Teleportation

[Lanefan]

Small question: if your only objections to my version are that it doesn't have a option for a TPK - which you seem to value and which I despise - is everything else workable or not?

Give or take, yes...though my version of teleport would not have an option for TPK unless the party was made up of at most two people, as in my view a caster should only be able to teleport herself and what she is carrying (which could include another person, but not an entire party).

I did bring up how I see interaction with teleportation circles, locks (and keys), party hindrance, accuracy hindrance, issues with length of casting.

I think my version is simpler in that you can either take it or not - there's no variable based on what you are taking.

Casting length can be whatever suits ya - 1e has it as only two segments which is probably too fast; one round would be fine (keeping in mind its utility as a last-ditch escape spell); ten minutes works in all respects except this.

Outside of "1e good, 3e bad" I don't actually know your position on the subject Lanefan.

I've tried to explain...

Here's the 1e version, from the PH (typed by hand as I don't have a scanner; please excuse any typos; and the formatting will be all to hell):

Teleport (Alteration)

Level: 5
Range: Touch
Duration: Instantaneous
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V
Casting Time: 2 segments
Saving Throw: None

Explanation/Description: When this spell is used the magic-user instantly transports himself or herself, along with a certain amount of additional weight which is upon, or being touched by, the spell caster, to a well-known destination. Distance is not a factor, but inter-plane travel is not possible by means of a teleport spell. The spell casteris able to teleport a maximum weight of 2500 g.p. equivalence, plus an additional 1500 g.p. weight for each level fo experience above the 10th, i.e. a 13th level magic-user teleports a maximum weight of 7000 g.p. (700 pounds). If the destination area is very familiar to the magic-user (he or she has a clear mental picture through actual proximity to and studying of the area) it is unlikely that there will be any error in srriving exactly at the place desired. Lesser known areas (those seen only magically or from a distance) increase the probability of error. Unfamiliar areas present considerable peril. This is demonstrated below:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probability of Teleporting
Destination
Area Is . . . . . . . . . . . High . . . . .On Target . . Low[/B]
Very familiar . . . . . . . 01-02. . . . . 03-99 . . . . . 00
Studied carefully . . . . 01-04. . . . . 05-98 . . . . 99-00
Seen casually . . . . . . 01-08. . . . . 09-96 . . . . 97-00
Viewed once . . . . . . . 01-16. . . . . 17-92 . . . . 93-00
Never seen . . . . . . . . 01-32. . . . . 33-84 . . . . 85-00

Teleporting high means the magic-user will arrive 1" above ground for every 1% he or she is below the lowest "On Target" probability - only 2" when the destination area is very familiar, and as high as 32" if the destination area was never seen. Any low result means the instant death of the magic-user if the area into which he or she teleports is solid. Note that there is no possibility of teleporting to an area of empty space, i.e. a substantial area of surface must be there, whether a wooden floor, a stone floor, natural ground, etc.

In 1e n" as a distance means n x 10' indoors and n x 10 yards outdoors. The final clause was put in obviously to prevent people from pre-casting fly or levitate and teleporting to a space well above their intended destination.

But it's the risk of instant death that is the key, and that prevents abuse of the spell.

One thing I just realized: in any edition is it possible to teleport onto a moving target e.g. a ship at sea?

Lanefan

 

[keterys]

Teleport without Error was the same thing, but 2 levels higher without any error, right?

 

[tlantl]

Teleport without Error was the same thing, but 2 levels higher without any error, right?

Or five levels and 1,365,000 experience points more than the normal teleport spell.

Only humans and god-like elves could ever cast the thing without using a scroll and suffering a chance of miscasting the spell.

In 2e any elf could cast 7th level spells but that was the limit.

 

[keterys]

In theory it was hard to get to high level in every edition, but plenty of people did it. It just happens to usually be the least balanced part of D&D, no matter how you get there

 

[Tovec]

Give or take, yes...though my version of teleport would not have an option for TPK unless the party was made up of at most two people, as in my view a caster should only be able to teleport herself and what she is carrying (which could include another person, but not an entire party).

That is true. I didn't realize the 1e method described ONLY the caster themself (plus whatever they are carrying). A lot of posts around here were talking about a spell that can wisk away a party of players, leading to TPK.

I think my version is simpler in that you can either take it or not - there's no variable based on what you are taking.

Eh, the simpler aspect is debatable, assuming you are using the full version of the spell. Mine is simple, but I took time to explain a lot of the side cases that came up AND to include some aspects that bother me specifically AND to include a way to add in portals.

Casting length can be whatever suits ya - 1e has it as only two segments which is probably too fast; one round would be fine (keeping in mind its utility as a last-ditch escape spell); ten minutes works in all respects except this.

I don't know what 'two segments' is. My comments about 10 minutes still stands though. I don't like longer casting times to be a factor as I find they rarely work as intended. It seems like all or at least most teleportation spells would be best suited to be one round, or about there. I could live with 1 round/person that is going or something.

I've tried to explain...

Here's the 1e version, from the PH (typed by hand as I don't have a scanner; please excuse any typos; and the formatting will be all to hell):

Teleport (Alteration)

Level: 5
Range: Touch
Duration: Instantaneous
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V
Casting Time: 2 segments
Saving Throw: None

Explanation/Description: When this spell is used the magic-user instantly transports himself or herself, along with a certain amount of additional weight which is upon, or being touched by, the spell caster, to a well-known destination. Distance is not a factor, but inter-plane travel is not possible by means of a teleport spell. The spell casteris able to teleport a maximum weight of 2500 g.p. equivalence, plus an additional 1500 g.p. weight for each level fo experience above the 10th, i.e. a 13th level magic-user teleports a maximum weight of 7000 g.p. (700 pounds). If the destination area is very familiar to the magic-user (he or she has a clear mental picture through actual proximity to and studying of the area) it is unlikely that there will be any error in srriving exactly at the place desired. Lesser known areas (those seen only magically or from a distance) increase the probability of error. Unfamiliar areas present considerable peril. This is demonstrated below:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probability of Teleporting
Destination
Area Is . . . . . . . . . . . High . . . . .On Target . . Low[/B]
Very familiar . . . . . . . 01-02. . . . . 03-99 . . . . . 00
Studied carefully . . . . 01-04. . . . . 05-98 . . . . 99-00
Seen casually . . . . . . 01-08. . . . . 09-96 . . . . 97-00
Viewed once . . . . . . . 01-16. . . . . 17-92 . . . . 93-00
Never seen . . . . . . . . 01-32. . . . . 33-84 . . . . 85-00

Teleporting high means the magic-user will arrive 1" above ground for every 1% he or she is below the lowest "On Target" probability - only 2" when the destination area is very familiar, and as high as 32" if the destination area was never seen. Any low result means the instant death of the magic-user if the area into which he or she teleports is solid. Note that there is no possibility of teleporting to an area of empty space, i.e. a substantial area of surface must be there, whether a wooden floor, a stone floor, natural ground, etc.

In 1e n" as a distance means n x 10' indoors and n x 10 yards outdoors. The final clause was put in obviously to prevent people from pre-casting fly or levitate and teleporting to a space well above their intended destination.

Thanks for the pull. I didn't notice anything glaring, but I also didn't understand parts of that. I don't blame you I think it is obviously due to the differences in edition that causes my confusion.

From a quick read through this seems similar to 3e's version. What is the major aspect that is different for you? Is it the "caster only" clause? I don't remember the '' above the ground caveat either so maybe that is it.

But it's the risk of instant death that is the key, and that prevents abuse of the spell.

Key for you. I find there are a number of other things that could avoid abuse. At best I think we'll have to agree that there are a number of ways to handle this, based solely on personal taste. I personally dislike when players die from an unforunate single roll. I understand it when it is a failed save because there is usually a fight that leads up to that moment. When it happens with a failed... well no, not failed but just an unlucky roll on a successful casting then I don't especially like it. For me a chance of being not where you intended but close gets rid of almost all the bugs so I thought I'd propose it.

Again, higher level casters going solo to a very familiar place will end up either exactly where they wanted or near where they wanted. It is once you start adding in the other aspects, like more people, more weight, unfamiliarity and so on that I find it more acceptable to be further and further off target.

My favourite aspect of my solution which doesn't really seem to occur with yours is that you are almost always off target. You can be close but rarely are you going to be exactly where you want. It immediately gets rid of the scry/teleport problem. It gets rid of the problem of knowing someone is some place and teleporting in as (in mine) you'll always be off target.

With yours you might die teleporting in but chances are you'll end up where you intended. Again, I have to think that the 1e might work with a 1e mindset on spells, but if you have MORE capability in combat then being solo doesn't really hurt you like it used to back in 1e.

I also want to say that I'm open to objections or alterations on my idea. I don't think its the greatest but I don't see objections to the base idea EXCEPT that it doesn't allow for someone to die while performing it - which was actually a goal and can be easily fixed by reintroducing a "roll bad and you die" percentage. What is the problem with the base goal of "almost always being off target, close perhaps but off target"? Personally it just seems that it isn't your cup of tea. That is fine but it isn't really a criticism that I can work on.

One thing I just realized: in any edition is it possible to teleport onto a moving target e.g. a ship at sea?

Lanefan

Any edition? No idea. Any version? Hells yes.
Actually can't the 3e version do it if you are familiar with the captain's chambers or something? Its an instantaneous effect that happens on your turn, the ship isn't really moving during your turn as far as that matters.

 

[Elf Witch]

Right back at ya I guess.



Sure, but it pretty much means that wizards rule everything. Which I don't really see why that should be the case unless you want to specifically make that type of campaign. This seems to better a fit a "high magic" module, than a D&D campaign generally, which could have a dial from very low to very high magic.



Or you could tweak the game to play more in the style you like. But either way, it doesn't solve the problems with the teleport spell.



Or you could have a wand of teleport... which is worse. Of course, a lot of abuse of spells could be curtailed if you can't store 50 of them in a wand. That might be something to look into.

Magical items were also something that 1e did better. You couldn't create wands of teleport or gaseous form at a whim.



Yeah, but it would be nice if players had to think a little bit about how they can abuse something, rather than just having abusive spells that only exist because of the idea that wizards should be more powerful than everyone else.

Actually no it is not right back at me the big difference is I am suggesting dials and options to allow DMs to customize the spell to the game or to not use at all. You on the other hand want it just gone from the game and replaced by portals even though as I have said that may not fit every campaign.

Sounding like a broken record here but not everyone has a problem or thinks the spell is broken.

I think wands are way to cheap in 3E it was one of the major flaws that I thinks needs to be addressed in the new edition.

This old argument is going to get us no where a lot of people think wizards are over powered and a lot of us don't and there does not seem to be any middle ground here. I would rather handle something like that as the DM rather than have it hard wired in the rules and ed up with classes that they did in 4E.

I been around this topic to many times lately and I know it will generate 35 pages of examples and counter examples and in the end someone will get testy and the thread will get locked.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure, but you could believe others have problems. There have been people on this thread that have no problems with 3e teleport, some that have problems with 3e teleport but not 1e teleport. Then there some others who have had problems with at-whim teleport period.

For example, I can tell you that I once gave an aerie full of wyverns to players but they didn't fly them once because I didn't give it to them before the wizard learned teleport and fly. I couldn't very well give them to them much earlier, otherwise the wyverns would have been more powerful than the PC's. So just when overland flight on the backs of monsters becomes a viable option to PC's, teleport renders it obsolete.




3e definately made spellcasters even more insufferable, mostly because it was a lot easier to get the XP to climb to higher levels of magecraft. If it takes a couple of years to reach the level required to cast teleport, most games will break up and the campaign will end simply because people move on to other things.

But if you are playing a D&D 2e game where you didn't count XP (the heresy) or started players above level one (the horror!) often enough, then you certainly would find many of the same problems that you found in 3e in regards to spellcasters.



Yeah, but we are all talking about changing teleport, not banning it. Nobody wants to ban teleport, we just want to change how it works so it isn't as problematic.



If you give group teleport, why do you need airships?

From Cracked:

Now, the 2009 film has a major plot point where Kirk needs to be teleported onto the Enterprise, but the Enterprise is moving at warp speed at the time. Scotty figures out a way to do it, and the movie celebrates this achievement as being the first time anyone has ever been transported to an object moving that fast. But that isn't the point.

The Enterprise is shooting off at Warp 3 just before Scotty and Kirk beam aboard. Warp 3, by the way, is 27 times the speed of light. Or 5 million miles a second. That means that by the time Kirk has finished saying, "I really liked you in Shaun of the Dead," the Enterprise would be out of the solar system. A distance Scotty has no trouble overcoming with his transporter.

So, uh, why do we need spaceships again?

Read more: 7 Movies That Ignored World Changing Discoveries | Cracked.com 7 Movies That Ignored World Changing Discoveries | Cracked.com

If my players had a choice of griffins mounts or teleport the griffin mounts would win hands down. Why because it would be just that much more fun.

If your players are scrying and frying maybe you should ask them why they want to avoid all the cool stuff on the way.

If the players love this tactic and they don't want to deal with travel and encounters then my question is why is this a wrong way to play.

I know DMs complain that it breaks their carefully crafted encounters well maybe the players just don't want to play that way. And this sounds like a play style issue.

Plenty of groups I know don't have an issue because the players are not interested in always taking the easy way out because that is not fun they don't go looking for ways to circumvent what the DM has planned.

If your players like scry and fry and you don't discuss it with them maybe there is a play style difference and you can work out or maybe you can just go with it and design encounters around it. Or maybe you these are not the right players for you.

BTW airships way more cooler and fun than teleport.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure, but there is a reason why I joked we could fire the rogue character after we picked up a wand of knock in my last 3e game. If a major part of the rogue's abilities are overshadowed by a wizard's minor spell slot, then it can be a little emasculating for the skill based rogue. This is even worse in 1e and 2e where you wouldn't be able to pick a lock reliably until... right about when the wizard picked up a knock spell.



Yep, but the time when you as a thief fail a lockpicking roll, and the wizard casts knock from a scroll, is really, really humiliating. You suddenly realize you could have been a better thief to deal with the occasional lock than you are now with a spell, and you'd be able to cast fireball by now.



I don't mind magical counters. But I'd like an actual shield to be able to block magic missiles, just like the shield spell can. So to do I not want tactics, terrain, logistics, and defensive fortifications invalidated by teleport just because I didn't have a wizard cast anti-teleport. Let me have tactics, terrain, logistics, and defensive fortifications something I can use when fighting wizards... because I can't do magic unless I hire it, and I can't afford spell protection better than my higher level enemy.

This is something I don't understand why on earth would you pick up a wand of knock if you have a rogue? And if it was loot why would a DM put one in with a group who has a rogue?

Sure a wizard with a wand of knock can step all over the rogue's niche but that is not a rule issue that is a player being a dick issue.

Why is it humiliating that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. The ring of lock picking that most rogues love has knock on it three times a day so why is it different for a rogue to use the spell then for a wizard to cast? The rogue should know that wizard had to use magic to do what he can do with talent.

Then in your game make ordinary shields block magic missiles. Make teleport a costly spell.

If 5E truly has dials it should be possible to turn down the dial on magic or turn it up for a more high magic game.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

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).

That depends on the game I have seen the rogue have to pick dozens in a day and then not have to pick any.

Knock has an important job in the game it can be vital for a party that does not have a rogue. It can be a nice back up if the rogue can't get the lock open or in an emergency like get the door open now before the dragon catches us. Usually though most rogues I have seen have an item that lets them cast knock in those kind of cases.

This is a game and we are all responsible for other people having a good time. So a player who would be making scrolls of knock or wands and just stepping all over the rogue for no other reason that being a super dick who can't share the spotlight is the issue not the spell.

A lot of these issues are more player issues than rule issues and no matter how much you try to make ironclad rules that can't be abused someone will always find away to be a jerk. So rule number 1 don't play with jerks.

 

[Elf Witch]

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).

This.


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




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!

And funnily enough not all groups chose to use this tactic. And as I said I think a lot of this is a play style issue and if a group likes to use these tactics why do you want to ruin their fun is your fun as a DM more important than theirs? If they would rather use teleport to get around obstacles and avoid all the encounters but the big boss fight then it seems pretty obvious this the kind of game they want to play in. Sure yo can stop them by banning the spell or changing it but I have to wonder if this is the best approach wouldn't it make more sense to either run the game they enjoy or find players more suited to your DMing style.

And the rogue at a certain level most certainly can cast fireball from a wand or if he has a necklace of fireballs just pull and toss them. A rogue with use magic device can do a lot of what the wizard does and using a wand does not provoke an AOO like the wizard casting a spell.

A rogue with one level of bard not only can use magic device but can heal as well as a cleric using a wand.

I know I keep repeating this but in my 30 years of gaming knock , teleport, the 15 minute work day has never been an issue with any group I have ever played with. The players playing rogues don't sit around feeling humiliated or bummed out that with a spell the wizard can unlock a door better than they can.

So much of this just seems to be about fairness and making everyone exactly the same.

But that is only go to happen if everyone can heal, cast magic and do the sneaky things and then why bother having classes at all have one.

The reason I think fighters are boring has nothing at all do with the lack of magical ability it has to do with the fact that unlike most other classes they don't have any skills for use outside of combat and if a game is more than just combat then it can be boring to play a fight as boring as I would think it would be to play a bard in game that had nothing but combat.

Bringing down a wizard powers is not going to make a fighter anymore fun to play if all they can still do is hit things with a sword and nothing else. So instead of making the fighter more fun to play you have just made the wizard unfun to play. Well they do say misery loves company.