3/22/2023 0 Comments No more teleport pokemon![]() We actually lost a character that way, to a lightning strike.īut the solution, it seems to me, would be to make travel more interesting, not to get rid of it. Mostly what I remember is that our DM had massive tables of weather pre-rolled, and every time it rained, he rolled to see if we were struck by lightning. ![]() This was 1E, and we spent months of real time hiking from one part of Greyhawk to another, and my God it was dull. For an example of this feeling play through early gen pokemon without repels in the caves of infinite zoobat, or the ocean with an infinite supply of really bland jellyfish.I've certainly spent my time in a campaign where travel was boring. The fact that no one actually wants to spend several sessions traveling through a bland field or similar fighting random encounters? If players wanted to teleport directly to a place it's because the journey between wasn't expected to be interesting or valuable. However, its a slippery slope of how much to ban, and if you're not careful they could trivially bypass your ban. TLDR I have a similar concern in my game, which is that mobility spells keep players from interacting with the world. One way to cancel the fly non-interaction is to make the skies interactive as well - either some crazy homebrew sky world or make them dangerous to fly in. It's not NECESSARY to ban fly, of course, but it causes the same lack of interaction as teleport, albeit on a lesser scale. The problem here is that you then end up banning Fly spells as well, and then the party buys griffon mounts, and you have to ban that as well.From personal experience, it's hard to deal with unless your players are very willing to deal with you. It is difficult to think of a monster that could reasonably interact with players if they're travelling at 480 feet per round (almost 60 mph) (with double moves, although technically there is no reason for the horse not to full run as a construct, bringing it up to 120 mph).įly spells do the same, by keeping the party from interacting with the ground/the world. Phantom Steed also makes overland journeys fairly moot. If you are doing this, there are a couple other things to consider. For an example of this feeling play through early gen pokemon without repels in the caves of infinite zoobat, or the ocean with an infinite supply of really bland jellyfish. (Of course, there are a lot of wizard abilities that would have made LotR very different.)Īm I missing something? (I've been known to do that.) Are there consequences to banning teleport I'm not seeing?Īm I missing something? (I've been known to do that.) Are there consequences to banning teleport I'm not seeing?The fact that no one actually wants to spend several sessions traveling through a bland field or similar fighting random encounters? If players wanted to teleport directly to a place it's because the journey between wasn't expected to be interesting or valuable. Getting from point A to point B is a classic source of adventure, and it's something you can't do any more once you have access to teleport - imagine Lord of the Rings if Gandalf could just teleport the ring to Mordor. Most of all, though, it means you don't lose "the long journey" as a trope in high-level play. You don't have to keep giving your villains weirdstones. ![]() ![]() It prevents scry-and-fry tactics, at least in their classical incarnation. The advantages I see are: it gives players a reason to buy those cool vehicles they keep printing. Planar travel would be by fixed, naturally-occurring portals only. So no dimension door, teleportation circle, gate, plane shift, etc. This is just a hypothetical question, not something I'm planning to do in a game, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like a good idea: banning teleport and any other spell or effect that lets you teleport.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |