Teleportation

[Someone]

The Witcher setting also has mages able to teleport in a very D&D compatible way (teleporting is also an important part of the plot in some of the books). Generally it's "balanced" by the fact that every mage powerful enough for it either are complete bastards, have an agenda, or most of the time both.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The Witcher setting also has mages able to teleport in a very D&D compatible way (teleporting is also an important part of the plot in some of the books). Generally it's "balanced" by the fact that every mage powerful enough for it either are complete bastards, have an agenda, or most of the time both.

Well, some players/characters also have an agenda, so it fits.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I've got the feeling that one of the most reccuring counter-argument against teleport is 'scry-buff-teleport'.

Ok, I think most of us heard that.

As I already said:

a) don't use the nearly unrestricted 3E version as basis, add a restriction like, you had to be at the destination in person (scry does not qualify).
We do not know how the 5E teleport will work, don't always assume the worst oucome in your imagination.

b) remove scry, divinations of all kinds can break many other games for various reasons, 'scry-buff-teleport' works not only because there is teleport

c) ban teleport in your game, not in every players/DMs game. As others said before it is easier to ban a single spell as a DM than to invent one (w/o guidance).


Regarding other spells that are sometimes superfluous because teleport exists.

So it might be, fighters were rather superfluous in 3E as well with clerics, wizards and druids around. Yet, the designers deemed them worthy to reappear in 4E. I heard they will be in 5E as well, even with a brand new fighter-only mechanic.

Some suggestions like you could research Mass-versions is in the DM's hands, so not everyone has the option. Contigency, to save casting time if no Mass-version is at hand has a higher level as teleport - not always an option. Linked portals and teleportation-crcles are all nice and dandy ...

but remember opposers of the teleport...

option c) is only a single sentence for you and your gaming group.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure if your focus is on ingame time, or on real time spent resolving travel at the table.

Both.

For in-game time, if a party has to spend 4 months travelling up to the arctic for a two-week adventure, then spend 4 months coming back again, this causes various issues to arise:

- the meta-plot has had all kinds of time to advance (possibly to places I haven't even planned out yet!) - 8-9 months is a long time in a situation where major shifts can happen within weeks
- that party is probably now way out of synch with the other groups (I run multiple parties in my world, sometimes interacting) meaning they'll have to be put on hold until the rest of the world catches up with them; and as sometimes those "major shifts" I mentioned are the direct result of the actions of a party I need to know what the other parties have been up to

If the second, then there are other ways to handle it besides teleport. For example, you just handwave the travel and narrate the passage of time in about as many sentences as you would use to narrate the teleport.

I'm well aware of this, but wandering monsters and random encounters are (in theory) a fact of life and it seems jarring to mysteriously not have any such during a multi-month journey; also I've yet to see any party enter any town without getting into some sort of trouble...and there might be a lot of towns to go through en route...

Also some of the spells you suggested in your other post does very little to help the entire party get away when the entire party is facing death. Most of the ones you suggested are single person only and if you have a party of six it would take six rounds to get everyone away.

Teleport *should* only be a single-person spell, plus what said person can physically carry. Planeshift is the one that can take a bunch of people and has in my experience been the bigger headache - I ended up having to put some limits on Planeshift but have never felt the need to do so with Teleport. Again, I have to bang 1e's drum here; as it got Teleport right.

Also,when I talk about teleport as an exit strategy from a no-win situation, I'm only referring to the caster. The rest of the party have to rely on the caster to somehow get them out and-or revive them from death*.

The same applies to scry-buff-teleport: if the caster's the only one who can go, the strategy becomes rather (literally!) self-limited.

* - in an old campaign of mine, this is exactly what happened: a PC who happened to have a device of teleportation saw the party had got WAY in over its head (due in large part to their own ignorance of a bunch of very clear warnings), grabbed what looked like the most expensive gear he could quickly find, and blipped out to town; the rest of the party was dead within 2 rounds. He then used said expensive gear to pay for a wish to revive people and get them out...

Lan-"as long as there is one survivor the party can and will continue"-efan

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm not sure how it's funny as opposed to just the way life is, but sure.



Which is why I'm advocating for what I want. If you can get yours too, that's groovy, but if only one of us can, better that it's me.


Not any one post in particular, but I think the weight of opinion on both this and other sites plays a role.

At least you are being honest so let me be honest while I hope that 5E has things that make the game enjoyable for a large group of people I do hope that it leans more to what I like.

I think trying to please everyone from reading these and other forums lies the way to madness.

 

[Elf Witch]

Both.

For in-game time, if a party has to spend 4 months travelling up to the arctic for a two-week adventure, then spend 4 months coming back again, this causes various issues to arise:

- the meta-plot has had all kinds of time to advance (possibly to places I haven't even planned out yet!) - 8-9 months is a long time in a situation where major shifts can happen within weeks
- that party is probably now way out of synch with the other groups (I run multiple parties in my world, sometimes interacting) meaning they'll have to be put on hold until the rest of the world catches up with them; and as sometimes those "major shifts" I mentioned are the direct result of the actions of a party I need to know what the other parties have been up to

I'm well aware of this, but wandering monsters and random encounters are (in theory) a fact of life and it seems jarring to mysteriously not have any such during a multi-month journey; also I've yet to see any party enter any town without getting into some sort of trouble...and there might be a lot of towns to go through en route...
Teleport *should* only be a single-person spell, plus what said person can physically carry. Planeshift is the one that can take a bunch of people and has in my experience been the bigger headache - I ended up having to put some limits on Planeshift but have never felt the need to do so with Teleport. Again, I have to bang 1e's drum here; as it got Teleport right.

Also,when I talk about teleport as an exit strategy from a no-win situation, I'm only referring to the caster. The rest of the party have to rely on the caster to somehow get them out and-or revive them from death*.

The same applies to scry-buff-teleport: if the caster's the only one who can go, the strategy becomes rather (literally!) self-limited.

* - in an old campaign of mine, this is exactly what happened: a PC who happened to have a device of teleportation saw the party had got WAY in over its head (due in large part to their own ignorance of a bunch of very clear warnings), grabbed what looked like the most expensive gear he could quickly find, and blipped out to town; the rest of the party was dead within 2 rounds. He then used said expensive gear to pay for a wish to revive people and get them out...

Lan-"as long as there is one survivor the party can and will continue"-efan

That is one way to run the spell and if that works in your games then great I will always have some kind of teleport spell in my games to save the entire party.

If it is limited to just casters I can hear the screams now on the forums about how over powered the caster are and how they get to avoid death and if they choose they can go back to get their fallen party so now they have total narrative control.

 

[mlund]

I suspect at the heart of the matter we'll find Quadratic Wizards and Linear Fighters again. Some people simply must have their wizards be able to evade any finite number of high-level martial types by wiggling their fingers. That way they can go reload on Vancian spells and keep the uppity muggles in their place.

I mean, imagine the social ills and degradation of society and vulgarity of it all if higher-level Wizards were reduced to slumming it with "The Help" (equal or higher level fighters, rogues, etc.) by using fixed emplacements, vehicles, or magical beasts to travel long distances.

You just can't get your Elminster on if you have to get around like the primitives that still try to solve their problems with metal sticks.

- Marty Lund

 

[ferratus]

a) don't use the nearly unrestricted 3E version as basis, add a restriction like, you had to be at the destination in person (scry does not qualify).
We do not know how the 5E teleport will work, don't always assume the worst oucome in your imagination.

If you have to have been there in person already anyway, then why not just have linked portals? It also leads to ramifications in the wider campaign world. For example people would start banning mages from setting foot in castles or walled cities for security reasons, because he can sneak in with teleportation and assassinate the king.

c) ban teleport in your game, not in every players/DMs game. As others said before it is easier to ban a single spell as a DM than to invent one (w/o guidance).

I'm well aware I can ban a problematic spell, I'm just letting you know why teleport is problematic, and how it can be done better. Why is a broken spell necessarily better than one that you come up with yourself?

Some suggestions like you could research Mass-versions is in the DM's hands, so not everyone has the option. Contigency, to save casting time if no Mass-version is at hand has a higher level as teleport - not always an option. Linked portals and teleportation-crcles are all nice and dandy ...

but remember opposers of the teleport...

option c) is only a single sentence for you and your gaming group.

i) If the mass spells are in the DM's hands, then there is no reason not to put them in the PHB spell list instead of teleport. Let's make a specific spell that is an avoid-TPK spell at 5th level that doesn't have teleport's problems.

ii) Why does contingency need to be higher level than teleport? It is less useful than teleport, so why isn't it less powerful? Gamist thinking no doubt.

iii) If linked portals work just fine, why do I have to ban the teleport spell? Why not just have the teleport spell work that way from now on? One works just fine, the other has problems, so it seems a no brainer.

 

[ferratus]

Sure I could have that spell but it requires my character to have a sanctuary which is fine and dandy. So know I have gotten to my sanctuary how do you suggest I get back to my party? I now get to sit out the rest of the game play because my character is back at Garyhawk and the party is weeks travel away.

You can cast word of recall again, naturally, just as you'd have to cast teleport again. Or you could have hidden a teleportation circle to return to outside the dungeon.

The problem with teleport is that it is an instant surprise attack, at full strength, directly against any powerful enemy. It is a problem because it makes other forms of transport obsolete. It is a problem because it allows you to leave whenever you are losing, instead of thinking your way out of a jam.

Linked portals plus a few "expiditious retreat" spells work well with none of those problems.

Now, if there is no way to land at a specific desired point problem #1 disappears. Having people land within 5 miles of their desired destination works and removes scry-buff-teleport as a tactic. Nobody has offered a solution to problem #2 . Problem 3 is touted as a feature rather than a bug, but I frankly don't see any difference between that and returning to full hp between encounters or a night of rest.

I don't understand this desire to take things out of the game because some people don't like them.

If you don't like teleport then why is it such an issue to simply ban it at your table why force everyone else to play your way?

I know I can just ban it, but that doesn't stop teleport from having problems, and yes Lanefan, even in 1e. (Though it has less problems than the 3e/PF version.). Why not choose the teleport that doesn't have the problems?

 

[pemerton]

As others said before it is easier to ban a single spell as a DM than to invent one (w/o guidance).

In the case of D&D teleport, I would have though that it is trivially easy for any GM who is familiar with it from a past edition to "invent" it again! Just cut-and-paste.

There's not even a balance question. Should teleport be 1st level? 3rd level? 5th level? 9th level? A far as I can tell, the answer to that question depends entirely on the level at which you're happy for overland travel not to matter in your game anymore.