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

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Yeah. There's a lot packed into what goes on with a botched teleport.

1. The possibility of something bad happening. This is an inherent part of the spell since there are bad places to end up as well as good one. No ruling or house rule is involved with that.
Agreed.

2. The ruling that a roll of a 1 indicates the possibility of the bad result. This is a ruling and not a house rule, because the game is silent on how to establish whether the inherent risk of something bad happening in teleport actually occurs, so a ruling is necessary.
IMO. For me this crosses the line into houserule territory. It's essentially a critical fumble result but for spells.

3. The use of the Fate Deck to help out. This is pure house rule that kicks in with every roll that happens, with the exception of initiative rolls, even if then if it's a very important initiative roll it can happen.
Agreed.

I'd also like to add that the intended teleport spot can also increase or decrease the chances of danger. If the wizard is trying teleport the group back to the king's throne room to warn him of immediate danger to the realm and they botch it, ending up in a similar location is going to place them in front of a different king in that throne room. The unknown king's guards is not going to wait to ask questions of an unknown group of high level individuals who just appeared armed and ready in front of their king. The danger is going to be somewhere close to 100% and immediate. :p On the other hand, teleporting to a peaceful elven glade you know about and getting a similar location is very unlikely to include that sort of danger.
Agreed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Agreed.


IMO. For me this crosses the line into houserule territory. It's essentially a critical fumble result but for spells.
It's not that at all. I don't apply it to any other spell. It's simply a ruling to figure out the chances of something bad happening with a spell where that possibility is inherent to the spell itself, but doesn't tell me the chances. I mean, I could just arbitrarily declare what happens, but I think the random determination is more fair. When you have to fill in a blank left by the rules, it's a ruling, not a house rule.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
It's not that at all. I don't apply it to any other spell. It's simply a ruling to figure out the chances of something bad happening with a spell where that possibility is inherent to the spell itself, but doesn't tell me the chances. I mean, I could just arbitrarily declare what happens, but I think the random determination is more fair. When you have to fill in a blank left by the rules, it's a ruling, not a house rule.
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.

If it was just used to aid in determining location it would be on the no houserule side for me.

EDIT: Found the quote in question
Since it's a Fate draw, it also doesn't necessarily have to do with where you end up. The right card might mean some weird magical confluence caused an item to be left behind, or countless other possible things going right or wrong.
 

But all any of that means that you are designing the campaign around a spell or two. If teleport wasn't an option, the stories and campaigns change slightly, that's all. It changes the set dressing and scenery, it doesn't change the nature of the game. 🤷‍♂️
From this description, and several others, it seems that your players are very reactive. If so, great! But it does seem that many of the shenanigans that others have dealt with tend to be caused by less reactive players.

For instance, you’ve pointed out several times that teleportation is not a big deal in your campaigns, because if it wasn’t there, there would be some other way for the party to get where they were going. That doesn’t seem to allow for more creative uses of teleportation, like the party teleporting to the Court of a leader they have done a favour for, borrowing a bunch of magical items, resting, and teleporting back the next day. Or once the BBEG, avoiding the collapsing base by teleporting out.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
From this description, and several others, it seems that your players are very reactive. If so, great! But it does seem that many of the shenanigans that others have dealt with tend to be caused by less reactive players.

For instance, you’ve pointed out several times that teleportation is not a big deal in your campaigns, because if it wasn’t there, there would be some other way for the party to get where they were going. That doesn’t seem to allow for more creative uses of teleportation, like the party teleporting to the Court of a leader they have done a favour for, borrowing a bunch of magical items, resting, and teleporting back the next day. Or once the BBEG, avoiding the collapsing base by teleporting out.
I think where @Oofta is coming from is that the difficulty of the game itself doesn't change so much because of teleport, just the narrative does. I think that's a fair point. I mean it very well could be the opposite - that gaining teleport made the game into easy mode, but that's not really something that's typically seen, because the boring parts are generally glossed over until something important is about to happen - which is what we see with and without teleport (only difference is that something important may be different in each scenario).

I think one overlooked aspect of @Oofta's point is that teleportation can help the PC's achieve their goals. So while it may not necessarily make their adventuring day easier, it may allow them to accomplish more of their goals in an adventuring day.

*I think we all agree it can be extremely helpful in escape scenarios, but I also think we all agree those aren't that typical in the course of play.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Why would the wizard not know how their spell works? They learned to teleport but not what is and isn't an associated object? How does that make sense? Just tell the player that teleport doesn't exist. Trust me, everyone will being happier rather than trying to play a mind reading game of mother may I with the DM.

I don't agree that you can move the tree and thereby move the location. The branch is an associated object because the tree it is part of is an associated object. But they're both associated with the location, which is the clearing (technically, the area right next to the clearing where the tree was). So moving the tree would have literally no impact on the spell whatsoever.

I suppose you could have your DM fiat NPC build the inescapable cell around that location. I mean, it's fiat, so you could literally just have them wake up in the cell without any illusion of agency whatsoever. Which is probably the way to go, since then you wouldn't have to wait for them to cast teleport. But then the player wouldn't be able to "learn their lesson" for using a game granted ability the way it was intended to be used, right?
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.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I think one overlooked aspect of @Oofta's point is that teleportation can help the PC's achieve their goals. So while it may not necessarily make their adventuring day easier, it may allow them to accomplish more of their goals in an adventuring day.
The more encounters cluster into one adventuring day, the more dangerous the adventure becomes to casters.

By this rationale, teleportation makes life for casters more difficult.

(Heh, compare how computers vastly increased the amount of paperwork that people have to do today.)
 


Oofta

Legend
From this description, and several others, it seems that your players are very reactive. If so, great! But it does seem that many of the shenanigans that others have dealt with tend to be caused by less reactive players.

For instance, you’ve pointed out several times that teleportation is not a big deal in your campaigns, because if it wasn’t there, there would be some other way for the party to get where they were going. That doesn’t seem to allow for more creative uses of teleportation, like the party teleporting to the Court of a leader they have done a favour for, borrowing a bunch of magical items, resting, and teleporting back the next day. Or once the BBEG, avoiding the collapsing base by teleporting out.

Well, I use the gritty rest rules so teleporting out won't buy you anything unless you want to risk a week going by. That's generally a bad idea. Teleporting out? Sure. But would the tower be collapsing if y'all didn't have teleport or would there be another option to escape? Or does your DM just play "Rocks fall everyone dies" if you don't happen to have the ability to cast the spell?

If you start with the assumption that teleport isn't an option, little or nothing changes other than set dressing and locations. It has nothing to do with the players being reactive, I think it actually makes them more creative in their solutions.
 

Oofta

Legend
I think where @Oofta is coming from is that the difficulty of the game itself doesn't change so much because of teleport, just the narrative does. I think that's a fair point. I mean it very well could be the opposite - that gaining teleport made the game into easy mode, but that's not really something that's typically seen, because the boring parts are generally glossed over until something important is about to happen - which is what we see with and without teleport (only difference is that something important may be different in each scenario).

I think one overlooked aspect of @Oofta's point is that teleportation can help the PC's achieve their goals. So while it may not necessarily make their adventuring day easier, it may allow them to accomplish more of their goals in an adventuring day.

*I think we all agree it can be extremely helpful in escape scenarios, but I also think we all agree those aren't that typical in the course of play.

Well, sure. Lots of things can help the group achieve their goals. They could also make an alliance with a gold dragon that was impressed by a fighters show of athleticism or any other number of things.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
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

Legend
Supporter
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

Legend
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

Legend
Supporter
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

Legend
"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

Legend
Supporter
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.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
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

Morkus from Orkus
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

As long as i get to be the frog
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.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top