Teleportation

[pemerton]

What do you propose should a new DM do. Starting from scratch.

Well, first, a new GM proably won't miss teleport.

Second, if s/he wants it, it is trivial to stick it in. As I posted upthread, there is no serious balance issue - it's just a question of at what level you want overland travel and all that goes with it to no longer be part of the game. For some GMs, that could be 1st level!

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Well, first, a new GM proably won't miss teleport.

Second, if s/he wants it, it is trivial to stick it in. As I posted upthread, there is no serious balance issue - it's just a question of at what level you want overland travel and all that goes with it to no longer be part of the game. For some GMs, that could be 1st level!

He might not miss it or he might miss it - who knows. Kowing other peoples expectations is a difficult thing.

Except that teleport has usually more parameters than just transport from a to b. Like what you can bring along or chances for failure or what must be known about the destination.
If everything was so easy to develop and understand I wonder why WotC has to publish FAQs and Erratas?

 

[pemerton]

I don't think the game designers had in mind when they made the spell that it would be used to ruin games anymore than putting knock in the game was to step all over the rogues. It was to allow parties without rogues to be able to function.

And it should allow the wizard to pick the lock better than the rogue because it is a spell and a limited resource and the wizard using it has given up a spell slot that would be better used for a different spell and it does nothing for traps.

On teleport: the first published high-level exploration module, Descent Into the Depths of the Earth, has a teleport-nerf written into it. This suggests to me that the designers actually didn't intend teleport to operate as an "adventure-winning" ability. (I assume they thought that it would allow boring/headache-cauasing travel to be skipped, as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has suggested.)

On Knock: if there is no wizard to cast fireball, the rogue can't take his/her place. So why should the wizard be able to take the rogue's place? And why should the wizard be better at this back-up role than the rogue? Leaving aside the fact that the only time the rogue will be opening locks "all day long" is if s/he is putting on a Houdini performance, the cost for the wizard in learning and memorising a Knock spell is close to trivial - whereas for the rogue it is one of the few class abilities (in AD&D) and/or represents a significant character build investment (in 2nd ed AD&D or 3E).

But how many locks does he actually have to pick in any given day?

And what if the Wizard writes a few scrolls of Knock, or gets a Wand of Knock? Suddenly it's not really such a limited resource anymore. Also consider - the Thief has his Open Lock skill trained with his skill points. He invested a character resource permanently. The Wizard can decide each day whether he wants to prepare a Knock. If the Wizard knows there are no locks to expect, he can slot something else. If the Rogue knows this, he's still stuck with his ranks in Open Lock / Thievery.

This.

Maybe you want to do away with Scrolls and Wands? But I hardly believe that, since you also don't want to give up any-distance-and-location Teleports. It seems to me there is no interest (by you at least) in reducing the Wizard's power level, and no interest in raising that of non-spellcaster either to deal with Wizards (see my thread with the fighter-suppresses-magic-protection).

In this and some other recent threads Elf Witch has also said the following:

I am all for giving fighters more goodies and bringing down some of the wizard abilities.

I happen to sometimes like powerful magic and using magic as a counter to it and in games where magic is powerful the counters will have to be for the most part magical.

The games I play in are not just dungeon crawls and killing things and taking their loot there is a lot of political intrigue, religious strife and maneuvering as well as puzzles, mysteries and other non fighting aspects and every other class except for the fighter and the barbarian can at least participate with a better chance of being successful than the fighter, all he does is swing his sword and that is it. Hence why we find them boring and no one will play one by the RAW.

I think "boring" fighters are not unrelated to powerful magic. I also think that simply dropping teleport without error (as Elf Witch suggested upthread) isn't enough of a "bringing down" of wizard abilities to seriously improve fighters.

This is the paradox of D&D reform: everyone can see that it needs changing, but a big chunk of players seems to have desires that are in tension with any of the necessary changes!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Teleport is a spell put into the game to allow faster travel in a world without airplanes. I have seen it used to enhance the game and allow different types of adventures.

I don't think the game designers had in mind when they made the spell that it would be used to ruin games anymore than putting knock in the game was to step all over the rogues. It was to allow parties without rogues to be able to function.

That may have been why Teleport was put in the game. But 3.X style teleport literally ruins worldbuilding. Which is a good reason to take it back out. And no, knock doesn't allow parties without rogues to function. They can do that anyway.

If you want a party with no one who can pick the lock, kick the door off its hinges. Knock was put in because some wizard wanted to be cool or because someone read the spell in a fiction novel.

And it should allow the wizard to pick the lock better than the rogue because it is a spell and a limited resource and the wizard using it has given up a spell slot that would be better used for a different spell and it does nothing for traps.

The rogue can pick locks all day ,if there is no danger he can take 10 or 20 on it and he is not using up a limited resource.

Apparently time is not a limited resource. Right. If you give a wizard enough time, he gets a dump truck of spells given to him almost for free. And seriously, how often do you see more than two doors in a day that need picking?

The wizard should just pick up a handaxe like anyone else other than the rogue if there is no danger. Break the chest open or the door down. After all, time isn't a problem and neither is danger. What picking locks does is speed and subtlety. Those are literally the two reasons to pick a lock rather than break the door. And knock is better at both.

There are counters to teleport just as there are counters to other spells meant to get around defenses shall we take out those spells as well.

Name three in both cases.

I would have far more issue with wizards and sorcerers making a teleportion circle or portal outside of every damn campsite they make just in case. I would find that far more broken than the 3E teleport with error.

Why? Making teleportation circles costs money and can be used to follow them.

The problem with teleport is DMs who don't know how to counter it or DMs who don't have the backbone to just say no this is not allowed in my game.

Translation: The problem with teleport is DMs who consider the book they have paid good money for shouldn't be a half-baked product that needs fixing. Oberoni fallacy.

Tjhat is fine for your table but again I have to ask for those of us who want some form in the game why is that such an issue for you. Why is is it a problem for you to just take it out of your game. Why should it matter if in my game we use the spell?

You're keen on house rules. House rule it back in. Or mark it as strictly optional at the DM's discression in the rulebook. It's a DMing nightmare with smart tactical players, and a worldbuilding and logistical nightmare.

It is only a problematic spells for some people not everyone has problems with it. Something some people tend to forget.

Congratulations! You don't have problems with it! I know you've learned to cope. But why do you want to inflict common problems on other DMs and force them to all discover workrounds to massively setting-altering spells.

 

[Manbearcat]

But who decides what is genre relevant? The ability for wizards to travel instantaneous has always been a part of the genre I have seen it many books I have read since I started reading fantasy when I was sixteen.

I have been playing since the 70s and I have never seen it what you are describing where every single time teleport is used to get around all those things.

It is a very easy counter use a teleport spell that has a risk involved these things were not a huge issue back in the days of 1 and 2E I didn't start hearing about it until 3E and players figuring out if they combine this and this and this they are almost unstoppable. It is the same as multiclassing on the face of it you sacrificed some power to get other things and have your character concept well in the hands of powergamers some multiclass builds are over powered. The answers for some is to ban multiclassing. My answer is to say look this concept is over powered you need to change it.

Not everyone wants to play LOTR or Conan maybe I want teleport and flying airships in my DnD.

There seems to be a lot of I don't like this in my game so I don't want it in the game at all.

I really hope the 5E has teleport in it as option I hope it has dials as well to allow the DM the choice on how to use it in their game.

Hmmm...I'm not really sure how any of this is a rejoinder to my post. The only thing I see here is the use of the term "genre relevant". However, the use of it doesn't address the thrust of my post. It asserts that the spell "Teleport" and the genre trope of "Astral Taxi Wizard" is within genre expectations as established by DnD history. That I do not dispute (nor ever have). I've consistently stated that DnD is a mashup of various (thus its incoherency) pulp fantasy elements. This broad genre emulation scope has been, historically at least, one of its main selling points to a large section of the user base (even if they did not know or were unable to articulate it). However, what it doesn't address is the narrowing of genre emulation capibilities (the thrust of my post) due to the existence of teleport (at 9th level, RAW).

- I understand that you like teleport (we wouldn't be having this discussion if you did not).
- I understand it is a DnD Legacy Issue and that to a great many (including myself), it is part and parcel of DnD.
- I agree that the genre trope of "Astral Taxi Wizard" is within genre expectations as established by DnD history.
- I understand that some (many?) have never experienced these problems either due to social contract or do to mass-levaraging of transparent, contrived conventions to neutralize the wizards capibilities or teleport-proof their climactic plot-devices.
- I understand that some (many?) do not care for the genre trope emulation capibilities within the Exploration Pillar that I outlined in my post.

However,

* Some (many?) do care for the genre trope emulation capibilities within the Exploration Pillar that I outlined in my post.
* Some (many?) have had these Exploration Pillar dynamics circumvented due the existence of Teleport (RAW).
* Some (many?) have "mass-levaraging of transparent, contrived conventions to neutralize the wizards capibilities or teleport-proof their climactic plot-devices" fatigue and/or cannot stand what it does to their games.
* Some (many?) despise saying no to their players (when they shouldn't have to) because they cannot stand artificially neutralizing their player's beloved resources (their fun), so the game doesn't break down.

Would it be unreasonable for the group outlined by - to have their teleport in the game (even core?...I don't care etiher way)?

Would it be unreasonable for the group outlined by * to also have their modified (either by level or mechanical constraints) teleport in the game (in a module?)

 

[Black Knight Irios]

[...]
Would it be unreasonable for the group outlined by - to have their teleport in the game (even core?...I don't care etiher way)?

Would it be unreasonable for the group outlined by * to also have their modified (either by level or mechanical constraints) teleport in the game (in a module?)

I totally agree with the idea to print multiple versions of teleport in different modules. As I said in a previous post, you could put a disclaimer besides spells that warn DMs that this spell might create a problem for their specific game(-type).

The thing I don't understand is that people don't believe that there can be a teleport spell and cause no damage to their games because DMs have the power to ban.
Banning is easier and faster (disclaimer idea!) than creating things.

 

[mlund]

Ah, OK. Suspicion confirmed - this is a "You'll have to pry my Quadratic Wizard's character sheet from my cold dead hands" thread. Fine. "Elminsterfanboi999's Space-time Shift" ... ahem ... I mean "Teleport" can just be thrown into an Optional Rules Module marked "Radioactive."

As long as the barrel is lined with lead it isn't a contamination hazard for the Core 5E product.

- Marty Lund

Don't assume you know what someone else is thinking. Also don't belittle other people's play style. Thanks - Lwaxy

 

[Manbearcat]

Banning is easier and faster (disclaimer idea!) than creating things.

Agreed. Social contract to not use it or DM banning will solve the problem from one perspective. That is the perspective of: "There will be no Teleport or derivative thereof in this game." However, I actually love the concept of Teleport (as I suspect that a great many of folks who have problems with it do as well). My players love the concept of Teleport as well. There are some great ideas how to leverage the "fun" of Teleport in this thread (fixed teleportation circles/rituals, etc) that don't infringe upon exploration pillar genre emulation. What's more, some of those ideas organically lend themselves toward fun adventure components (creation of the ring/gate, component gathering for the ritual, creating infrastructure for warding/guarding the teleportation gate/ring or enlisting a local city's wizard guild, or elite guard...on and on) in and of themselves. They add all of that, enriching the game, without subtracting from it by way of a "Fast Forward Button."

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Ah, OK. Suspicion confirmed - this is a "You'll have to pry my Quadratic Wizard's character sheet from my cold dead hands" thread. Fine. "Elminsterfanboi999's Space-time Shift" ... ahem ... I mean "Teleport" can just be thrown into an Optional Rules Module marked "Radioactive."

As long as the barrel is lined with lead it isn't a contamination hazard for the Core 5E product.

- Marty Lund

If you are talking about me. I tend to play fighters or similar chars. Last time I played a spellcaster was somewhere at the beginning of 3E and not for long. Even though I like teleport I worry about caster balance.

And I can't understand that you can't accept/understand that there are people that like a teleport spell in their game in the core rules or a module published at the beginning alongside the core rules. Please read on below.

Agreed. Social contract to not use it or DM banning will solve the problem from one perspective. That is the perspective of: "There will be no Teleport or derivative thereof in this game." However, I actually love the concept of Teleport (as I suspect that a great many of folks who have problems with it do as well). My players love the concept of Teleport as well. There are some great ideas how to leverage the "fun" of Teleport in this thread (fixed teleportation circles/rituals, etc) that don't infringe upon exploration pillar genre emulation. What's more, some of those ideas organically lend themselves toward fun adventure components (creation of the ring/gate, component gathering for the ritual, creating infrastructure for warding/guarding the teleportation gate/ring or enlisting a local city's wizard guild, or elite guard...on and on) in and of themselves. They add all of that, enriching the game, without subtracting from it by way of a "Fast Forward Button."

You are right if there is only a single rather unrestricted teleport published and your adventure is about travel (the way) you would have to ban it. But I never demanded that there is only one teleport spell and I never argued that there should be no other methods of teleportation.

I simply want a teleport spell as well.

And if you ban that for your specific campaign all other options are still there ready to use.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Lots of good ideas in this thread -- as I'm coming in late, I'll sum up my favorites.

1. Teleportation should be in the game; it's intrinsic to most of the genre. The devil's in the details of implementation.

2. Short range, tactical line-of-sight teleport (ala dimension door) is fine at mid levels.

3. Long range, strategic teleport should be possible at high levels, but with some drawback and risk. At those levels, there's not need to force overland travel. The real risk of abuse is the buff-scry-teleport tactic. To balance it, without something as swingy as miss-chance, nor as draconian as "No teleport to an unknown location", I'd make it a ritual with a lengthy casting time (10 minutes or more), which eliminates its use as a tactical retreat tool. I'd also implement a "jump shock" mechanic -- for example, you are stunned for 2+1d4 rounds after arrival. That makes teleporting near a place to attack shortly a viable tactic, but does not make teleporting into combat viable.

3. Infinite range, no risk teleport should also exist -- via fixed-site portals, which can only be built with the highest level ritual magic.

In short, a few tweaks to 3E- and 4E-style teleport magic can fill most needs.