More FAQ funnyness?

[Plane Sailing]

I was just reading the FAQ and my attention was drawn to an example on p23 when explaining what magic can affect golems. The passage in question says this

Teleport: The spell resistance entry for the various versions
of the teleport spell is “no,” at least for creatures. Note that
when you’re using the teleport spell, you teleport yourself and
other willing creatures. Unless you can command the golem
(and you probably don’t unless you created the golem), it
probably isn’t willing to accompany you and would receive a
saving throw to resist.

I've highlighted the strange bit. As I read the rules Teleport can *only* transport willing creatures, or objects (and objects can get a Will ST to resist if attended or something like that).

This says that someone who isn't willing gets a saving throw to resist (but no SR).

Are they just making up something that is completely wrong, or is teleport better than I thought it was ("Come with me up 400ft")

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are they just making up something that is completely wrong...?

Yup.

You want to bring an unwilling person with you, knock them out; they're automatically considered willing while unconscious.

This, obviously, does not work on golems.

-Hyp.

 

[RangerWickett]

Quick note, the best thwarting of a villain I've ever been party to was when our group of 8th level PCs was attacked by a 20th level fighter who had a special armband that let him teleport at will. He was a fiend to fight, always teleporting and knocking down a PC each round, until my fighter managed to sunder his glaive, and he resorted to tackling the party wizard with stoneskin.

The wizard responded by dimension dooring up 700 feet. He could only take willing passengers, but the villain fighter was a bit too eager, and didn't fully think out what would happen, since he didn't know where the mage would be going. The villain actually didn't have any flight items (he figured he'd never need them, since he could teleport without error), and so the only thing he could think of to keep from dying from the fall was to teleport higher up.

Now from a height of half a mile, he began to fall again, and realized his mistake.

He basically kept falling and teleporting higher over and over again, having to get ever higher to avoid splatting as he accelerated. Eventually he passed out from exhaustion, and died.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He was a fiend to fight, always teleporting and knocking down a PC each round...

... 3E Haste?

-Hyp.

 

[Gizzard]

You want to bring an unwilling person with you, knock them out; they're automatically considered willing while unconscious.

Really? I would have ruled that an unconscious person is unwilling. "I think therefore I am, I stop thinking therefore I am not." ;-) But seriously, is there a citation from the PHB for this rule?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Really? I would have ruled that an unconscious person is unwilling. But seriously, is there a citation from the PHB for this rule?

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Thanks for the replies. I didn't have any doubt that this was, in fact, balony, but wanted to bring it up in a self-effacing sort of way

 

[Plane Sailing]

The next question, of course, is how on earth did something stupid like this manage to make its way into the FAQ.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The next question, of course, is how on earth did something stupid like this manage to make its way into the FAQ.

Lack of Quality Control on the answers that get put in.

Do we know if there's any sort of Peer Review process on what goes into the FAQ?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Lack of Quality Control on the answers that get put in.

Do we know if there's any sort of Peer Review process on what goes into the FAQ?

-Hyp.

There was supposed to be at one time, but I haven't seen any evidence of it lately. I think the Sage generally gives good answers, but messes up on the details in his examples, because they are peripheral to the main point he is making.