teleport exists, the players can bamf back, get the rogue rezzed, and continue their adventure.

In the campaign without teleport, unless the DM inserts a convenient NPC who can rez, the rogue is SoL. Of course, the player can almost certainly roll up a new character to play.

However, I would strongly disagree that this is a meaningless difference.

 

[Oofta]

I was contrasting teleport (just as applicable as TC) existing with not existing. It's kind of necessary for me to do so in order to demonstrate that there can indeed be an important distinction between a campaign where teleport does and doesn't exist.

It seems like you're struggling with the idea of a traditional sandbox, and I'm not sure why. The DM typically pre-establishes the state of the world, and then sets the PCs loose in it. The DM only decides the initial state.

The only way the DM would be at fault in this scenario would be if there were only one way to find out about the cult's plot, and it were impossible (without teleport) to actually reach the ritual site in time from that location. However, that isn't the case. It is far more likely that the DM seeds many different ways for the players to find out. Not even the DM knows when or where the PCs will find out about the plot.


Let me try a different example with lower stakes. A traditional 4 class party. Unfortunately, after a few sessions, the cleric player needs to take a hiatus because of circumstances. The DM decides the cleric will remain in the starting town doing the work of the church, until the player can rejoin.

The players recently learned of a new, unexplored continent, and decide to travel there. Unfortunately, shortly after they arrive, the rogue is eaten by a dragon. They manage to slay it and recover his corpse, but the nearest town is a month away by boat.

In the campaign where teleport exists, the players can bamf back, get the rogue rezzed, and continue their adventure.

In the campaign without teleport, unless the DM inserts a convenient NPC who can rez, the rogue is SoL. Of course, the player can almost certainly roll up a new character to play.

However, I would strongly disagree that this is a meaningless difference.

I just disagree. I don't care what the style of campaign is. If the PCs have no way of achieving important goals that the DM has created (the DM always establishes potential goals) it's bad DMing. There can always be things that can't be affected that are going to happen, that's not what I'm talking about.

TC can be useful once or twice in a campaign, but in the majority of cases it's because the DM decided to set up scenarios where it's useful.

 

[Dausuul]

I was proposing that the TC spell didn't exist. A DM that sets up important goals that cannot be achieved is a bad DM in my book. So if TC didn't exist, there would be an alternative.

Say the DM sets up a scenario where the PCs need to get to a place 1,000 miles away, and they have six months to do so. At this point, they can get there on foot. The goal is achievable whether teleportation exists or not.

The PCs then spend five and a half months chasing squirrels and not following up on the leads that would tell them what was happening and where they needed to be. At this point, if teleportation does not exist or the PCs don't have access to it, the PCs cannot achieve the goal. But the goal was not unachievable when the DM set it up--it became so because of player decisions.

Whether this is bad DMing depends on the group's play style. In a linear "epic quest" campaign, it is bad DMing; the DM should have guided the players back to the main plot, and if the players absolutely insisted on avoiding it, the DM should have either changed the plot (say by pushing the deadline back) or ended the campaign.

But in a sandbox-style campaign, where the world evolves in response to the players' actions and there is no single storyline that you Must Complete, it's fine. The PCs failed at this task, they deal with the consequences, and the game goes on.

 

[Oofta]

Say the DM sets up a scenario where the PCs need to get to a place 1,000 miles away, and they have six months to do so. At this point, they can get there on foot. The goal is achievable whether teleportation exists or not.

The PCs then spend five and a half months chasing squirrels and not following up on the leads that would tell them what was happening and where they needed to be. At this point, if teleportation does not exist or the PCs don't have access to it, the PCs cannot achieve the goal. But the goal was not unachievable when the DM set it up--it became so because of player decisions.

Whether this is bad DMing depends on the group's play style. In a linear "epic quest" campaign, it is bad DMing; the DM should have guided the players back to the main plot, and if the players absolutely insisted on avoiding it, the DM should have either changed the plot (say by pushing the deadline back) or ended the campaign.

But in a sandbox-style campaign, where the world evolves in response to the players' actions and there is no single storyline that you Must Complete, it's fine. The PCs failed at this task, they deal with the consequences, and the game goes on.

In my games the players always decide what goals they pursue. If they choose to pursue a goal (even long term goals) I'll make it possible. It will neither be automatic success or failure.

 

[FrozenNorth]

My scenario was that the spell didn't exist at all. If the spell did not exist at all, very little would change.

If the spell didn’t exist, very little would change…if you are only using the spell to get to the adventure. As someone else indicated, this reflects a very particular playstyle, and is very inflexible to other playstyles.

Let’s take an example from Critical Role. End pf campaign 2, the heroes have identified the ultimate threat, and are preparing to confront it. Across the campaign, they have visited the breadth of the continent (mostly non-magically), “making the world a better place”. With their final battle ahead of them, they use magic to stop by many of those locations, both seeking magical items, and saying good-bye to friends in touching roleplay moments. These stop-bys were player-driven, not GM-driven.

In a campaign without TC, this doesn’t happen. This has both a mechanical snd a roleplay consequence, and I ascribe weight to both.

As long as the players are willing to be creative and inventive, you can’t dismiss TC as “simply a spell tax”. After the boss is killed, their base is collapsing around your ears. Teleportation Circle back to town.

I recently set up some scenarios where teleportation circle was useful in the game I DM. But I did it because the spell was available. If it hadn't been, I would have come up with different options.

This seems to be very DM-driven play. What if the players have their own goals which they use TC to achieve.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In my games the players always decide what goals they pursue. If they choose to pursue a goal (even long term goals) I'll make it possible. It will neither be automatic success or failure.

If all you're trying to say is that in your games teleportation doesn't matter, I can accept that 100%.

Is it possible for you to accept that in my campaigns it does matter, because my play style differs from your own in ways that have relevance to this?

 

[Yaarel]

The spell takes 10 minutes to cast and you need the target's sigil. It's not automatic in my campaigns, nobody is going to hand out the keys to the kingdom for whoever asks.

But this is just one of those things about how awesome the Wizards when it's really just fluff. If the spell didn't exist, very little would substantially change.

The DM is always deciding the fiction. If you need to get from A to B and it's important to the campaign you will be able to get from A to B. Teleportation Circle is practically a spell tax that ultimately changes nothing other than making the wizard feel important.

Yeah.

The spell Teleportation Circle is a fun prop for a setting, but it has little or nothing to do with how powerful a Wizard or Wizards party is.

The circle remains just as difficult to get from the destination circle to whatever "unfamiliar" location has the adventure.

 

[Yaarel]

If the spell [Teleportation Circle] didn’t exist, very little would change… if you are only using the spell to get to the adventure.

...

This seems to be very DM-driven play. What if the players have their own goals which they use TC to achieve.

Yeah, Teleportation Circle is a tool that requires high tier and significant investment to manage.

At lower tiers, nonmagical travel is the norm.

At higher tiers, the spell is a tool that allows players to create new stories.