D&D General Wishing Away The Adventure

[billd91]

It still allows completely bypassing most travel, making actually cool things like magical mounts and flying ships undesirable.

Does it? What if not all of the PCs agree and prefer to use magic mounts or flying ships? Teleport is only going to mess things up if everyone wants to use the teleport, and then it’s all the players vs the DM. If the players want to short cut things with teleport, they will, but if they don’t, they won’t.

 

[Oofta]

Does it? What if not all of the PCs agree and prefer to use magic mounts or flying ships? Teleport is only going to mess things up if everyone wants to use the teleport, and then it’s all the players vs the DM. If the players want to short cut things with teleport, they will, but if they don’t, they won’t.

I would also say that most of the time teleport is the gameplay version of a McGuffin. If it's important to get someplace to stop something or the campaign ends, you will get there. If you don't want to spend time at the table on traveling, you won't. Maybe that means you hand-wave most of a two month journey or the DM just puts the location 2 days away instead of 2 months.

There is nothing in the fiction of campaigns that requires teleport unless the DM decides to make it required. Teleport is just an excuse to have fast travel so people can see different parts of the world.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If the game offered cool mounts* and flying ships, people wouldn't use teleport as much...

And this thread would be about how unrealistic it is that adventures fly drakes and living halos or hop aboard skyships rather than just teleport and pupuing anyone who points out they're doing what's fun.

*And didn't design them exclusively for the DM to kill

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Little to none of these issues are likely to be corrected by WotC, ever. Are you just looking to vent here? I ask because you mentioned Dungeon World, which I assume is better suited to your preferences and which it appears you are playing.

It is what I run. I haven't properly played D&D, any edition, in years. I have a 5e character in a friend's on-again, off-again side game relative to the main game he runs for some other folks.

I agree. There is no contradiction.

You see and hear a specific target as if you were 10 feet away from that target. It is a camera with a mic focused on the subject, not a wizard eye you can move around at will.

It literally says "You can see and hear through the sensor as if you were there." It does not say "you can only see the target of the spell."

You are also specifically able to set the sensor at a chosen location rather than on a person. Do you thus rule that the spell makes you blind and deaf because it has no creature to target if you use it that way?

Sweet wounded Jesus, this is why I hate "natural language." Forget England; two people from the same region of the United States can be divided by a common, or should I say natural, language!

 

[Reynard]

It is what I run. I haven't properly played D&D, any edition, in years. I have a 5e character in a friend's on-again, off-again side game relative to the main game he runs for some other folks.


It literally says "You can see and hear through the sensor as if you were there." It does not say "you can only see the target of the spell."

You are also specifically able to set the sensor at a chosen location rather than on a person. Do you thus rule that the spell makes you blind and deaf because it has no creature to target if you use it that way?

Sweet wounded Jesus, this is why I hate "natural language." Forget England; two people from the same region of the United States can be divided by a common, or should I say natural, language!

Calm down.

You see contradiction where there isn't any. The spell clearly focuses on the target. That's the first thing it says. In addition to that, the spell let's you see and hear THE TARGET as if you were there. It isn't even uncertain. It says these things unequivocally.

You can move the sensor. That means that you can rotate the camer to get any angle of the target you might want. This could be useful in any number of circumstances, including being able to disguise oneself as the target.

What the spell does not say it does is give you any information about getting to.the target. You might be able to garner some information about the location depending on what's in view, but it isn't Wizard Eye.

 

[Maxperson]

In 5e, a first level wizard knows that one day, when he is high enough level, he can simply chose to add Wish into his spell book. So what happens when the first level player says, "I know that one day, I, Castor Magington, and my brave party will reach high level and acquire the Sword of Awesome from the Tomb of Badness. Upon learning to cast wish, I will immediately use such spell to wish the Sword back in time to this very place at this very time."

Does the sword appear?

Of course it doesn't for a few reasons. First, just because you intend to do something, doesn't mean that you will actually do it in the future. The game has to be played out, because he might die, change his mine, be prevented, etc. Second, the wish itself is way beyond what wishes can normally accomplish and is therefore pretty much doomed to fail in some way per RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

Or, classic thing: Rescue plot.

Cast scrying. You instantly know exactly where the victim is, as the target of scrying can intentionally fail the save.

The target has to know the spell is being cast and the magic itself doesn't let them know. Nobody in their right mind would voluntarily fail a save against unknown magic.

You can then spend ten minutes carefully examining the area, followed by casting teleport. You are by definition "very familiar" with the location, having just spent ten minutes memorizing details about it directly with your own senses: "a place you have carefully studied."

First, the target has to fail the save against the unknown magic. Second, I don't see anything that says 10 minutes is enough time to study a place carefully. The other part of that description is a place that you've been to very often, which very strongly implies you have a hell of a lot more time spent there getting to know it than 10 minutes.

 

[Maxperson]

I really am not fan of this sort of magical countermeasures game. It requires any high level treat to have access to counter magic, and as GM can just decide that they do, this basically results GM making up excuses why you cant use your powers. I much rather just remove the problematic spells, so that whatever spells the players get to choose they actually can use.

Depends on if they know what you can do or very likely are correct in thinking that you do. I'm not going to play a bad guy like he has an intelligence and wisdom of 3 just so that he doesn't take reasonable precautions. Scrying will often work, but sometimes not.

 

[Maxperson]

Scrying: "You can see and hear a particular creature you choose that is on the same plane of existence as you." That's it. Doesn't say you know where they are or see their surroundings. You don't even hear who the person is talking to. Assuming of course they aren't just sitting there washing dishes or whatever it is they do in their downtime.

No. @EzekielRaiden is half right. You do get to see the surroundings as the spell says the following, "On a failed save, the spell creates an invisible sensor within 10 feet of the target. You can see and hear through the sensor as if you were there." If you aren't too blind to see the surroundings if you are there, you aren't blinded to the point of only seeing the target. That said, 10 minutes is nowhere close to enough time as the study has to be the equivalent of knowing a place you go to frequently. Not sometimes, but frequently. Going somewhere frequently involves a lot of time getting to know the place. Several hours of time is still probably not enough.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm hardly unique in my interpretation, it's pretty close to what Matt Mercer does in Critical Role for example. I'm not going to argue about it though, if you want the spell to do more than it says it does and then complain that the spell ruins all sorts of plots go right ahead.

I mean, it literally says that it does that. You're quoting the fluff description portion of the spell and using it to ignore the explicit mechanics of the spell.

A spell doesn't invalidate another portion of itself. If there are two interpretations and one of them involves a contradiction(yours), and the other one just enhances one further(ours), yours is almost certainly incorrect.