4E - Teleportation Attacks

[Quixon]

Ok so I see in PHB if you slide/shift/push ect..force someone over a ledge/pit/cliff they get a saving throw or just end up prone on the edge. But I see nothing about any of the teleportation powers? Same? or is victim just out of luck.

If its the same, seems kinda lame, but I can see the balance factor cause if it's not the same you could mess somebody up quite easily (given appropiate terrain). i.e use one the attacks that lets you tp them 3 squares, or cast fly on yourself and use one that lets you swap spots with someone.

[James McMurray]

Looks like they're screwed. Makes sense though, since there's not really a way for them to save themselves if they never pass through the intervening space.

There's only a few powers that can do it to enemies, so you could pretty easily house rule them to all be slides instead of teleports.

[VictorC]

Ok so I see in PHB if you slide/shift/push ect..force someone over a ledge/pit/cliff they get a saving throw or just end up prone on the edge. But I see nothing about any of the teleportation powers? Same? or is victim just out of luck.

If its the same, seems kinda lame, but I can see the balance factor cause if it's not the same you could mess somebody up quite easily (given appropiate terrain). i.e use one the attacks that lets you tp them 3 squares, or cast fly on yourself and use one that lets you swap spots with someone.

Would you be good enough to give us an example?

[OldKentuckyShark]

Would you be good enough to give us an example?

Summons of Khirad (Warlock attack 9) deals damage and teleports a target to an unnocupied square within 3 squares of you. Dark Transport (Warlock Attack 23) deals damage and trades places with the target, which could be combined with flight to make them fall 50 feet.

Those are both pretty iffy, requiring positional setup by the Warlock.


Elemental Maw (Wizard attack 23), on the other hand, deals damage, pulls the target, and has a chance of sucking them into a vortex and spitting them out into an unnocupied square within 20 squares of the caster, where they land stunned and prone. Elemental Maw + cliff = pretty heinous.

Those are the only spells I found that teleport unwilling targets to squares of the caster's choosing. I may have missed some, expecially in the PPs.

[sporkpimp]

On examination, the PHB does not appear to dictate that Teleportation has to place you in a square you could occupy safely.

This is almost certainly an oversight, because otherwise every teleported enemy would get teleported vertically for the falling damage.

And that'd be dumb.

But the rules don't say otherwise.

Yet.

-A.

[sporkpimp]

Those are the only spells I found that teleport unwilling targets to squares of the caster's choosing. I may have missed some, expecially in the PPs.You totally did.

Go to the D&D Compendium. Type in "Teleportation" as your search term. There you go.

-A.

[David J Prokopetz]

This is almost certainly an oversight, because otherwise every teleported enemy would get teleported vertically for the falling damage.

And that'd be dumb.I don't think it's a big deal in most cases. Many of these effects have fairly short ranges - what's the damage for falling fifteen feet?

[Icon]

I don't think it's a big deal in most cases. Many of these effects have fairly short ranges - what's the damage for falling fifteen feet?

1d10 per 10ft you fall, so 1d10.

If you are trained in Acrobatics you may attempt to reduce that damage.

[Deadmanwalking]

I don't think it's a big deal in most cases. Many of these effects have fairly short ranges - what's the damage for falling fifteen feet?

1d10.

And check out p. 44 of the DMG, everybody. Falls shouldn't even be around if the PCs or adversaries can't survive them.

[David J Prokopetz]

1d10 per 10ft you fall, so 1d10.Eh. Given the game's emphasis on positioning, sacrificing a couple of squares of free tactical movement (yes, moving your enemies counts) in exchange for 1d10 damage seems a fair trade to me.

[Icon]

1d10.

And check out p. 44 of the DMG, everybody. Falls shouldn't even be around if the PCs or adversaries can't survive them.

As a general rule no, but I would have said that anyway without the DMG saying so.

On the other hand, there may be special times when such falls are around regardless of the PC's ability to survive them. And or course players can manufacture situations where such falls are possible. If you willingly climb to the top of the steeple of the cathederal. . .well, its a long way down.

[Gloombunny]

Eh. Given the game's emphasis on positioning, sacrificing a couple of squares of free tactical movement (yes, moving your enemies counts) in exchange for 1d10 damage seems a fair trade to me.
Remember also, though, that anyone who takes damage from a fall lands prone. Adding "and they're prone" to a power seems like a significant upgrade.

[sporkpimp]

Eh. Given the game's emphasis on positioning, sacrificing a couple of squares of free tactical movement (yes, moving your enemies counts) in exchange for 1d10 damage seems a fair trade to me.That's not how it works, though.

Bob is three squares away from me. I teleport him three squares. Now, I want to put Bob as far away from me as possible while at the same time inflicting some falling damage. What should I do?

I should teleport him diagonally up and away from me, such that he ends up three squares away from me, fall 15 feet for 1d10 damage, and land prone.

1d10 is a lot of damage. Three squares is a lot of squares. Prone is a good thing to make an enemy.

This isn't how it's supposed to work, guarantee it.

-A.

[David J Prokopetz]

That's not how it works, though.Hmm. Yeah, that "count diagonals one-for-one" thing essentially makes vertical positioning "free", doesn't it?

[sporkpimp]

Hmm. Yeah, that "count diagonals one-for-one" thing essentially makes vertical positioning "free", doesn't it?Yeah. It's made explicit in the flying rules (which I am probably the first person to read, in any edition of D&D :) ).

-A.

[Pseudoephedrine]

Sounds like clever tactical thinking on the part of a player. I'd reward it by letting it work, rather than casting about for a house rule to prevent it.

[David J Prokopetz]

Sounds like clever tactical thinking on the part of a player.If you're exploiting the diagonal rule to get free vertical movement out of all your horizontal teleports, that isn't much tactical thinking involved - it's probably always a better choice to teleport your enemy up in the air in addition to taking the full horizontal movement.

[wdarkk]

Sounds like clever tactical thinking on the part of a player. I'd reward it by letting it work, rather than casting about for a house rule to prevent it.

The problem is that it'll quickly become the ONLY tactic for using teleportation powers, due to the diagonal thing mentioned above.

[sporkpimp]

Sounds like clever tactical thinking on the part of a player. I'd reward it by letting it work, rather than casting about for a house rule to prevent it.
What are you talking about? The "I teleport him three squares to the left and watch him Wile E Coyote down the cliff"?

Or the "every teleport includes 1d10 damage and renders the target prone"?

The latter is stupid and has no cleverness component at all after the very first time it is used. The former is more situational and fits well with the system's emphasis on forced movement and dangerous environments but is difficult to rationalize without interpreting the rules in such a way as to allow Up, Up, and Away! teleportation.

-A.

[Icon]

Is this not suitably handled by requiring substantial solidity at a destination point?

[David J Prokopetz]

Is this not suitably handled by requiring substantial solidity at a destination point?There doesn't appear to be any such requirement by the book, of course.

[Pseudoephedrine]

If you're exploiting the diagonal rule to get free vertical movement out of all your horizontal teleports, that isn't much tactical thinking involved - it's probably always a better choice to teleport your enemy up in the air in addition to taking the full horizontal movement.

Unless they can fly, or the dungeon ceiling is only 10 ft. high.

sporkpimp> I'd allow both. By the time PCs are able to do hostile teleports, there are a variety of flying enemies you can set them against if a PC starts to use the tactic excessively.

[David J Prokopetz]

Unless they can fly, or the dungeon ceiling is only 10 ft. high.An approach that's always superior unless the GM contrives some pretty specific scenarios in order to render it ineffective is suspect from a design point of view, especially if it's not explicitly called out - if the intention was for every hostile teleport effect to pop its target way up in the air in addition to granting full horizontal movement, it probably would have been mentioned as such.

[Pseudoephedrine]

An approach that's always superior unless the GM contrives some pretty specific scenarios in order to render it ineffective is suspect from a design point of view, especially if it's not explicitly called out - if the intention was for every hostile teleport effect to pop its target way up in the air in addition to granting full horizontal movement, it probably would have been mentioned as such.

I'm uninterested in intentions and mentions of them. As written, it doesn't seem particularly unbalanced: It lays enemies prone 3 squares away and deals 1d10 extra damage, if they can't fly, if they fail an acrobatics check to negate the damage, if the ceiling is high enough that the creature's body is at least 10 ft. off the ground (not as marginal as one might think considering how common both dungeons and larger-than-normal creatures are - personally, I would also allow a creature with the climb movement mode to grab the ceiling with some sort of roll if teleported within range of it).

Considering that the lowest level power that can do this that's been mentioned so far is a 9th level power, I'm having trouble seeing what few enemies this would actually manage to settle a fight against.

Also, enemies with teleporting powers can do this right back to PCs, giving them the same possibilities.

Edit: Lastly, the powers that do this are 1/encounter or 1/day, which means you're not even able to do it often enough to really throw a fight off.

[sporkpimp]

Yeah, you're right, the Warlock clearly needs more help dealing single-target damage and inflicting status effects.

[David J Prokopetz]

I'm uninterested in intentions and mentions of them.Oh, let's not go all post-modernist - down that road lies "well, the rules don't explicitly say that humans can't sprout wings and fly, so...". :p

[Pseudoephedrine]

Yeah, you're right, the Warlock clearly needs more help dealing single-target damage and inflicting status effects.

Once again, how does 1d10 additional damage 1/encounter against a foe with an average of 80+Con HP who can negate it through movement modes, skill checks or sheer physical size? Especially since the prone status is no longer the death-trap it was in 3.x?

[Pseudoephedrine]

Oh, let's not go all post-modernist - down that road lies "well, the rules don't explicitly say that humans can't sprout wings and fly, so...". :p

I'll stop being "postmodernist" when you start showing me how your telepathy machine works :p

[David J Prokopetz]

I'll stop being "postmodernist" when you start showing me how your telepathy machine works :pDude, you don't have to be telepathic to make reasonable suppositions about design intent. In fact, you're obliged to do so; game rules are not written with the rigour of legal documents - and it would probably be a real pain in the butt if they were - so there has to exist a basic agreement to interpret the letter of the rules in the spirit in which they're intended. Games can't function otherwise.

[Gloombunny]

Not all teleport effects are "within 3 squares of you", just Summons of Khirad. Elemental Maw teleports enemies to within 20 squares of you. That's 10d10 falling damage on top of the spell dealing 9d6 + (Int x 2) + enhancements already. Seems a bit much even for a daily.

The Acrobatics check to reduce falling damage and not land prone is trained-only.

Many people enjoy playing D&D without being in a cramped dungeon all the time, or even most of the time.

[Icon]

There doesn't appear to be any such requirement by the book, of course.

No, there does not.

Still, when I read the wording of Summons of Khirad it seems to me they really meant for a person to end up on the ground--"unoccupied square" lending itself to a 2-D consideration.

[sporkpimp]

Once again, how does 1d10 additional damage 1/encounter against a foe with an average of 80+Con HP who can negate it through movement modes, skill checks or sheer physical size? Especially since the prone status is no longer the death-trap it was in 3.x?
How does it what? You missed a word here?

Were you going to ask how it unbalances? It unbalances by powering up classes that didn't need powering up. Having bonuses that you didn't need when you were already good enough is pretty much exactly how you end up unbalanced.

Also, I'm skeptical on your implication that being prone isn't an issue. Providing combat advantage sucks enough without losing your move action to it.

-A.

[Azegoroth]

Isn't this just using the terrain to your advantage, this means enemies with teleportation effects can do the same. And will you also remove the fact that they can teleport someone into a fire or an acid pool?

[Pseudoephedrine]

Not all teleport effects are "within 3 squares of you", just Summons of Khirad. Elemental Maw teleports enemies to within 20 squares of you. That's 10d10 falling damage on top of the spell dealing 9d6 + (Int x 2) + enhancements already. Seems a bit much even for a daily.

The Acrobatics check to reduce falling damage and not land prone is trained-only.

Many people enjoy playing D&D without being in a cramped dungeon all the time, or even most of the time.

Elemental Maw _randomly_ teleports them. They won't always be in the sky, and they won't always be 20 squares directly up. In fact, if you're actually trying to equalise the chances, they're incredibly small (there are, if my math is right, a mere 1600 possible squares that would do the maximum damage out of a possible 32000 squares within the range of the spell - a 1 in 20 chance). That's if it hits their defenses, and if it can drag them into the vortex in the first place. And you can do that once per day, at most. And 10d10, impressive as it sounds, is only 50 damage on average (since you can't crit with falling damage), facing monsters with an average of 208+Con HP (sort of - 21 of 33 currently printed monsters level 25 and higher are elites or solos and thus have even more HP).

Of the 33 printed enemies that are level 25 or higher, 8 cannot fly, btw. So it's not merely some marginal case, but in fact the norm for enemies to be flying by the time you can cast Elemental Maw.

[Pseudoephedrine]

Dude, you don't have to be telepathic to make reasonable suppositions about design intent. In fact, you're obliged to do so; game rules are not written with the rigour of legal documents - and it would probably be a real pain in the butt if they were - so there has to exist a basic agreement to interpret the letter of the rules in the spirit in which they're intended. Games can't function otherwise.

This is off-topic, but not really. You don't need to know anything at all about the designer's intent. What you need is a consensus amongst your group about how rules are to be interpreted, and that doesn't need to involve trying to guess what the designer meant. There are plenty of other perfectly legitimate criteria - what would be fair, what would be fun, what will cause the least trouble with book-keeping, etc.

[Gloombunny]

Elemental Maw _randomly_ teleports them.
Um... no it doesn't. Go read it again.

And 10d10, impressive as it sounds, is only 50 damage on average (since you can't crit with falling damage), facing monsters with an average of 208+Con HP (sort of - 21 of 33 currently printed monsters level 25 and higher are elites or solos and thus have even more HP).
The comparison to make isn't with how many hit points enemies have, it's with how much damage other dailies at that level can inflict.

Of the 33 printed enemies that are level 25 or higher, 8 cannot fly, btw. So it's not merely some marginal case, but in fact the norm for enemies to be flying by the time you can cast Elemental Maw.
If their flight speed is less than 20, they'll still take damage. Elemental Maw explicitly inflicts dazed and prone-ness as part of its teleport effect, and flying creatures that are rendered prone immediately crash, meaning they get to descend safely a number of squares equal to their flight speed and then fall the rest of the way.

(There's a bit of ambiguity with respect to whether "flying creature" refers to a creature that is capable of flight or a creature that is currently flying, but I'll go with the former interpretation since it seems to be the writers' intent.)

[Pseudoephedrine]

Um... no it doesn't. Go read it again.

Whoops, that is my bad. That does make the power better then.

The comparison to make isn't with how many hit points enemies have, it's with how much damage other dailies at that level can inflict.

That's more difficult than it sounds, because the two other wizard dailies that are damage-focused (Necrotic Web and Prismatic Spray) at level 25 both have potentially open-ended damage. Elemental Maw does deal more damage immediately, but it only lasts until the end of your next turn (maybe one more turn if you waste an orb use on it). Necrotic Web's zone persists until the end of the encounter (and is a saving throw inducing power), while Prismatic Spray does ongoing fire 15 (save ends). Pris has better status effects, while Necrotic Web is the best of the three for implement synergy (only one effect).

With the falling damage, Elemental Maw does pull ahead a bit (it deals more damage at once), but it lacks longevity compared to the other two, and deals worse status effects. It also has poorer implement synergy than the other two powers (where you can use orb specialty to gank saving throws).

The end result is just that an otherwise OK blast spell becomes a contender with two of the best spells in the wizard's arsenal. That's not unbalanced.

If their flight speed is less than 20, they'll still take damage. Elemental Maw explicitly inflicts dazed and prone-ness as part of its teleport effect, and flying creatures that are rendered prone immediately crash, meaning they get to descend safely a number of squares equal to their flight speed and then fall the rest of the way.

(There's a bit of ambiguity with respect to whether "flying creature" refers to a creature that is capable of flight or a creature that is currently flying, but I'll go with the former interpretation since it seems to be the writers' intent.)

Fair enough w/r/t that specific power on flight, but most of these teleports aren't knocking the target prone. And once again, it's still not a lot of damage. 10d10 sounds impressive, but it's only 50 damage on average.

[Asklepios]

So do these powers specify you have to target an empty square?

Because one could reasonably say in the rules that the square isn't empty if it has a fire, or pool of acid in it?

And if not, then you could extend the logic to teleport creatures into walls and the like.

Also, does a flying space count as being in a square, or at an altitude above a square?

These things matter if you're taking RAW.

[Alarkhar]

IMHO, there IS a catch in doing the "teleport up high" trick, nominally the fact that (as far as I know) in most hostile 'port powers one has to SEE the destination area. And, while a vertical 'port in an open field would act as described (i.e. "plummetty death"), a dense forest would obscure the vertical visual enough to avoid sky-high 'ports.

Anyway, I think that, since teamwork is not "PC only", a flying teammate could use an action point to do a flyby attack... and grab his plummeting buddy, foiling the 'port drop big time. And of course the DM could, after the Nth time that the players do the 'port and drop trick, give the monster a tiny, lousy, Heroic level magic item... you know, those boots that halve falling damage and make one NOT prone at the end of the fall (love 'em to death :D )

[Pseudoephedrine]

IMHO, there IS a catch in doing the "teleport up high" trick, nominally the fact that (as far as I know) in most hostile 'port powers one has to SEE the destination area. And, while a vertical 'port in an open field would act as described (i.e. "plummetty death"), a dense forest would obscure the vertical visual enough to avoid sky-high 'ports.

Anyway, I think that, since teamwork is not "PC only", a flying teammate could use an action point to do a flyby attack... and grab his plummeting buddy, foiling the 'port drop big time. And of course the DM could, after the Nth time that the players do the 'port and drop trick, give the monster a tiny, lousy, Heroic level magic item... you know, those boots that halve falling damage and make one NOT prone at the end of the fall (love 'em to death :D )

All of those are good ideas. Darkness would also work, especially with longer range ports.

[BrionTKJ]

A spot in empty space without visible anchor is hard to pin-point.

Maybe an INT or CHA vs a DC 15 (+1 for every "square" above solid ground or near some visible anchor) is required by the attacker to make the enemy teleport there. Failure means that the enemy did not teleport at all as the attacker to could not pin point that specific spot in mid air.

[David J Prokopetz]

This is off-topic, but not really. You don't need to know anything at all about the designer's intent. What you need is a consensus amongst your group about how rules are to be interpreted, and that doesn't need to involve trying to guess what the designer meant. There are plenty of other perfectly legitimate criteria - what would be fair, what would be fun, what will cause the least trouble with book-keeping, etc.I think "all hostile teleports pop the target way up in the air" fails on at least two of those counts as well - it requires extra bookkeeping and skews in favour of classes that already have the highest single-target damage output.

(I wouldn't go so far as to say that design intent is irrelevant even if your criteria is "fun", either. I've quite frequently seen games grind to a halt because different portions of the rules were being interpreted in ways that caused them to interact destructively; if nothing else, design intent gives you working baseline for how different portions of the rules are meant to interact with each other - presuming the game is competently designed in the first place, of course.)

IMHO, there IS a catch in doing the "teleport up high" trick, nominally the fact that (as far as I know) in most hostile 'port powers one has to SEE the destination area.I'm pretty sure that needing to have line of effect to the destination of a hostile teleport effect is another one of those "implied, but not actually stated" things.

[aservan]

It doesn't seem that unbalanced to me. The idea is that at higher levels you need to think outside the box or you will die. Has any one read Orcus's entry?

Moving people has always involved the idea that they are gonna end up someplace they would rather not be. Unless you are suggesting pushing people off cliffs is not allowed? The PC are trying to kill the bad guys.

Clearly the designers were dimensionally challenged when it came to 4th (how to explain the flying carpet rules?). If you don't want people to loft the monsters up in the air then don't let them. I don't see what the big deal is. 10d10 is only 55 damage (5.5 * 10 not 5 times 10, Psuedo. You can't roll a 0). The classes most likely to do it are arcane casters. Good for them. They are supposed to win through better thinking. That's why they get Int as part of their powers.

One monster falling down out of 12 is not a big deal. You still have to hit with the effect. With out nasty (though admittedly not terribly clever) uses of movement powers they suck. So what if Diabolic grasp moves an enemy 5 squares. It is not far enough on a flat plane to take him out of the fight. At best it removes a flank for a round. At worst you gave the bad guy a free chance to reposition for more PC pain.

Read the DMG. Try to say YES.

[sporkpimp]

Anyway, I think that, since teamwork is not "PC only", a flying teammate could use an action point to do a flyby attackCan monsters spend action points on someone else's turn? I know that PCs can't.I'm pretty sure that needing to have line of effect to the destination of a hostile teleport effect is another one of those "implied, but not actually stated" things.Line of effect? Why would you need that? It's not like he's passing through the intervening spaces.

By the teleport rules, you can teleport to any destination you can see, even if you do not have line of effect to that destination. So you could teleport into a box made of solid diamond, but not into one made of solid granite, unless the power specifically says otherwise. (A couple do.)

-A.

[Pseudoephedrine]

I think "all hostile teleports pop the target way up in the air" fails on at least two of those counts as well - it requires extra bookkeeping and skews in favour of classes that already have the highest single-target damage output.

It doesn't require any extra book-keeping, any more than any imposing any other status effect would.

As for unbalancing, it just plain doesn't. The warlock has one power that'll teleport enemies in a relevant way, and the wizard has one. Neither one has the highest single-target damage output to begin with (that position is currently held by the ranger due to Blade Cascade). Warlocks are strikers, but being able to teleport only gives an additional 1d10 worth of damage to the worst daily power of that level for them.

It's wizards who get a much better boost from this than warlocks, and they could use the damage.

This ability turns two sub-par abilities for their level into OK, but not great, choices.

(I wouldn't go so far as to say that design intent is irrelevant even if your criteria is "fun", either. I've quite frequently seen games grind to a halt because different portions of the rules were being interpreted in ways that caused them to interact destructively; if nothing else, design intent gives you working baseline for how different portions of the rules are meant to interact with each other - presuming the game is competently designed in the first place, of course.)

Design intent doesn't give you that - clearly written rules do that, combined with an interpretive strategy intended to arrive at a consensus. Looking for intent in rules is just ultimately fruitless. You spend your time doing amateur psychology to power a scavenger hunt in the hope that the solution is somewhere, anywhere in the rulebook; trying to figure out what the designer thought at the expense of simply intially working towards a functional solution.

I'm pretty sure that needing to have line of effect to the destination of a hostile teleport effect is another one of those "implied, but not actually stated" things.

pg. 286 of the PHB explicitly says you can teleport to it so long as you can see it, even if you don't have line of effect to it (so that long-range teleports using clairvoyance can work, frex.)

[David J Prokopetz]

Design intent doesn't give you that - clearly written rules do that, combined with an interpretive strategy intended to arrive at a consensus. Looking for intent in rules is just ultimately fruitless. You spend your time doing amateur psychology to power a scavenger hunt in the hope that the solution is somewhere, anywhere in the rulebook; trying to figure out what the designer thought at the expense of simply intially working towards a functional solution.You have a very skewed notion of what "design intent" actually entails. There are several places where the text flat-out explains how various portions of the rules are intended to work; are you proposing to discard such text - and, again, the absolute letter of the rules being open to interpretation is unavoidable because we're not dealing with rigorously defined mathematical language here - simply because you've got a hate-on for having anyone presume to tell you how to play?

pg. 286 of the PHB explicitly says you can teleport to it so long as you can see it, even if you don't have line of effect to it (so that long-range teleports using clairvoyance can work, frex.)Yeah, but you're not teleporting to anything. A really bloody-minded reading would suggest that in the case of a hostile teleport, you send the target to any square that the target can see, would it not?

[Pseudoephedrine]

You have a very skewed notion of what "design intent" actually entails. There are several places where the text flat-out explains how various portions of the rules are intended to work; are you proposing to discard such text - and, again, the absolute letter of the rules being open to interpretation is unavoidable because we're not dealing with rigorously defined mathematical language here - simply because you've got a hate-on for having anyone presume to tell you how to play?

Which text do you have in mind? The designers' sidebars? That text isn't exhaustive, or even very complete. Can you show me a designer sidebar that actually bears on the question being debated in this thread, for example?

If the designers have explicitly and clearly listed their intentions, I'm willing to go along with it for the most part. But if they haven't - and it seems that on a number of really contentious issues just like this very one we're debating - they haven't. So it's pointless to search for a designer intent in these things, because we don't have it, and it doesn't matter. We have the rules text, and what matters is what we do with it.

Yeah, but you're not teleporting to anything. A really bloody-minded reading would suggest that in the case of a hostile teleport, you send the target to any square that the target can see, would it not?

I would treat that as an abuse of language and the rules and wouldn't allow it, personally, since the term is "you" in the relevant spot on pg. 286 seems to be referring to the creature activating the movement.

[Bahama'at]

I'm going to vote for 'meh'. Until I see someone abusing it in play my DMing experience says it isn't that big a deal - between level of target, movement effects, falling damage vs hit points and mitigation, as well as the rarity of the effect AND the equivalent powers in that group it doesn't seem to be even an encounter breaker let alone a rules- or fun- ruining exploit.

- Ma'at

[Pseudoephedrine]

I'm going to vote for 'meh'. Until I see someone abusing it in play my DMing experience says it isn't that big a deal - between level of target, movement effects, falling damage vs hit points and mitigation, as well as the rarity of the effect AND the equivalent powers in that group it doesn't seem to be even an encounter breaker let alone a rules- or fun- ruining exploit.

- Ma'at

Exactly.

[StormCrow42]

Well we all know how good custserv responses can be, but FWIW, I asked this question:
For the teleportation effect of Elemental Maw (in addition, you teleport that creature to a square within 20 squares of you), can you teleport the target vertically? For instance, can you in that case teleport the target 20 squares into the air, causing them to fall and take another 10d10 falling damage?
and received this answer:
Greetings,

Yes, you may teleport that creature vertically. Please let me know if you need anymore help!

Tony

[Wolfgar]

Well, just to add more heat than light to the argument...

The Forced Movement rules on page 285 say they apply to all forced movement. Forced movement via teleportation is not given any specific exemptions.

The forced movement rules state specifically that you can not force a target to move vertically. I would take this to mean that you can't teleport an opponent into the auir any more than you could knock them into the air with a mighty sword swing. Neither the teleportation rules below or the invididual powers provide an exception, so that seems to be the case.

Also because forced movement over a precipice allows for a saving throw, than a forced teleport over a precipice allows for a saving throw. Don't ask me how this supposed to work narratively; chalk it up to knocking the gelatinous cube prone. In any case, teleportation doesn't affect that particular rule.

[Shadetree]

I'd be unwilling to restrict teleport in this way as it takes weakens teleport as a whole. I want my fey stepping Eladrin player to be able to teleport up to the ledge if he wants. He cant actually see the ground up there but he can see just above it.

If my players want to teleport that BBEG 100 feet, sorry 20 squares, up in the air over a cliff. more power to em. it's something they'll talk about for weeks afterwards. Say 'yes' indeed. I'll even give em a OA if they are standing next to the cliff as he falls by. Why the hell not?

Of course, I'll be using the same rules to run the opposition.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, just to add more heat than light to the argument...

The Forced Movement rules on page 285 say they apply to all forced movement. Forced movement via teleportation is not given any specific exemptions.

The forced movement rules state specifically that you can not force a target to move vertically. I would take this to mean that you can't teleport an opponent into the auir any more than you could knock them into the air with a mighty sword swing. Neither the teleportation rules below or the invididual powers provide an exception, so that seems to be the case.

Also because forced movement over a precipice allows for a saving throw, than a forced teleport over a precipice allows for a saving throw. Don't ask me how this supposed to work narratively; chalk it up to knocking the gelatinous cube prone. In any case, teleportation doesn't affect that particular rule.

This.

And it has the advantage that it doesn't restrict voluntary teleportation in any way.

[sporkpimp]

If my players want to teleport that BBEG 100 feet, sorry 20 squares, up in the air over a cliff. more power to em. it's something they'll talk about for weeks afterwards.Why the fuck would they talk about something for weeks when it happens in every single session? It's not like Elemental Maw will suddenly stop doing an extra 10d10 the day it stops being novel.

-A.

[wingedcoyote]

Applying the forced movement restrictions to hostile teleporting is probably the best bet. It's a really shaky RAW case, though, I have to admit. It's in a section called "Push, Pull and Slide", and the text that tells you what the restriction applies to says "Whether you're pulling, pushing, or sliding a target, certain rules govern all forced movement."

[Wolfgar]

Applying the forced movement restrictions to hostile teleporting is probably the best bet. It's a really shaky RAW case, though, I have to admit. It's in a section called "Push, Pull and Slide", and the text that tells you what the restriction applies to says "Whether you're pulling, pushing, or sliding a target, certain rules govern all forced movement."

Not the use of the word whether rather than when however, if we must get absolutely anal about this. If the text had said, "When pushing, pulling or sliding" that would indicate only in those situations would the forced movement rules apply. The use of the word whether indicates that the actual situation is irrelevant to the forced movement rules. Not that shaky to me.

[Anaxamander]

Not the use of the word whether rather than when however, if we must get absolutely anal about this. If the text had said, "When pushing, pulling or sliding" that would indicate only in those situations would the forced movement rules apply. The use of the word whether indicates that the actual situation is irrelevant to the forced movement rules. Not that shaky to me.

But if you rewrote that sentance with "when" then it wouldn't be quite as elegant. (When you're pulling, pushing, or sliding a target, certain rules govern all forced movement.) Secondly, if you don't read that sentance as defining forced movement then you need to find some other definition for the term, and given the rigid nature of 4th edition rules it is unlikely that they would leave it up for interpretation. So either push, pull, and slide are the three keywords that denote forced movement, which seems like a 4th edition style rule, or what counts as forced movement is up to DM discretion, which doesn't. Thirdly, if they had meant to include teleportation of unwilling targets why didn't they list it somewhere, given that a number of powers can do that?

[Wolfgar]

1. It would be just as easy to rewrite "When pushing, pulling or sliding, certain rules govern forced movement." In fact the inclusion of whether and all suggests a broader scope for the sentence.

2. I believe "forced movement" would be something that well, forced movement. There really only needs to be a keyword when there is some possible ambiguity (Is the summoned icey flames Fire or Cold damage? Is the Fear attack considered Psychic damage or not?). Either a power moves someone against their will, or it doesn't. Does the power move someone? If yes, then it's movement. Does the creature get a choice? If no, then it's forced. Hence, forced movement, not that hard of a call to make, and thus governed by the rules for such which are mysteriously given there own subsection on forced movement rather than being included in the Push, Pull, Slide box.

Also, Push, Pull and Slide are instructions, not keywords.

3. Possible oversight, as there have been a few in the books already. More than likely the system was developed first, and then the powers were written up. Or possibly the developers overestimated the obviousness of forced movement.


Of course, as customer service has already provided the opposite answer, feel free to use that in your game.

[Anaxamander]

1. It would be just as easy to rewrite "When pushing, pulling or sliding, certain rules govern forced movement." In fact the inclusion of whether and all suggests a broader scope for the sentence.

That's still, IMO, a very ugly sentance, because if forced move = push pull or slide then the sentance contains a reduntant construction (you might as well say "certain rules govern forced movement", since it expresses exactly the same idea), while in the original version the apparent redundancy is removed. Still, lets move on to more substantive interprative issues.

Either a power moves someone against their will, or it doesn't. Does the power move someone? If yes, then it's movement. Does the creature get a choice? If no, then it's forced.

But this is a highly problematic definition. For example, it would make falling forced movement. It would also make mind control forced movement. Forced movement, as far as I can tell, is not meant to cover either of those situations. So if WotC really was using that as the default interpreation and not defining it via "push pull slide" then they should have added qualifications to rule out such cases, again given how air-tight they want to make the rules.

3. Possible oversight, as there have been a few in the books already. More than likely the system was developed first, and then the powers were written up. Or possibly the developers overestimated the obviousness of forced movement.

Since neither of us knows (or has any hard evidence) the principle of interprative charity says that we should assume that they didn't make a mistake (or made as few mistakes a possible). It seems that either they made a number of rather obvious mistakes or that they intended to have push pull slide define forced movement and made one small mistake through ambiguous phrasing.

Unless you meant that customer service said that they did intend to include teleport (I couldn't tell to what "the opposite" referred to)?

[Wolfgar]

Unless you meant that customer service said that they did intend to include teleport (I couldn't tell to what "the opposite" referred to)?

This post here.



Well we all know how good custserv responses can be, but FWIW, I asked this question:

Quote:
For the teleportation effect of Elemental Maw (in addition, you teleport that creature to a square within 20 squares of you), can you teleport the target vertically? For instance, can you in that case teleport the target 20 squares into the air, causing them to fall and take another 10d10 falling damage?

and received this answer:

Quote:
Greetings,

Yes, you may teleport that creature vertically. Please let me know if you need anymore help!

Tony

[Dagor]

Well, WotC's customer service...I've generally found it worthwhile to take their first off-the-cuff answer with a grain of salt and bug them some more just to make sure that (a) they properly understood my question as well as why I was asking and (b) that I in turn got their answer straight. I've seen at least one first response overturned in the process.

[Wolfgar]

I simply offered a solution. If people want to fight it tooth and nail, that's their issue.

[Anaxamander]

I simply offered a solution. If people want to fight it tooth and nail, that's their issue.

I didn't mean to come off as overly agressive. I only objected to the proposed solution because it seemed to me to open the door a large amount of other rules lawyering that would result by trying to apply the forced movement rules to more general situations (such as throwing someone, which would prevent someone from being thrown upwards, or dropped from a height). If anything should be fixed its the powers themselves, I think, which should specify a destination instead of leaving it open to the player (for example: 5 squares directly away from the caster, etc).

[Saz]

Well save and die is supposed to be out...