D&D 5E Limitations on Plane Shift?

[iserith]

I'm happy to use quotes from the 5e version of the spell to point out my problems with the spell in its current form.

I think I understand your problems with the spell and I disagree with your analysis in the context of D&D 5e and how it defines the pillars of play. Upthread it appeared you suggested that there were objectively problems with it. If that is not your position, then I'm good.

My analysis is that the DM did not take into account the capabilities of the player characters when designing the scenario. Nothing wrong with that (it happens) and does not indicate to me any particular issue with the spell. And kudos for the DM coming clean on it with the players as the means of resolving the issue.

 

[Uller]

Do the players know the plane of existence the temple is on? If not, then plane shift doesn't work at all.

If they do but have no teleportation circle in the temple, building a plot device that prevents this should be easy enough...the spell description gives a lot of leeway to the DM. If yoy use planeshift to go to (for example) Buckingham Palace (and you have a rod attuned to real life earth), you will end up somewhere in London, probably in sight of the Palace but there will be a lot of ground to cover to get to where you want to go.

Since the temple is purposefully hidden, it is likely surrounded by anti magic zones that prevent scrying, prevent teleportation in or out and terrible guardians that are beyond the strength of even high level parties. Without direct reliable knowledge of a safe way in, planeshift would be a foolish option at best. Maybe give them access to some lore that says they aren't the first to think of using planeshift. The last ones to attempt that approach was never heard from again...if it were me, I'd hint that one of those that hid it built in a backdoor for his or her own purpose...so there might exist a teleportation circle in or near the temple that might be safe to use if the PCs can learn its sequence.

 

[robus]

I appreciate all the discussion, but the material component requirements of the spell and the vagary of the exact arrival point seem to adequately constrain the players options to more reasonable levels than I was originally thinking at the time.

 

[Celebrim]

Upthread it appeared you suggested that there were objectively problems with it. If that is not your position, then I'm good.

There are objective problems with it. I believe I can prove that using a standard that a design is objectively problematic, if it is incoherent with itself.

My analysis is that the DM did not take into account the capabilities of the player characters when designing the scenario. Nothing wrong with that (it happens) and does not indicate to me any particular issue with the spell.

Not taking into account the capabilities of player characters of a given level is a thing. But it is not the thing here. The problem the DM is encountering is introduced to 5e by ill thought out changes to the spell which not only creates the problem the DM is facing, but which are incoherent with the design goals of the system which can be inferred from its treatment of the similar spell - Teleport.

I propose that there exists some level of PC solving capability which if it existed would mean that there were no traditional pillars of play remaining because the player could resolve all challenges by fiat, thereby making not only some but all scenario design pointless, and that further it seems to be a general design goal of 5e to avoid this and if so that the plane shift spell as written is incoherent with this design goal.

 

[Celebrim]

I appreciate all the discussion, but the material component requirements of the spell and the vagary of the exact arrival point seem to adequately constrain the players options to more reasonable levels than I was originally thinking at the time.

This is true if and only if the players do not know the plane that the lost temple is on. But in general, the spell as written makes it impossible for any location whose plane can be discerned to be lost. For example, the location of anything on the material plane can be discovered by simply Planeshifting to any other plane, and then Planeshifting back.

While it's 'thoughtful' that the writer of the spell realized that pinpoint travel could be problematic to encounter design and so at least gives the GM permission in the spell text to block travel directly into the Great Khan of the Dao's personal treasure chamber or otherwise to the last room of a prepared adventure or scenario, the fact that he overlooked that some locations might be campaign secrets is baffling. The exact text is nearly a worst of all world's scenario where neither the player nor the GM are empowered, since the mechanics depend explicitly on GM fiat but the GM's ability to craft scenarios is constrained for no good reason.

The material component only constrains the players if planar travel is such a new thing in your game world that the exact notes and constructions of tuning forks needed to travel to other planes is not widely known. This is unlikely in a world with as widespread of magic and literacy as is presumed, which is I think the default for 5e (see description of the 5e Teleportation Circle spell for example). In the past, the tuning fork issue existed only to prevent transport to entire planes that were secret, such as Gygax's beloved 'demiplanes'.

 

[iserith]

There are objective problems with it. I believe I can prove that using a standard that a design is objectively problematic, if it is incoherent with itself.

What is incoherent about it? There are particular parameters. If those parameter are met, you are transported there.

Not taking into account the capabilities of player characters of a given level is a thing. But it is not the thing here. The problem the DM is encountering is introduced to 5e by ill thought out changes to the spell which not only creates the problem the DM is facing, but which are incoherent with the design goals of the system which can be inferred from its treatment of the similar spell - Teleport.

Both how a spell is written in another game entirely (D&D 3.Xe) and as compared to another spell entirely are not important in my view and not evidence of some objective problem with the spell as written.

I propose that there exists some level of PC solving capability which if it existed would mean that there were no traditional pillars of play remaining because the player could resolve all challenges by fiat, thereby making not only some but all scenario design pointless, and that further it seems to be a general design goal of 5e to avoid this and if so that the plane shift spell as written is incoherent with this design goal.

This appears to presume that the spell solves all possible problems and not just the one - getting to the adventure location. You don't necessarily "win" by casting it. You just skip some amount of content the DM prepared which, in my opinion, should be taken into consideration by the DM. It's really no different than a DM crafting a difficult combat challenge with trolls only to see it trivialized by a party well-armed with fire magic and alchemist fire. If you want that combat challenge to be difficult, some adjustments need to be made. Same deal here with assuming the PCs will engage with the content prior to the hidden temple. An incentive needs to be created to encourage that ouctome (treasure and XP might be sufficient, or the necessity of finding a McGuffin or talking to some NPC prior to the final showdown) or some limitation to plane shift introduced.

This discussion, frankly, is as old as the hills. There's a common complaint that once the PCs get the ability to fly or teleport that all manner of exploration challenges, particularly overland travel, are trivialized. Well, yeah, some are. But not all, and certainly not when the PCs have an actual reason to engage with them or a compulsion due to limitations on their resources.

 

[Celebrim]

This discussion, frankly, is as old as the hills. There's a common complaint that once the PCs get the ability to fly or teleport that all manner of exploration challenges, particularly overland travel, are trivialized. Well, yeah, some are. But not all, and certainly not when the PCs have an actual reason to engage with them or a compulsion due to limitations on their resources.

Oh, I get it now. You're not having a conversation with me. I was wondering. I've stumbled into some pet peeve of yours and now you are busy engaging in some tired old but still heated debate you've had before.

What is incoherent about it?

A design is incoherent if the design direction from one set of rules works against some other element of the design. To give a hypothetical, suppose a homebrew version of D&D increased all the hit points of all characters by a factor of 10, but then at the same time an additional house rule was introduced so that whenever a character took hit point damage the character had to make a fortitude save with a DC equal to the damage taken or die. These two rules end up working against each other. The increased hit points now almost never matter, because the ever present risk of death after every wound will dominate concerns of play.

I maintain that the text of Planeshift is poorly thought out and has inadvertently introduced the same sort of incoherence where it is working against it's own design.

Both how a spell is written in another game entirely (D&D 3.Xe)...

The way the spell worked in 1e, 2e, and 3e is introduced not as evidence that the spell is objectively incoherent, which as I said need only depend on an internal comparison, but that the change was an unforced error brought about by a writer who wrote the spell prior to (and without playtesting) and not in response to the needs of the game. The comparison remains valid (since the problem doesn't exist in earlier editions). At best the new version trades one convenience in scenario design for an annoyance in another. It seems entirely possible to create a version of the spell for 5e that had the convenience but not the annoyance.

and as compared to another spell entirely are not important in my view and not evidence of some objective problem with the spell as written.

Comparison between two things in a rule set is an entirely valid perspective, and my strong suspicion is that outside the context of this argument you would accept it as common sense and entirely realize it's importance. As a hypothetical, imagine a home brew class was introduced for play and it was strictly superior not only to an existing class, but several existing classes. It would be entirely fair to compare the new strictly superior class to existing classes and say, "This is massively more powerful than existing options, and entirely deprecates several classes. I don't think it would be helpful to the game to introduce this class as written."

This appears to presume that the spell solves all possible problems...

No, I don't appear to presume that at all. This is you engaged in whatever argument you are resurrecting from your past.

It's really no different than a DM crafting a difficult combat challenge with trolls only to see it trivialized by a party well-armed with fire magic and alchemist fire.

Ok, yeah, I'm beginning to get the gist of which pet peeves you are importing to this discussion.

 

[iserith]

Oh, I get it now. You're not having a conversation with me. I was wondering. I've stumbled into some pet peeve of yours and now you are busy engaging in some tired old but still heated debate you've had before.

A design is incoherent if the design direction from one set of rules works against some other element of the design. To give a hypothetical, suppose a homebrew version of D&D increased all the hit points of all characters by a factor of 10, but then at the same time an additional house rule was introduced so that whenever a character took hit point damage the character had to make a fortitude save with a DC equal to the damage taken or die. These two rules end up working against each other. The increased hit points now almost never matter, because the ever present risk of death after every wound will dominate concerns of play.

I maintain that the text of Planeshift is poorly thought out and has inadvertently introduced the same sort of incoherence where it is working against it's own design.

The way the spell worked in 1e, 2e, and 3e is introduced not as evidence that the spell is objectively incoherent, which as I said need only depend on an internal comparison, but that the change was an unforced error brought about by a writer who wrote the spell prior to (and without playtesting) and not in response to the needs of the game. The comparison remains valid (since the problem doesn't exist in earlier editions). At best the new version trades one convenience in scenario design for an annoyance in another. It seems entirely possible to create a version of the spell for 5e that had the convenience by not the annoyance.

Comparison between two things in a rule set is an entirely valid perspective, and my strong suspicion is that outside the context of this argument you would accept it as common sense and entirely realize it's importance. As a hypothetical, imagine a home brew class was introduced for play and it was strictly superior not only to an existing class, but several existing classes. It would be entirely fair to compare the new strictly superior class to existing classes and say, "This is massively more powerful than existing options, and entirely deprecates several classes. I don't think it would be helpful to the game to introduce this class as written."

No, I don't appear to presume that at all. This is you engaged in whatever argument you are resurrecting from your past.

Ok, yeah, I'm beginning to get the gist of which pet peeves you are importing to this discussion.

I have no pet peeves in this regard, so you have me wrong there. I also don't believe you've demonstrated what is incoherent about the spell as written. Your objection seems to be rooted, essentially, in the ability to skip over "exploration," which is similar to the common complaints about flying and teleporting I've seen in other discussions. But if your objection is something other than that, do go on.

 

[Lanefan]

I really think it may help to step out of the edition you're playing and examine this from the perspective the edition under discussion. It looks like you're operating off some bad assumptions and information that does not pertain to D&D 5e's version of the spell.

Edition don't matter - the OP hit similar problems with the 5e version that I had with the 1e version.

Which tells me the same fixes would work too.

 

[generic]

Ok, yeah, I'm beginning to get the gist of which pet peeves you are importing to this discussion.

Oh, and I see that you, as always, are completely impartial, an arbiter of truth and logic, in fact, whose will cannot be faulted.