D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Fanaelialae]

The character learned how it works & that's why they got a warning about needing something with more concretely linked than than a mere casually linked random object. If the player chooses to tempt fate & argue with an uncaring universe about why a casually linked object is good enough that's a different matter which may or may not bring consequences left for fate & the universe to decide without negotiation. "it doesn't say it needs to be more firmly linked" is the same as "it doesn't say that it shouldn't be more firmly linked." There's a difference between the gm plonking the party in a bad situation & the party plonking themselves in a bad situation they were warned about but chose to do anyways... The difference is who held the shovel & dug the pit.

Why there's a pit there at all matters. There's a difference between something that develops naturally from the world, and something that is heavy handedly done to teach the players a lesson. (Don't try to teach your players lessons. If there's a problem, simply talk to them.)

In your example, a super-powerful NPC wants to capture the NPCs, and contrives a plan to force them to teleport into an inescapable cell. Would this NPC even be trying to capture the PCs if the wizard had learned Forcecage instead of Teleport?

If the NPC wouldn't be trying to capture the PCs based on the selected spell, then that certainly suggests some extremely questionable motives on the part of the DM.

If the NPC would be trying to capture the PCs either way, then there are arguably better ways to go about it. The teleport plan is extremely convoluted.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why there's a pit there at all matters. There's a difference between something that develops naturally from the world, and something that is heavy handedly done to teach the players a lesson. (Don't try to teach your players lessons. If there's a problem, simply talk to them.)

In your example, a super-powerful NPC wants to capture the NPCs, and contrives a plan to force them to teleport into an inescapable cell. Would this NPC even be trying to capture the PCs if the wizard had learned Forcecage instead of Teleport?

If the NPC wouldn't be trying to capture the PCs based on the selected spell, then that certainly suggests some extremely questionable motives on the part of the DM.

If the NPC would be trying to capture the PCs either way, then there are arguably better ways to go about it. The teleport plan is extremely convoluted.

I didn't say skeletor was holding the leash. Powerful beings have their own rules in how they can act without crossing other powerful beings, they often compensate competence from loyal help quite well in fact. Not every shotgun bargain is a bad thing & it has nothing to do with teaching players a lesson. It might not be desirable, but that's a good reason not to tempt fate in the first place.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I didn't say skeletor was holding the leash. Powerful beings have their own rules in how they can act without crossing other powerful beings, they often compensate competence from loyal help quite well in fact. Not every shotgun bargain is a bad thing & it has nothing to do with teaching players a lesson. It might not be desirable, but that's a good reason not to tempt fate in the first place.

Yeah, clearly the convoluted teleport plan has everything to do with mysterious rules that powerful beings must abide by, and nothing to do with teaching the players a lesson, or punishing them for perceived defiance.

Except, wait, you as the DM are making up those mysterious rules. I assume that you would have those rules worked out well in advance of the player choosing teleport?

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, clearly the convoluted teleport plan has everything to do with mysterious rules that powerful beings must abide by, and nothing to do with teaching the players a lesson, or punishing them for perceived defiance.

Except, wait, you as the DM are making up those mysterious rules. I assume that you would have those rules worked out well in advance of the player choosing teleport?

"would you like to spend in game time investing gold into investigating the mysteries of why what you know to be very much not accepted standard practice due to footnotes about it being a bad idea?" Most players are happy knowing that x is generally accepted as a bad idea & that they can do y instead. The exception is players looking to exploit what they think is some loophole.

 

[Fanaelialae]

"would you like to spend in game time investing gold into investigating the mysteries of why what you know to be very much not accepted standard practice due to footnotes about it being a bad idea?" Most players are happy knowing that x is generally accepted as a bad idea & that they can do y instead. The exception is players looking to exploit what they think is some loophole.

Yeah, a player using a 7th level spell to travel without error 20 miles to a place they recently rested is exploiting a loophole and deserves to be punished by fiat. Personally, the only problem I perceive in that scenario is that the DM may have some serious control issues.

I've had players try to exploit actual loopholes at my table. Usually based on misunderstandings regarding the rules. I discuss it with them. If there's pushback, I listen and may even reconsider, but if I disagree I explain my reasoning and stand firm. And I've never had a player who took issue with it beyond that. I've certainly never punished the player by punishing the character.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, a player using a 7th level spell to travel without error 20 miles to a place they recently rested is exploiting a loophole and deserves to be punished by fiat. Personally, the only problem I perceive in that scenario is that the DM may have some serious control issues.

I've had players try to exploit actual loopholes at my table. Usually based on misunderstandings regarding the rules. I discuss it with them. If there's pushback, I listen and may even reconsider, but if I disagree I explain my reasoning and stand firm. And I've never had a player who took issue with it beyond that. I've certainly never punished the player by punishing the character.

A player looking to make a trail of daily anchors like you described screams of one with an unmentioned plan that requires that as a fallback once they break the glass on the loophole.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A player looking to make a trail of daily anchors like you described screams of one with an unmentioned plan that requires that as a fallback once they break the glass on the loophole.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it really doesn't.

Personally I think I'm done with the teleportation tangent. Everything pertinent to it has already been said. And IMO the issue being discussed is really much deeper than teleportation. Teleportation is just the manifestation of that deeper issue. That deeper issue is really about how a DM should use fiat. That might make an interesting discussion, but probably one best left to another thread.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry for not saying this sooner, you mentioned it could cause something to be left behind. To me that's the part that pushes it over the edge.

Okay, but there were three distinctly different steps.

First, the step we agree on. The spell includes inherent danger.
Second, the mechanic by which the possible bad effect is determined. Rolling a d20. That's it. Nothing else is involved at this point.
Third, the house rule with the Fate Deck. You seem to be merging the second and third steps together. Were I to forget my Fate Deck, which has happened in a few games, the second step would still be there and I would figure out what the 1 meant a different way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, but there were three distinctly different steps.

First, the step we agree on. The spell includes inherent danger.
Second, the mechanic by which the possible bad effect is determined. Rolling a d20. That's it. Nothing else is involved at this point.
Third, the house rule with the Fate Deck. You seem to be merging the second and third steps together. Were I to forget my Fate Deck, which has happened in a few games, the second step would still be there and I would figure out what the 1 meant a different way.

I see. For me it’s really more about the whole process and not some part of it.

If you use a d20 to determine when to invoke a fate deck that then only determines where the teleport takes you then that's not a house rule in my view.

If you use a d20 to determine when to invoke a fate deck that then has the possibility of leaving an item behind then that’s a house rule in my view.

For me - It's not about having a Fate Deck. It's not about the d20. It's about whether the holistic process you invoke can yield a result that's outside the written scope of the spell or ability in question.

Don't get me wrong, I think your 'critical fumble' teleporting is a more interesting way to resolve the spell. I like it overall. It just doesn't fall in the realm of things I'd call a ruling.