D&D 3E/3.5 J Tweets 3ed BANE

[TerraDave]

Gizmo: my bad on the "hundreds". But kinda your bad on the rest of the reply. And transporting was not "systemically" dangerous, or even systemically foiled or blocked (here is the wickipedia article). It was dangerous in a few cases, and safe the rest of the time. Difference between a show, and a game system.

 

[Azgulor]

Why not simply make those spells unavailable?

Hey, don't derail the thread by injecting logic into it! Next thing you know, someone will suggest that this fix has existed since 1e...oh wait, it did.

 

[Kraydak]

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.

And then, at PC creation, as a player I'd say (and I would, same way in 1st edition I did say "no cavaliers"): your PC gets Teleport at most 2 levels past earliest possible or we ditch him. In such a world I rate playing a non-teleporter the same way I rate Frenzied Berserkers. Not party players.

 

[Baby Samurai]

(like the Osyluth I got yesterday in my Desert of Desolation pack, which teleports anywhere within 6 squares as a swift action).

*bamf* *bamf* *bamf*

 

[JDJblatherings]

So why do high level characters in Tweets and other folks campaigns lack scrolls, wands, staves and a host of other spell spewing devices?

 

[gizmo33]

Gizmo: my bad on the "hundreds". But kinda your bad on the rest of the reply. And transporting was not "systemically" dangerous, or even systemically foiled or blocked (here is the wickipedia article). It was dangerous in a few cases, and safe the rest of the time. Difference between a show, and a game system.

I don't know what you mean by "systemically". The relevant issue AFAICT is *can the function of the transporter be blocked or altered?*. The answer, as far as I can tell, is yes. This would mean exactly what you were saying, that this mode of transportation, or really any other, would be dangerous in a few cases and safe the rest of the time.

As far as the "difference between show and game system" sentence fragment, I'm not sure what that difference is here. The Star Trek writers, or game system writers, or whoever conceive of a "technology" (magic) and then proceed to outline it's capabilities. Whether it's multiple writers trying to keep their universe details straight, or a DM trying to make his world consistent for the players, I really don't see the difference.

And also - this issue is just a part of the overall issue. You basically have people using teleport in a way that's not comfortable to some DMs. It seems to be basic human nature and common sense that people living in a world with a certain technology are going to deal with that technology. For example people walked around with swords and killed each other and so castle walls were built which considerable nerfed people's ability to unconditionally use their swords on each other. That just seems to me the way it is. No one is going to tolerate a world where someone is going to blip in and kill them at a moments notice. As a thought experiment just imagine a PvP situation with high level wizards. The survivors are going to make darn sure that they research spells to try to minimize the effectiveness of whatever they used to kill their opponents.

People use the evil eye. People use charms to ward off the evil eye. This just seems that simple to me, but I guess I'll ask some friends if there's an episode where enemy ships in Star Trek are just transporting people back and forth onto each other's ships with impunity.

 

[hong]

As a thought experiment just imagine a PvP situation with high level wizards.

The first secret is not to think. The second secret is that if you must think, think of PvE.

 

[Voadam]

So why do high level characters in Tweets and other folks campaigns lack scrolls, wands, staves and a host of other spell spewing devices?

In my high level game the archmage has always been least effective when using his high caster level wands of magic missile and lightning bolt. Even with a spell that makes them not use charges and effectively unlimited use they are insignificant against most anything the party comes across.

My 17th level eldritch knight never uses the wand he has either. It would be useful to have a bunch of utility scrolls but his own spells and permanent items are his biggest impact resources.

 

[Votan]

And then, at PC creation, as a player I'd say (and I would, same way in 1st edition I did say "no cavaliers"): your PC gets Teleport at most 2 levels past earliest possible or we ditch him. In such a world I rate playing a non-teleporter the same way I rate Frenzied Berserkers. Not party players.

Does this mean you would want all characters to be able to teleport? What about, for example, a Paladin?

 

[Kraydak]

Does this mean you would want all characters to be able to teleport? What about, for example, a Paladin?

Splitting a party isn't only dangerous. It is also not fun. If teleporting has to split a party (teleport is self-only) then you want the entire party to be able to teleport (or no one able to 'port). As teleporting is very useful, that means once you hit "teleport levels" you should probably ditch those who can't port and recruit people who can. They are inherently weakening the party's abilities, probably more (although less obviously) than a Frenzied Berserker and cutting into the fun.

To avoid the mess, just restrict PC creation to concepts that will pick up the ability. Or, since that is un-fun, give up on the whole idea of teleport as self ony. After all, the teleport-capable people will be able to hold the entire campaign hostage once they pick up the ability...

And yes, that means in a campaign with self-only teleport and non porting paladins, no paladins. In the same way that you don't take along paladins in morally-grey parties. It just isn't worth the hassle.

To put it differently, PC abilities that split parties are generally bad ideas. Stealth is a grey area, but one patched up by mass-invis effects and silence. Not as *good* as stellar stealth skills+HIPS, but good enough to keep party splitting to a minimum while allowing some spotlight time for the stealthy types. Same with disguise/hats of disguise effects. +10 to the skill is *enough* to get by as long as you *don't* open your mouth, so the people who put the actual points into the skill get to act fully but the other people can tag along.