D&D 3.x J Tweets 3ed BANE

[gizmo33]

Specifically, the D&D designers haven't gone quite that far down the road of materials and conditions that block teleportation because it's not cool to take away abilities that PCs have earned over the course of many levels.

Well, I have an ability to swing a sword, so why does the DM "take that away" by making me have to hit a certain armorclass? Darn shields. Why does see invisibility take away my invisibility? Why does Resist Fire thwart my fireball? What about Dispel Magic?

How about my ability to not get assassinated by someone with teleport? Isn't a lack of a teleport ward nerfing that?

I know my language is somewhat silly here, but the main point is just that the line you draw with Teleport doesn't really exist in principle in other areas. I get turned to stone, someone can turn me back. I get killed, someone raises me from the dead. Extra planar creatures are held at bay by magic circles. Vampires are held at bay by crosses. Rock beats scissors beats paper. I could go on and on but I have a strong objection to what I think you're trying to say here. It doesn't make sense to me in terms of realism, the game, folklore, human nature, ... practically any perspective that I can think of.

If, once he gets to that high level, he's told that teleport isn't actually useful when he needs it to be, he wonders why he bothered with this class. Though I'm not inclined to dig it up at the moment, Monte Cook wrote a brilliant article on this topic in the early years of 3.0.

I think I might have read it. IIRC it talks about the DM using fiat to nerf abilities because of plot issues. "Your scry just doesn't work, there's no reason why" - in order to protect an adventure's plot. I definitely don't support that technique, and I think it's a consequence in part of a poor set of choices that NPCs have to defend themselves against magic in DnD. I think it's a misinterpretation of Monte's philosophy to think that counter-measures are somehow inappropriate to the game.

Or consider this analogy - my ability to walk is nerfed by castle walls. Now clearly walking is not useless. And nor is teleport useless in a world with teleport wards. After all, a teleport ward can't be everywhere at all times, and maybe there would be a spell that "teleports" into an area and triggers/dismisses such wards.

There's no reason this thing can't be an arms race, but it's not. It's like the NPC wizards of the world have just sat around and gotten teleport-assassinated for generation after generation and never considered researching a spell to mitigate the situation.

The answer, then, is to design the class along different lines in the first place, and to design the teleport spell so that it is less open to abuse. Ideally this design will take place at the start of a new edition, rather than in its midst (when complaints of nerfing go from grumbling to a deafening uproar).

I don't see how this is fundementally different than what I'm suggesting. In any case I'm not clear why player complaints about nerfing are an issue here. All that needs to be done is have enemy casters do the same thing to the PCs that they do to them. No one in my campaign complains about the existence of teleport wards because the PCs are the main users!

IMO anyone with issues about people developing technologies for protecting themselves has just been surviving off of DM fiat and soft-heartedness for too long.

 

[Aloïsius]

There's no reason this thing can't be an arms race, but it's not. It's like the NPC wizards of the world have just sat around and gotten teleport-assassinated for generation after generation and never considered researching a spell to mitigate the situation.

I don't understand : there are spells against scry/teleportation.
Private sanctum, divert teleportation etc..

 

[WhatGravitas]

"Your scry just doesn't work, there's no reason why" - in order to protect an adventure's plot. I definitely don't support that technique, and I think it's a consequence in part of a poor set of choices that NPCs have to defend themselves against magic in DnD. I think it's a misinterpretation of Monte's philosophy to think that counter-measures are somehow inappropriate to the game.

Then you remember it totally wrong. Read here:

2. Don't Negate, Embrace. It's a tendency for DMs (and module writers) to do everything mentioned in Step 1 and then systematically eliminate the possibility of the PCs using those abilities. If they have a clever trap in the adventure that requires the characters to be on the ground, they make it impossible to fly. That's lazy design. One needs to realize that once you've reached 10th level, pits aren't meant to be the big challenge that they were at 1st level.

That doesn't mean that anti-magic fields (or whatever) are always bad. Sometimes it's interesting to strip away a character's magical abilities. But only once in a while -- as the exception, not the rule. If the PCs are always having their good abilities taken away from them, they will become frustrated.

Instead of negating character abilities, design your high-level adventures to require those high-level abilities. If the PCs are 13th level, there's nothing wrong with designing a quest that can be completed only by teleporting to a special area unreachable by conventional means. It's in the PCs' power to get there (one way or another).

Again, using Demon God's Fane as an example, at one point in the adventure, the PCs will further the plot with a holy word, dismissal, or banishment spell. Another instance assumes they have the capability to become ethereal. And so on.

Now, these capabilities aren't always necessarily "required" (that punishes people for simply preparing the wrong spell that day), but they make things easier -- so it rewards PCs for using the abilities they struggled for so many levels to obtain. And even requiring such displays of high-level power sometimes is good, too. Maybe the only way to learn the secret the PCs need is if the bard makes a DC 30 bardic knowledge check or the wizard casts legend lore. You get the idea.

BTW: Read the entire article. I think it's something more designers should have read, if I see certain adventures.

Cheers, LT.

 

[gizmo33]

I don't understand : there are spells against scry/teleportation.
Private sanctum, divert teleportation etc..

I don't recognize the spells you're talking about. I suspect that such things exist in people's particular campaign world, but for someone having trouble with teleport-assassins, clearly they aren't deemed sufficient so I was trying to describe additional possibilities.

BTW, I happen to think that Forbiddance is too high level to use merely as a teleport ward. It's also cleric-only, which leaves a big gaping hole in the wizard's spell list IMO.

I'm not opposed to noise-making and/or disorientation with respect to teleport anyway. I'm just saying there are some other possibilities to consider as well.

 

[gizmo33]

Then you remember it totally wrong.

"Totally"? Look, can't anyone qualify anything anymore? Is the internet really wrecking people's abilities to deal with nuances? Did I *totally* remember it wrong, or is there really an interpretation problem?

He doesn't clearly talk about countermeasures or any versimiltude issues AFAICT. Here's an example:

If they have a clever trap in the adventure that requires the characters to be on the ground, they make it impossible to fly. That's lazy design.

So what does "make it impossible to fly" mean? I'm a 82nd level wizard, I have a 9th level anti-magic spell, and I don't want someone flying across my trap so don't you think I would use the spell to prevent flying?!?. I assume Monte was talking about DM fiat because the alternatives are bizarre. (Granted, an 82nd level wizard relying on a gravity-assisted trap is a little weird anyway.)

If you disagree, explain what See Invisibility does and why it doesn't qualify for what you're saying. Apparently my PC should be able to turn invisible and the other NPCs have a constitutional obligation to bumble around and act confused.

So you might want to reconsider what you think he's saying. Otherwise, I don't find it of much use because I can't imagine pretending that my NPCs are that stupid just so players don't have to think about what they're doing.

 

[Psion]

Then you remember it totally wrong. Read here:


BTW: Read the entire article. I think it's something more designers should have read, if I see certain adventures.

Excellent link, Lord Tirian! That's actually one I embraced in play.

One of my most successful D&D camapigns EVER was a 3e campaign that ran from 1st-21st level. It was a fantastic campaign. I really have a hard time empathizing with people who think the "game falls apart after 10th (15th, etc.) levels. AFAIAC, the only "falling apart" going on was after the ELH entered play.

(Incidentally--or not--that campaign featured an adaptation of Demon God's Fane.)

 

[hong]

So what does "make it impossible to fly" mean?

I think it means making it impossible to fly.

 

[hong]

Like that was hard. Iron Heroes doesn't have any Core spellcasters.

Actually, it's been quite some time since I played IH. My last game was 3.5, using lots of stuff from the Bo9S.

 

[WhatGravitas]

"Totally"? Look, can't anyone qualify anything anymore? Is the internet really wrecking people's abilities to deal with nuances? Did I *totally* remember it wrong, or is there really an interpretation problem?

Ooops... you're right. I've misinterpreted your post, somehow I got it totally in reverse, no clue why - sorry.

And it's not the internet - it's Civ 4, eating my sleep!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Drammattex]

Just listened to the new podcast.

It seems as though Logan Bonner's gnome warlock has Teleport, but it's limited to the battlefield (like the Osyluth I got yesterday in my Desert of Desolation pack, which teleports anywhere within 6 squares as a swift action).

Regarding 3e teleport, I think one simple revision would suit it to my purposes:

Range: Personal

By removing the words "and touch," the wizard keeps his own freedom of travel, but the scry/buff/teleport/murder/teleport/heal strategy all but disappears. Sure, there's still a little trouble for the DM when a self-indulgent player wants to go back to his tower and take care of business in the middle of an adventure, but I don't usually find this to be the case.

Now, I wouldn't remove party teleportation from the game; I like as many options available as possible. I would simply make teleportation circles work like single-use magic items: the wizard spends time, gold, and XP crafting one, the players use it to travel a great distance, and then it's spent.

I like my wizards to have the option of coming and going like Gandalf, but when the whole party is doing it consistently, it gets on my nerves.