Teleportation

[Dausuul]

I think if we get too broad and discuss the very generic topic of "jerkdom within humanity" that does not help us to diagnose the very specific underpinnings of the question (i) "with regards to teleportation usage in DnD, what is (are) the root cause (s) of jerkdom" and then attempt to resolve it by ruminating upon the question of (ii) "how can we limit/end this jerkdom?" Within the scope of question (i), there are specific issues that can be zeroed in on. If that is true, then there are specific resolutions that may be attempted to curtail the offender's access to the means that allow them to indulge in the behavior. That way you don't have to hope that punitive measures or social operative conditioning do the trick.

I don't think it's particularly productive to focus on "jerks." Rather, let's ask this: Assume players who are not trying to be jerks, but who are roleplaying intelligent characters who naturally want to achieve the party's goals with minimum risk and maximum efficiency. The rules should be designed with the idea that players who adopt this approach can have a functional game. There should not be a tradeoff between roleplaying and fun.

A 3E wizard loses essentially nothing by learning knock and preparing a few scrolls of it. At higher levels, you can dispense with the scrolls and just use a couple of 2nd-level spell slots. So, a smart wizard would do exactly that. The players may worry about the spotlight, but their characters would not; surviving the adventure is more important than everyone being able to contribute equally. If you were in a commando team alongside Captain America, which would you prefer? Cap holds back so everyone else gets a chance to shine? Or Cap exerts himself to the utmost, so everyone comes home alive?

Likewise, teleportation that allows scry'n'die tactics and bypassing overland travel would be used for exactly that by any sensible PC.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Teleportation has never been an issue for me. The point where it obviates an obstacle or overland travel denotes a transition point in the group's power level and achievments. And if this strains against the theme of your world (like Darksun) then remove that spell from the list of those available. Not every spell need have been developed on every world or there may be good reason why it wasn't.

As for Scry-Buff-Teleport, don't change Teleport, change the nature of Scrying. It seems awefully powerful to me to be able to reach into nothingness to locate that ancient red dragon you're searching for. SBT has never been a problem in my games because I keep scrying results very nebulous. Your are at best seeing disjointed visions of what you seek, like a dream state, not a direct video link into the dragon's bedroom. Nothing I'd allow a teleport to hone in on, because you've never really seen the target.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I don't think it's particularly productive to focus on "jerks." Rather, let's ask this: Assume players who are not trying to be jerks, but who are roleplaying intelligent characters who naturally want to achieve the party's goals with minimum risk and maximum efficiency. The rules should be designed with the idea that players who adopt this approach can have a functional game. There should not be a tradeoff between roleplaying and fun.

A 3E wizard loses essentially nothing by learning knock and preparing a few scrolls of it. At higher levels, you can dispense with the scrolls and just use a couple of 2nd-level spell slots. So, a smart wizard would do exactly that. The players may worry about the spotlight, but their characters would not; surviving the adventure is more important than everyone being able to contribute equally. If you were in a commando team alongside Captain America, which would you prefer? Cap holds back so everyone else gets a chance to shine? Or Cap exerts himself to the utmost, so everyone comes home alive?

Likewise, teleportation that allows scry'n'die tactics and bypassing overland travel would be used for exactly that by any sensible PC.

Nice assessment of the situation.

Exactly b/c chars should be able to strive for a good ingame performance it should not/never be necessary that the characters have to hold back to allow others to shine/contribute in a meaningful way.

Class Balance is therefore necessary.

Not every char should be equally good in every aspect of the game but he should have a niche that is relevant for the story a reasonable amount of time which lets him shine.


And it is more like everyone agreed to play a super heroes group and somehow only the Cap. got super powers (vancian casters) and all others ended up playing ordinary people. Now everyone must depend on the Cap. to make it through. But they never wanted to play that way. It's the systems fault.

 

[Tovec]

I am sorry you don't like how I choose to post which is to read and post as I go. If it bothers you so much there is a feature here called ignore I suggest you use it.

I would rather not ignore you as I don't want ignore what you are saying. I would just prefer to read one post rather than 5 (and it would have been 6) all from the same person.

Not everyone is as computer savvy as others and I have never figured out how to break up a post into sections and quote under each section much less on multiple posts.

I can teach you if you'd like, but in general all I would prefer would be if you were to use the Multi-Quote button. It usually isn't too bad, but 5 (would have been 6) is rather a lot and kind of annoying. Especially since 3 of those were to the same person.

Knock is another one of those spells that needs to be handled by the DM and his players. Like teleport there could be different version for those of you j who just hate the idea of it, make it a ritual or make it just give the person a plus to pick lock or don't have it in your game at all.

Actually wasn't knock a ritual in 4e and people called foul too? My only point about knock was that it doesn't make sense for a single spell to be better than something a class has to specialize in. If it was weaker than the rogue who put all his attention then that is completely fine for me.

I like knock being in the game as it is in 3E. I would rather players just use some courtesy and only use it when there is no rogue in the party. As a back up. As A DM I want to be able to run an adventure where people actually lock doors without making it impossible for the party to function without a rogue.

I liked knock in my 3e games too. It rarely came up. But it shouldn't matter about courtesy or not as far as how a spell is written. It shouldn't come down to courtesy NOT to be automatically better at something than the class which is designed to handle that thing.
As a DM I want to run the adventure as the adventure dictates. Sometimes that means a certain class will shine. But I never want to run an adventure dictating the party composition. I might put in locked doors, but picking the lock isn't the only way to deal with it, they can blast through it, muscle it off its hinges, or find another way into the room/corridor in question. That being said, as far as picking locks goes, I want my rogue to be the best at it. Just like I want my fighter to be the best at fighting. If another class can surpass that class in their role, just like a fighter being a better healer than the cleric, then something has gone wrong and needs to be at least looked at.

One suggestion from @Tovec is to focus on the "off target" chance. My concern with that is that - unless you are playing a heavily-mapped sandbox - this can come close to "teleport into boring session", as the GM has nothing particularly to offer as a challenge for a party that arrives 15 miles from their destination. I would actually prefer something like the following variant: the GM chooses a destination for the teleport (anywhere from ontarget to a random location); the player then makes a skill check (probably Arcana in 4e) and if successful gets to choose whether the PC teleports there or not; if the check is failed then the PC ends up in the GM's chosen place.

Actually, I don't run a heavily mapped sandbox, it is rarely mapped at all. I just know that if they were off target then it is no different from the party having to travel by food (albeit from a closer location) when dealing with terrain and random encounters. I never described how or where they would be off target, only HOW FAR. As DM, I would by all means send them to a location that worked best for me.

And as an addendum to my version; maybe the chance of being on target can be higher, or maybe the off target not as extreme. I just wanted the off-target chance to be large enough that the party isn't relying on teleport to immediately get the drop on someone nor are they necessarily avoiding travel entirely. If they are off by hundreds of feet instead of miles then that would work equally as well for me. As I first said, I would actually prefer them to be off-target based on how far they are traveling. Maybe 1% of the total distance is the range of how far off target they could be.

Linked portals/teleport circles, on the other hand - as @ferratus , @Tovec and @Neonchameleon have described them - seem fine to me. They still leave the GM in charge of scene framing (because s/he gets to decide where the NPC-created circles are).

That was the idea. Also it was to add more of a pinpoint accuracy that some people seem to desire.

Huh? Who thinks that teleport (ie the portal rituals) or knock causes a problem in 4e?

I don't know about problems with teleport that are exclusive to 4e but I have heard issue with 4e's version of knock. I happen to agree with you - a first for once I think - but I HAVE heard problems with 4e's knock. Both on the actual effect but also with it being a ritual only (iirc).

It's done to a weight limit - a 9th level caster can take 250 lbs (it's not specifically stated but my assumption is this limit does include the caster's own weight; thus an excessively fat caster might not get much use out of this spell until 11th or even 12th level!) - the limit goes up by 150 lbs at 11th level and each level thereafter.

That's fine. I'm just saying you like the 'caster only' approach but a lot of people seem to want a party tool so everyone can go. I've seen both in many different forms of fiction so I could live with either I'm sure.

1e as written used a rather strange way of timing things. A round (1 minute) was subdivided into segments, only thing was there were two different types of segments - 10 per round for spellcasting (so 6 seconds each) and 6 per round (10 seconds each) for everything else. Thus, a spell with a 2 segment cast time would take about 12 seconds to cast, very fast for a 5th level spell.

Fair enough.

The biggest difference, other than what can be taken along for the ride, is the risk of deadly failure. (the risk of potentially painful failure by appearing too high is another difference, but that's easy to get around)]/quote]
Okay, but if 3e had the fixes of "caster only plus X weight" and "you can die because you can end up 6" under ground" then you're fine with it? I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't want my player dying so easily on an otherwise successful spell. Especially since there is no way to pull out and since there are better limiting factors to stop players/parties from abusing teleport.

Fair enough, but one can just put it under the high-risk high-reward category. A caster using the spell is going to know there's a chance, however slight, of messing it up; to avoid teleport becoming SOP the failure consequences have to - at least sometimes - be nasty.

Right, but again, that works for you not for all. I'd call that a really old mindset in a lot of ways. You don't start with 3HP anymore either. That's not to say this mindset is wrong, I just don't think it works for everyone. So saying "1e version is the best" leaves something to be desired for a lot of people.

Having to walk a few extra miles isn't nasty.

Sarcasm? I'm confused are you saying that having to walk a few extra miles isn't nasty enough or that having to walk a few extra miles IS nasty? It seemed like sarcasm, since you seem to want casters to suffer a chance of simply dying on cast of the spell.

As a player I know I'd just find that to be annoying, particularly if it happened every time. As a DM - meh, still annoying, as now I have to dream up possible encounters for the intervening distance if needed.

If it is expected by both the party and the DM then it would stop being an annoyance and more of a "cost of doing business", in the same way that it is "annoying" to die because you landed a couple inches below ground level.

As far as the whole "possible encounters" thing, isn't that the same thing you would have to do if they didn't teleport, but now it is closer to 1 encounter than it is to 1 per X hours.

I guess it depends on whether the spell is looking for the particular surroundings wheverver they may be or a fixed GPS-style location.

If I've seen the inside of the Queen's carriage can I teleport there without knowing whether ithe carriage is currently in London or Birmingham? By the same token, if I know the inside of the captain's chambers can I teleport there without knowing where the ship actually is?

Lanefan

Yeah, I don't remember reading that you have to know where exactly in space something is. You need to know what it looks like "being able to picture it" and all, but I don't think it is ever expressly said one way or another that you can't teleport to a mobile target.

Because they are y'know, actually roleplaying? Because in character they are taking threats seriously and want to take them out efficiently and safely and, most of all, don't want to die? Scry and Fry is their best way to stay alive and beat the bad guys - and they can go griffon riding when things aren't threatening the world.

What a day of replies this has been. Agreeing with Neonchameleon and pemerton and disagreeing with Lanefan. *shakes head*

Anyway, @Elf Witch , this is exactly right. I'm not going to bring up the rest of Neonchameleon's reply since it is just more of the same. But like I said upthread, if a tactic is smart then it becomes prudent planning and a good strategy when dealing with these kinds of threats. Since the problem of scry/teleport does exist it should be something to address. We shouldn't just say it doesn't exist and move on. If it exists for even a minority, regardless of if it has come up in your game or not, then it should be dealt with by the designers going forward.

It's like Mass Effect. Shepherd is presented by this race against time in character. Which means that in character based on the fiction you chase Saren down as fast as possible. But if you are playing against the metagame resolution system you don't do this. You survey half the planets in the galaxy for minerals, and the absolute last places you visit are the ones with main plot on them.

There's a huge disconnect between doing what's smart and matches the fiction (Scry and Fry) and doing what gives the most fun (exploration). And these are two things that should not be in conflict.

I definitely agree with this too. It shouldn't be a compromise between what is fun and what is smart. Nor between exploration and killing things. They aren't exclusive concepts. But, as it was mentioned earlier; Teleport doesn't break games AS LONG as you don't care if your party never travels by land ever again. Since I think very few games are categorized by a no longer wanting to EVER rely on ground travel I think we need to examine teleport and find out why it is how it is and how to fix the desire to abuse it.

 

[Tovec]

Teleportation has never been an issue for me. The point where it obviates an obstacle or overland travel denotes a transition point in the group's power level and achievments. And if this strains against the theme of your world (like Darksun) then remove that spell from the list of those available. Not every spell need have been developed on every world or there may be good reason why it wasn't.

That doesn't mean there are no other ways of dealing wit the spell simply because you haven't had a problem. A lot of people WANT teleport in their games. I'd say even MOST people on this thread want a simple form of teleport that works for their games but the version we have doesnt work for them. Giving the response of ''ban it in your games'' does not and will not work for everyone.

As for Scry-Buff-Teleport, don't change Teleport, change the nature of Scrying. It seems awefully powerful to me to be able to reach into nothingness to locate that ancient red dragon you're searching for. SBT has never been a problem in my games because I keep scrying results very nebulous. Your are at best seeing disjointed visions of what you seek, like a dream state, not a direct video link into the dragon's bedroom. Nothing I'd allow a teleport to hone in on, because you've never really seen the target.

The problem isnt just scry buff teleport. It is actually longer and relates to scry buff teleport fry teleport. The problem in that equation is the TELEPORT in and TELEPORT out. If you remove the possibility of teleport in or out then the problem solves itself. My solution is to be off target so you can never teleport in in the first place. Fixing scrying alone won't do the job. Don't get me wrong, we should fix scrying too. It is too powerful as it is but fixing JUST scrying wont work.

Believe it or not I've never had a problem with scry buff teleport either. But I recognize that it exists and I DO have a number of actual issues with teleport that I think need to be addressed as well.

It may be that one solution won't work for everyone but I think that solutions have to be sought after nonetheless.

 

[Steely_Dan]

And if this strains against the theme of your world (like Darksun) then remove that spell from the list of those available

In the 1st Ed PHB it explains that a DM may change, augment, diminish, add and/or remove etc spells entirely.

 

[keterys]

At risk of being decried as some kind of anti-gamer... World of Warcraft's treatment of teleport is pretty good.

It's _trivial_ to teleport home.
You otherwise can't portal anywhere unless someone's traveled there already and either summoned you or learned how to portal there.
It's quite easy, however, to teleport anywhere the caster's been.
It's quite easy to gather allies to a teleport location.

It's extraordinarily difficult to do _any_ of these actions in combat.

So, for example, it'd be difficult to teleport to Mount Doom and drop in the ring. But they'd have probably teleported directly to Minas Tirith and traveled from there.

In a 4e game recently, I had the party bard sneak and bluff her way into the castle they wanted to assault, find an unused chamber and create a portal. The party then used that portal to linked portal back and forth as needed, albeit with some risk and stealth. So, the teleport was still a very big deal, but it was a far cry from scry + fry, and required actually visiting the location to set things up. Was neat - and not at all what I expected them to do, so they sidestepped a fight or two.

 

[Dausuul]

I would rather not ignore you as I don't want ignore what you are saying. I would just prefer to read one post rather than 5 (and it would have been 6) all from the same person. ...

I can teach you if you'd like, but in general all I would prefer would be if you were to use the Multi-Quote button. It usually isn't too bad, but 5 (would have been 6) is rather a lot and kind of annoying. Especially since 3 of those were to the same person.

The irony here is that this is the beginning of a giant omnibus post where you reply point-by-point to 15 quotes from 4 different people. Eyes... glazing... over...

 

[Tovec]

The irony here is that this is the beginning of a giant omnibus post where you reply point-by-point to 15 quotes from 4 different people. Eyes... glazing... over...

A compromise perhaps is one post per person. Which still would have combined 3 of the 5/6 for him. Not that it is really a point either way.

If it is only a matter of not knowing then that knowledge can be acquired, I'll teach him/her. If it is a matter of PREFERRING it that way then that is something entirely different Dausuul.

 

[Manbearcat]

The irony here is that this is the beginning of a giant omnibus post where you reply point-by-point to 15 quotes from 4 different people. Eyes... glazing... over...

A compromise perhaps is one post per person. Which still would have combined 3 of the 5/6 for him. Not that it is really a point either way.

If it is only a matter of not knowing then that knowledge can be acquired, I'll teach him/her. If it is a matter of PREFERRING it that way then that is something entirely different Dausuul.

You know what is better than posts about posts about posts about posts? Posts about posts about posts about posts about posts. You know whats even better than that? I'll bet you'll find it somewhere beneath this post.