D&D 5E Limitations on Plane Shift?

[Celebrim]

I agree that it could have neen worded better, but I think you overstate the brokenness of it.

Well, "brokenness" is your word. I think the spell is problematic. I think the designer realized just how problematic it was and that's why they wrote in the aside about the GM being able to control the destination of the spell by fiat. However, I think the designer overlooked the issue of secrets, because the aside (almost a sidebar in the middle of a spell description, which is odd in itself) makes clear you can't planeshift to exactly where you want to be but does imply that you will always get near to where you are going. And that may not be "broken" but it definitely is a problem, and the OP is right to point out how much of a problem that is.

If you want accurate travel within your own plane you need teleport. Even then, you need very specific knowledge to get exactly where you want to go.

Or you could just planeshift twice, once out of the prime, and then once back to the prime. You'll get close to where you want a go with no chance of mishap or failure, and you don't even need specific knowledge of your destination. Don't know where the Tomb of Horrors is, or even what it looks like? No need for investigation and exploration, as long as you know what plane it is on, just cast a spell and you'll be in viewing distance of the tomb.

With plane shift you can get in the general area of a place you want to go but the text gives a lot of leeway to the DM.

Some leeway, but not enough to hide a secret.

First off...how hard or easy is it to acquire the material components?

The tuning fork is not a new element of the spell. It's been around since 1e and I can tell you how this works in practice. As long as the plane isn't a demiplane, for a character of the level that can cast this spell, acquiring the material component is trivial. As I said earlier, the tuning fork material component exists only to allow a DM to hide an entire plane and force investigation and exploration in order to get there. But for well known planes the tuning fork requirement is a trivial investment in high level resources.

As for using it to find a secret location on the plane they are on...that seems to me to present its own set of interesting problems...once they get there, how do they know where they are in the world?

Does it matter. When you have instantaneous pinpoint travel you no longer have to worry about spatial relationships. Everything is adjacent to everything else. Travel by map is no longer needed.

I think you are giving the spell more power than it has. The text implies you cannot use it to get to a specific location...only general, and even then the DM has a lot of options available on how accurate he wants it to be.

Again, you are ignoring my complaint, and going off and arguing your own bit. I agree that the designer with his DM fiat side bar in the spell description made sure that the spell could not be used for exacting travel. You can't guarantee like you can with teleportation circle you land next to where you want to be. But his sidebar didn't give by rule DM's enough leeway to determine where you land. The implication is you still always get to where you are going at least in a general way - the worst case example in the text is within viewing distance. I think the designer thought this empowered the DM enough, but quite clearly it doesn't.

Considering what my players have been willing to do to make sure Teleport is reliable, I can't imagine they would even consider Planeshift to get into any hostile location if there is some other reasonable way presented to them.

But YMMV.

Yes, but Planeshift can get you to - as the OP's PC realized - a completely unknown and secret location. And that seems to run contrary to the design of all the other spells in the book.

 

[5ekyu]

@iserith: Distilled down, I'm saying that Planeshift runs contrary to the evident design goals of 5e because it allows pinpoint instantaneous travel that does not require exacting knowledge. Thus, it is incoherent because nothing else in the system allows that and the changes to the system indicate that the designers were attempting to elimenate pinpoint instantaneous travel without GM gated exacting knowledge because of the well known difficulties that this caused GMs in preparing scenarios.

To me, it fits in line with the core of 5e, rulings not rules.
Let it be as accurate as the GM rules or inaccurate as they rule to fit whatever setting, plot and other needs come to meaning in their campaign .

Beats the heck out of trying to define it with chart or table to cover all festures.

My view on plane shift is that 7th level is the preset campaign stage where you have rules basically saying "getting close" is ok and movement is a different type of challenge now. Just like how at various stages threats of certain types become obsolete or transfotm.

As for the woes of novice GMs, I doubt 7th level planeshift got into that discussion.

 

[Celebrim]

To me, it fits in line with the core of 5e, rulings not rules.

I think they tried to do that, but didn't make clear enough how broad of a latitude the GM should be allowed to have - probably because it's a bit weird to write a spell and then tell the player that the result of his spell is whatever the DM wants it to be. But in any event, "rulings not rules" should never be an excuse for poorly written rules.

My view on plane shift is that 7th level is the preset campaign stage where you have rules basically saying "getting close" is ok and movement is a different type of challenge now.

When people say things like this it becomes immediately clear that they are not having a discussion with me. Neither I nor the OP had any problem whatsoever with the movement that the spell allowed. When you answer with words like this, you might as well write, "Eff U" as a reply because that's precisely how polite you are being.

So again, it's not the movement that the spell allows that is the problem. Obviously, you want to have a spell that allows movement between the planes, and planeshift provides for that. Great

 

[5ekyu]

Not getting into any of the developer intent issues, I do sympathize with @Celebrim

It's odd that casting plane shift is, in many cases (as in no permanent circle or associated object) just more accurate than teleport. Heck if you're just talking about a description - it's not even close. Plane shift will get you in the general area every time, while teleport has a 73% chance of being way off.

But, unless you are going to a circle there is ZERO guarantee that Planeshift will be less "way off" more than 75%. How difficult is it to find properly attuned forks to even use it?

Teleport is risky, sure as shootin' but with the same info it wont require additional time to go get that fork you need. Likely various divinations at 5th and 6th can get you more info fir teleport by the time you can get that new fork.

Of course, maybe the GM pre-suplied by story the right fork - just like they could pre-suplied a teleport circle addy.

 

[Mort]

But, unless you are going to a circle there is ZERO guarantee that Planeshift will be less "way off" more than 75%. How difficult is it to find properly attuned forks to even use it?

Teleport is risky, sure as shootin' but with the same info it wont require additional time to go get that fork you need. Likely various divinations at 5th and 6th can get you more info fir teleport by the time you can get that new fork.

Well, you only need 1 fork per plane - once you have that, locations on that plane are pretty easy. But yes, how easy the fork is to get is completely campaign dependent.

If you do want Plane shift to be a bit riskier - just add in the mechanic from the amulet of the planes
- DC 15 intelligence check (no sure thing even from a high level wizard) to get accurate results.

 

[iserith]

Or you could just planeshift twice, once out of the prime, and then once back to the prime. You'll get close to where you want a go with no chance of mishap or failure, and you don't even need specific knowledge of your destination. Don't know where the Tomb of Horrors is, or even what it looks like? No need for investigation and exploration, as long as you know what plane it is on, just cast a spell and you'll be in viewing distance of the tomb.

Yeah, for double the resources, you can do that. You got like two 7th-level slots at 20th level. You could also burn your 8th- or 9th-level slots if you want, but it seems less costly to me to do some lower-level scrying and then teleport if you want to travel on the same plane. If more than one character can cast plane shift, then it's less of a burden. But in any case it costs more than teleport to do as you suggest.

Don't want the PCs to transport directly to the Tomb of Horrors? Give them a compelling reason to go on foot or stick a limitation on it like a forbiddance spell or the like. Otherwise, prepare to set aside your content.

 

[Lanefan]

We've been using double-planeshift - one to get off the world, the other to get back but somewhere else - as a safe means of long-range transport (and for more people than teleport can carry) for ages.

This is why I had to put some limits on arrival points.

 

[Celebrim]

We've been using double-planeshift - one to get off the world, the other to get back but somewhere else - as a safe means of long-range transport (and for more people than teleport can carry) for ages.

This is why I had to put some limits on arrival points.

It's always been a thing and I'm Ok with high level characters resolving issues in that fashion, but it used to drop you in a random place within a couple days travel of where you wanted to go and not right at the edge of the dungeon map. Losing the travel is an issue in scenario design, because previously when travelling in the wilderness was no longer a challenge, you could ramp up to travel in Pandemonium, Limbo, the Abyss, etc. But losing travel is not nearly as big of an issue as the loss of the investigation pillar here, since the strict wording of the 5e spell allows you to planeshift to location you can't clearly conceive. All you have to do is name it, and you'll at least get close enough to see it.

The more I look around 5e the more obviously incoherent that is. Take for example the changes to the 'Find the Path' spell. Previously you could name an unknown location and use 'Find the Path' to locate it. But in 5e they took that option out completely. One of the material components of the spell is you now have to have something from the location you are trying to find - compare Teleport and Teleportation Circle with the same (new) basic design. So once again, everywhere else in the edition we see safeguards trying to prevent PC's from easily bypassing GM created scenarios and which force the PC's to investigate and explore. And yet here Planeshift bypasses all the safeguards on the other spells. And critically, it does so very shortly after or concurrently with the arrival of instantaneous travel and travel to other planes as ideas, so it's not like this is the higher level version that shortcuts scenarios that by this point in the game will have become stale. It would be one thing to suggest after a certain level wilderness exploration ought to be something that is skipped - that would be predictable and expected. This skips pillars of gameplay exactly when it first introduces the planes as player accessible things.

And if that isn't enough, it seems to be more powerful in many ways than it's higher level version Gate. Gate explicitly calls out failure conditions. Gate requires precise knowledge of the intended destination. This has neither and only the limitation that your arrival is near to but not exactly at where you intend to go.

 

[iserith]

It's really going to bake your noodle when you find out that, in the context of D&D 5e, casting plane shift to travel from one place to another falls right within the pillar of exploration.

 

[Umbran]

When people say things like this it becomes immediately clear that they are not having a discussion with me. Neither I nor the OP had any problem whatsoever with the movement that the spell allowed. When you answer with words like this, you might as well write, "Eff U" as a reply because that's precisely how polite you are being.

Get off the high horse, please. Disagreeing with you is not equivalent to cursing, or otherwise being impolite.