Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5981852" data-attributes="member: 42582">For me, it's also about the game presenting a coherent model for play. For example, if the expectatin is that the GM is meant to be in charge of scene framing, and that his/her job is to make life hard for the PCs (thereby putting pressure on the players to which they must respond as part of playing the game) then the inclusion of a teleport spell can be counterproductive.Plus it has other unhappy consequences of the sort that   [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has described.In the end I don't care if it turns up somewhere in a module. But if the game is build around teleport as a core conceit, or a presupposition of play, it is less likely that the game will appeal to me.One suggestion from   [MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION] 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.Linked portals/teleport circles, on the other hand - as   [MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION],   [MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION] and   [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] 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).In AD&D this is not true.In 3E I don't really understand this. Wouldn't I just be bettter off being a wizard (perhaps with a level of bard also) than a rogue? Then I wouldn't need to spend skill points on Use Magic Device, and I would have spells as well! Plus there is the more general weirdness that the way the rogue becomes a viable PC is by doing the non-roguey thing of pretending to be a wizard.I've been in situations where a fireball would be handy and there is no wizard. That's part of the point of a class-based game - you work around the abilities you don't have!Huh? Who thinks that teleport (ie the portal rituals) or knock causes a problem in 4e?Huh? You're the one saying that wizards have to be the same as rogues (ie have an open lock ability). And that rogues should be the same as clerics (by using wands of cure spells).My point has consistently been - if you don't have a rogue, then I guess you won't be picking any locks. Find another way around! Just like, if there's no wizard, you won't be doing any fireballing. Find another way to kill those orcs!For the first 5 levels of play the PCs in my 4e game didn't have a leader (ie a dedicated healer). They worked around it - finding other methods of recovering or mitigating damage.Are you really saying that the wizard is not fun to play if it doesn't get access to abilities that overlap and overshadow the niches of other classes?</blockquote>

Verification