General Starlight
First Post
More On Teleporting
There are a few more problems with the way 3e's teleport spell is written, but most would result in an argument of semantics mostly for its own sake.
Most notably, though the caster needn't make a save, nor his items, nor a willing target, it could be argued a willing target's items should still make save - as it is technically written that way - since it says objects held by another person receive saving throws and SR. But that's what many here are saying is a clear example of over thinking the spell. Besides, I seriously doubt anyone intended that. They clearly meant, I would guess, objects held by unwilling targets.
So I'd say the caster, their items, any willing creature, and any objects possessed by these willing creatures would go along, as long as the total weight didn't exceed 50 pounds per level of the caster.
If weight limits were exceeded, rather than the spell trying to sort out what goes along and gets left behind, the whole spell would probably fail, now uselessly expended.
'Willing creatures' is also a bit of a dubious term. It should probably include friendly creatures to the caster if they are too dumb to make up their own minds, like a guard dog, for example. It should also allow normally intelligent creatures that are temporarily stupefied by a spell or something, though the spell doesn't really address these important issues. (They may be addressed elsewhere, but I haven't found that section yet if it does). A better way to look at all this is simply to allow anyone or anything the caster wants and can touch to go with them, except unwilling creatures and their possessions, which is easier to define. Unwilling creatures would get saves. It is the very aura of unwillingness that qualifies a creature and their possessions for a saving throw and SR.
On to other matters, I would not recommend a DM make up a 'similar area' simply because a similar area was rolled. If the DM felt it reasonably likely such a similar area did exist within 100 miles - or whatever limits they employ should they wish to incorporate the possibility of reasonably safe interplanetary teleportation - only then the DM should take the caster to this similar area. But if such an area of sufficient similarity wasn't within that limit, I'd simply convert the similar area roll to either mishap damage or off target (DM's choice)
Next, the idea of safely arriving when 'off target' is a bit of a problem. This can really kill you as much as anything. Even hitting the heart of an active volcano is not out of line, if truly random directions and distances are employed. If that's ok with you, fine, use the spell as written and proceed. But if one likes less lethality to make such a spell a darn sight better than a wizard's death wish, I'd recommend the spell somehow favor safety over danger, such as picking dry land instead of water. After all, the caster is probably imagining somewhere safe like dry land, and this sympathetic image alone may pull them is a more favorable direction rather than a randomly determined direction as suggested.
If no area within the decided upon limit is safer than any other, a random direction would be in order. For example, if nothing but ocean is within 100 miles of the target ship, SPLASH, me hardies Suffice it to say, it you set the spell's destination limits as small as 100 miles, teleporting to a ship in the middle of an ocean becomes more dangerous since there is no where safe that isn't the ship (which you missed) but still within limits. It just makes teleporting to a ship of unknown location sufficiently risky it isn't what I'd call a clever idea, even if you might get lucky. So unless you also knew the ship was at least within 100 miles of shore, I wouldn't do it if I were you
If multiple areas would be safe, again, determine one of those safe areas randomly in favor of an unsafe location.
But I think the spell really ought to favor coming in safely whenever an 'off target' roll is made as long as the possibility to do so and still remain within range exists. Even an iceberg wound be favored over the icy sea, if a handy iceberg were within range.
Finally, the problem of two-dimensional thinking should be addressed. There might be a safe bubble ocean dome under the sea (the home of some Storm Giant, for example), well within 100 miles, or even a place in the underdark since the ocean is probably less than 100 miles deep. Unless we want this spell to be more powerful than intended (I'm guessing as to what was intended) we'd probably limit it in a more two-dimensional way in times of 'off target' rolls. That is, it would search the globe's surface for 100 miles in any direction, but not look under the surface or in the sky for floating cities either, while we're at it. Unless the wizard is imagining such a location, I do not think it would be a good idea to allow their discovery via an off target roll just as a matter of safety. No doubt, they were visualizing a surface target, and should get one, even if it isn't all that safe when all is said and done.
That's about it, except I'll say again I enjoy thinking about such things like this when time permits, particularly to fill boring travel times between home and work. For me, such thought is not a chore, but quite fun. For those who wish to avoid such hard thinking as to why a spell may resolve itself thusly, I still feel they can use the final suggestions without too much trouble or feeling like it's hopelessly complicated. But when all is said and done, if what I've suggested doesn't do it for you, ignoring it is the simplest of all solutions.
Jim
There are a few more problems with the way 3e's teleport spell is written, but most would result in an argument of semantics mostly for its own sake.
Most notably, though the caster needn't make a save, nor his items, nor a willing target, it could be argued a willing target's items should still make save - as it is technically written that way - since it says objects held by another person receive saving throws and SR. But that's what many here are saying is a clear example of over thinking the spell. Besides, I seriously doubt anyone intended that. They clearly meant, I would guess, objects held by unwilling targets.
So I'd say the caster, their items, any willing creature, and any objects possessed by these willing creatures would go along, as long as the total weight didn't exceed 50 pounds per level of the caster.
If weight limits were exceeded, rather than the spell trying to sort out what goes along and gets left behind, the whole spell would probably fail, now uselessly expended.
'Willing creatures' is also a bit of a dubious term. It should probably include friendly creatures to the caster if they are too dumb to make up their own minds, like a guard dog, for example. It should also allow normally intelligent creatures that are temporarily stupefied by a spell or something, though the spell doesn't really address these important issues. (They may be addressed elsewhere, but I haven't found that section yet if it does). A better way to look at all this is simply to allow anyone or anything the caster wants and can touch to go with them, except unwilling creatures and their possessions, which is easier to define. Unwilling creatures would get saves. It is the very aura of unwillingness that qualifies a creature and their possessions for a saving throw and SR.
On to other matters, I would not recommend a DM make up a 'similar area' simply because a similar area was rolled. If the DM felt it reasonably likely such a similar area did exist within 100 miles - or whatever limits they employ should they wish to incorporate the possibility of reasonably safe interplanetary teleportation - only then the DM should take the caster to this similar area. But if such an area of sufficient similarity wasn't within that limit, I'd simply convert the similar area roll to either mishap damage or off target (DM's choice)
Next, the idea of safely arriving when 'off target' is a bit of a problem. This can really kill you as much as anything. Even hitting the heart of an active volcano is not out of line, if truly random directions and distances are employed. If that's ok with you, fine, use the spell as written and proceed. But if one likes less lethality to make such a spell a darn sight better than a wizard's death wish, I'd recommend the spell somehow favor safety over danger, such as picking dry land instead of water. After all, the caster is probably imagining somewhere safe like dry land, and this sympathetic image alone may pull them is a more favorable direction rather than a randomly determined direction as suggested.
If no area within the decided upon limit is safer than any other, a random direction would be in order. For example, if nothing but ocean is within 100 miles of the target ship, SPLASH, me hardies
Suffice it to say, it you set the spell's destination limits as small as 100 miles, teleporting to a ship in the middle of an ocean becomes more dangerous since there is no where safe that isn't the ship (which you missed) but still within limits. It just makes teleporting to a ship of unknown location sufficiently risky it isn't what I'd call a clever idea, even if you might get lucky. So unless you also knew the ship was at least within 100 miles of shore, I wouldn't do it if I were youIf multiple areas would be safe, again, determine one of those safe areas randomly in favor of an unsafe location.
But I think the spell really ought to favor coming in safely whenever an 'off target' roll is made as long as the possibility to do so and still remain within range exists. Even an iceberg wound be favored over the icy sea, if a handy iceberg were within range.
Finally, the problem of two-dimensional thinking should be addressed. There might be a safe bubble ocean dome under the sea (the home of some Storm Giant, for example), well within 100 miles, or even a place in the underdark since the ocean is probably less than 100 miles deep. Unless we want this spell to be more powerful than intended (I'm guessing as to what was intended) we'd probably limit it in a more two-dimensional way in times of 'off target' rolls. That is, it would search the globe's surface for 100 miles in any direction, but not look under the surface or in the sky for floating cities either, while we're at it. Unless the wizard is imagining such a location, I do not think it would be a good idea to allow their discovery via an off target roll just as a matter of safety. No doubt, they were visualizing a surface target, and should get one, even if it isn't all that safe when all is said and done.
That's about it, except I'll say again I enjoy thinking about such things like this when time permits, particularly to fill boring travel times between home and work. For me, such thought is not a chore, but quite fun. For those who wish to avoid such hard thinking as to why a spell may resolve itself thusly, I still feel they can use the final suggestions without too much trouble or feeling like it's hopelessly complicated. But when all is said and done, if what I've suggested doesn't do it for you, ignoring it is the simplest of all solutions.
Jim
Last edited:
