Mommy Please Don't Go! Breaking teleportation?

44 posts / 0 new
Last post
Okay... So I'm just having a debate (friendly) with the player in my campaign.  We were watching a program on vampire squids, which I commented looked like Darkmantle's.  Then I had to show him the monster manual stats on a darkmantle and we got talking about a combat with the beastly.  I was describing a combat encounter where the player has a grappling hook on rope as a weapon. 
The darkmantle drops onto him using engulf.  The character succeeds in ripping it off of him and tosses it to the ground, uses his hook to damage the creature.  Damage cues the darkmantles darkjump ability to teleport 30 feet away, and this is where we came to an obstacle.  I theorized that the 50' rope would stay attached to the darkmantle, while the player felt that the rope would be cut by the teleportation while the hook stayed attached to the beastly. 
So what do you guys think?  What teleports with a monster like a darkmantle?  Clothing would teleport with an humanoid capable of such, but put in the same position, would the hook and rope? 
A rope attack would, I imagine, Grab or Restrain. Both of those effects are broken by teleport.

Your friend's rope and hook would just fall to the ground, still intact, but sans one Darkmantle.

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

Could an Eladrin use fey step to escape handcuffs?  If not handcuffs, what if they were chained to a wall?
Could an Eladrin use fey step to escape handcuffs?  If not handcuffs, what if they were chained to a wall?


Yes and Yes


Grabbed: This condition ends immediately on the creature if the grabber is subjected to an effect that prevents it from taking actions, or if the creature ends up outside the range of the grabbing power or effect. 

Restrained: The creature can’t move, unless it teleports. It can’t even be pulled, pushed, or slid. 
So what exactly would be the limitations on personal teleportation when it comes to what material would travel with the character?  If the clothes and gear teleport with a character, would a dagger or arrow that's stuck in them?  Why not? 
Whatever the teleporting character wants to take with them.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Could an Eladrin use fey step to escape handcuffs?  If not handcuffs, what if they were chained to a wall?


Yes and Yes


Grabbed: This condition ends immediately on the creature if the grabber is subjected to an effect that prevents it from taking actions, or if the creature ends up outside the range of the grabbing power or effect. 

Restrained: The creature can’t move, unless it teleports. It can’t even be pulled, pushed, or slid. 



Begging your pardon, but shouldn't this be no and yes, in this case? As per RC 214:

Immobilized or Restrained: Being immobilized or restrained doesn’t prevent a target from teleporting. If a target teleports away from a physical restraint, a monster’s grasp, or some other immobilizing effect that is located in a specific space, the target is no longer immobilized or restrained. Otherwise, the target teleports but is still immobilized or restrained when it reaches the destination space.

(Emphasis mine.) I would say that handcuffs are not tied to a specific space, and thus can't be teleported away from. Shackles on a wall, however, are tied to that space, and thus can be escaped via teleportation.
From RC p.214, if desired: "Immobilized or Restrained: Being immobilized or restrained doesn’t prevent a target from teleporting. If a target teleports away from a physical restraint, a monster’s grasp, or some other immobilizing effect that is located in a specific space, the target is no longer immobilized or restrained. Otherwise, the target teleports but is still immobilized or restrained when it reaches the destination space."

The consensus (previously discussed here, here, here and here), is that this applies to manacles (regardless of whether they are free standing or attached to a wall). Also fwiw: this is also consistent with previous editions. The 3.5 FAQ had also ruled that "a manacled wizard could cast teleport to free herself from captivity".
shouldn't this be no and yes, in this case?

The consensus is that if the writer's had intended to differentiate between free-standing manacles and manacles attached to a wall, they would've been more explicit in this. Given the text, intuiting such differentiation does not seem warranted (and is difficult to explain). i.e. the writer's explicitly state that you can teleport free of restraints, and this is likely what players would expect.

Okay, yeah, I guess you can parse that differently, as in:
If a target teleports away from (a physical restraint), (a monster’s grasp), or (some other immobilizing effect that is located in a specific space)...
instead of
If a target teleports away from (a physical restraint, a monster’s grasp, or some other immobilizing effect) (that is located in a specific space)...

I.e., the "specific space" is only tied to the last portion, not all three. That preserves the seeming intent of the authors and the players' expectations.
What would be an  immobilizing effect that is not located in a specific space ?
What would be an  immobilizing effect that is not located in a specific space ?



Your legs being frozen solid, as one example. Certain fear effects, as another.

Edit: Also, a Medusa's gaze, after a failed saving throw.
What would be an  immobilizing effect that is not located in a specific space ?

A mental one, for example. Or a leg injury, or poison.

A barbed arrow head?  Or a dagger stuck into the characters back?
Some spells and poison effects affecting your body i guess would qualify.

Would teleporting away from Grasping Chains of the Justiciar allow you to get rid of the immobilization or would the chains not be considered an immobilizing effect located in a specific space ?


Grasping Chains of the Justiciar  Invoker Attack 5
You invoke the chains of Rathos, an exarch of the gods charged with capturing renegade angels. These glowing blue chains erupt from the ground to tether your foes in place.
Daily        Divine, Force, Implement
Standard Action      Area burst 2 within 10 squares
Target: Each enemy in the burst
Attack: Wisdom vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier force damage, and the target is immobilized (save ends).
Miss: Half damage, and the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.


 
Area Burst 2 = A specific space.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
So you say Teleporting after being immobilized (save end) by Grasping Chains of the Justiciar would get rid of the condition ?

Note that Grasping Chains of the Justiciar is not a zone. Only the initial attack is in specific squares, after that it leaves targets immobilized (save end) without necessarly having the immobilizing effect located in a specific space, mechanically speaking.  The chains holding you in place reside in the fluff...



The chains holding you in place reside in the fluff...

Right. It's up to the DM to decide whether "glowing blue chains erupt from the ground to tether your foes in place" constitute a "physical restraint". I'd say they do (force effect, target reflex, etc.).

The teleport exception seems to be a 'real-world' descriptor rather than a 'game-mechanical' one. Pretty rare for 4e, but it does happen sometimes.

A semi-decent rule of thumb is 'vs will and vs fort effects stay with you, ref and ac ones are left behind.  Definitely doesn't cover all cases, but can be a useful place to start thinking from.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
my DMs have always ruled that any targeted immobilization effect stays, while grabed, restrained, and any zone-inflicted immobilization are broken (as long as the teleport moves out of the zone).

this would leave the effect from grasping chains of the justicar in place. 
my DMs have always ruled that any targeted immobilization effect stays, while grabed, restrained, and any zone-inflicted immobilization are broken

fwiw: "restrained" is a condition, which could be the result of say, a mental effect. It is different from physical "restraints".

my DMs have always ruled that any targeted immobilization effect stays, while grabed, restrained, and any zone-inflicted immobilization are broken

fwiw: "restrained" is a condition, which could be the result of say, a mental effect. It is different from physical "restraints".




No, it's restraints.  There's no mental effect in the world that will prevent someone else from bullrushing you out of your square, but that's what restrained does.

Teleport is the only thing that beats restrained.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
my DMs have always ruled that any targeted immobilization effect stays, while grabed, restrained, and any zone-inflicted immobilization are broken

fwiw: "restrained" is a condition, which could be the result of say, a mental effect. It is different from physical "restraints".




oh i agree, I was just saying how I've seen DMs treat things.
No, it's restraints.  There's no mental effect in the world that will prevent someone else from bullrushing you out of your square

Perfected Discipline
and construct ethereal chains


Note that the "vs Reflex" bit is where the restrained is applied.  This is actually remarkably consistent across effects that apply the restrained condition.

It really is the immune to forced movement part that differentiates restrained from immobilized.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This is actually remarkably consistent across effects that apply the restrained condition.

All effects that inflict the "restrained" condition are physical restraints... neat! That is good to know. Thanks.

A semi-decent rule of thumb is 'vs will and vs fort effects stay with you, ref and ac ones are left behind.  Definitely doesn't cover all cases, but can be a useful place to start thinking from.


That's a pretty decent rule of  
I'm not sure if restrained or grabbed really applies here.  Let's go back to the original example.  If the target has an immediate reaction to damage that teleports 6 spaces away, and the rope and hook has a reach of 10 squares, the ability to teleport is not being restricted.   In this case, assume that the attacker wants to track movement, NOT prevent it.
If the target has an immediate reaction to damage that teleports 6 spaces away, and the rope and hook has a reach of 10 squares, the ability to teleport is not being restricted.

Where are you getting rules for using a grappling hook as a weapon?

I would use it as an improvised weapon.  So, 1d8 damage if swung like a melee, 1d4 if thrown.  In this case the actual damage roll is irrelevant, but it does do some damage.   The hook is stuck into the target as a melee weapon and then released, but the rope attached to the hook stays tied to the users belt.  The target automatically teleports away but not further than the length of rope attached, so no restriction, no immobilization.
I would use it as an improvised weapon.  So, 1d8 damage if swung like a melee, 1d4 if thrown.  In this case the actual damage roll is irrelevant, but it does do some damage.   The hook is stuck into the target as a melee weapon and then released, but the rope attached to the hook stays tied to the users belt.  The target automatically teleports away but not further than the length of rope attached, so no restriction, no immobilization.


So you're envisioning the target, what, towing the rope behind them? How the heck do you do that when you blink out in one location and appear in another?
I would use it as an improvised weapon.  So, 1d8 damage if swung like a melee, 1d4 if thrown.  In this case the actual damage roll is irrelevant, but it does do some damage.   The hook is stuck into the target as a melee weapon and then released, but the rope attached to the hook stays tied to the users belt.  The target automatically teleports away but not further than the length of rope attached, so no restriction, no immobilization.


According to the rules, the hook hits the guy (or misses, whatever), dealing some damage, and falls to the ground in his square, requiring you to spend an action (minor I think?) to retrieve the hook using the rope. Similar things to what you're doing (but with actual effects) are a Net and a Bola with the appropriate feat, both effects would be ended by teleporting. What you're trying to do not only doesn't exist, but also goes against the most relatable RAW and RAI.

But you seem really intent on just making up new rules in order to have it work the way you want ... so why not just do that, or are you trying to justify it to your DM?
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I would use it as an improvised weapon.  So, 1d8 damage if swung like a melee, 1d4 if thrown.  In this case the actual damage roll is irrelevant, but it does do some damage.   The hook is stuck into the target as a melee weapon and then released, but the rope attached to the hook stays tied to the users belt.  The target automatically teleports away but not further than the length of rope attached, so no restriction, no immobilization.


According to the rules, the hook hits the guy (or misses, whatever), dealing some damage, and falls to the ground in his square, requiring you to spend an action (minor I think?) to retrieve the hook using the rope. Similar things to what you're doing (but with actual effects) are a Net and a Bola with the appropriate feat, both effects would be ended by teleporting. What you're trying to do not only doesn't exist, but also goes against the most relatable RAW and RAI.

But you seem really intent on just making up new rules in order to have it work the way you want ... so why not just do that, or are you trying to justify it to your DM?

No it was just a brain teaser for me and my player.  It seemed like the rules indicated that the target would be able to teleport away from restraints or immobilizing effects, but we weren't trying to immobilize the target or restrict its ability to move.  The idea of what would happen when something blinked out and then in elsewhere is where the real puzzler came in our minds, as to what would be visual with the rope.  I guess I would just go with the consensus in this case, that the target would not still be attached to the rope, although I think some clarification on the "science" of teleporting would help.   If the target has to think about what it's teleporting away from, could it teleport away from an effect that it didn't know about (imagine an eladrin with a hook surreptitiously connected to his backpack.  He doesn't know that it or the rope are there and teleports himself and all his clothes and gear with him, but the rope would drop because...? Or a creature with a automatic reation teleport but not a high enough intelligence to discern between multiple different objects and effects).  If the teleportation is a 'bubble' that goes around the teleporter and would sever the rope, how would this effect a creature being grabbed, or a sword being thrust into the teleportation bubble at the same time?
I would use it as an improvised weapon.  So, 1d8 damage if swung like a melee, 1d4 if thrown.  In this case the actual damage roll is irrelevant, but it does do some damage.   The hook is stuck into the target as a melee weapon and then released, but the rope attached to the hook stays tied to the users belt.  The target automatically teleports away but not further than the length of rope attached, so no restriction, no immobilization.


So you're envisioning the target, what, towing the rope behind them? How the heck do you do that when you blink out in one location and appear in another?

That`s exactly what I was trying to determine.  As I say in my last post, the next question myplayer and I need to answer is: What`s the `science`behind teleportation?  Is it a portal the creature creates and passes through? 
Teleportation simply make one instantly disappear from one location and reappear to another location and uses no portal unless noted otherwise.

For exemple, Quick Portal is a power that note otherwise (mechanically) while Dimension Door is not.
What`s the `science`behind teleportation?

Here.

^^
Thanks for the interesting link.  I may have to type up my arguments and see if I can Stump the Lizards with it.  In the meantime, while I still feel like certain aspects of our question have not been addressed entirely, I think I will (if it comes into our gameplay, since this is simply a thought excercise right now) make a house ruling regarding teleportation that is not being actively restricted but instead being tracked.  I will allow such a hypothetical situation, granted the target make a saving throw vs will.  This assumes that the teleporter has either a low enough intelligance to not be capable of making a mental inventory of itself, or that the teleporter does not know the tracking device is there (imagine a eladrin with a backpack.  An opposing rogue successfully sneaks a hook into the pack with a length of rope attached.  As a seperate action, the eladrin teleports without knowing the rope is there, but is making a desicion to teleport itself and everything it carries.  Save Throw.  Eladrin passes save, the hook and rope drop harmlessly to the ground.  Save Fail, and the hook and rope teleport as well.  If the teleport doesn't exceed the length of the rope, when it reappears it ill be still connected to the target).
Hopefully if this comes up in play everyone will find this agreeable. 
The other question is, what's the point? Tracking an Invisible Creature would be impossible, because the hook and rope would become invisible for the same reason that it would go with the Creature via teleport (being carried). And beyond that, you'd already know where they went because "you aren't hidden unless you're hidden".
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
The other question is, what's the point? Tracking an Invisible Creature would be impossible, because the hook and rope would become invisible for the same reason that it would go with the Creature via teleport (being carried). And beyond that, you'd already know where they went because "you aren't hidden unless you're hidden".

In the original scenario, a darkmantle teleports to a dark corner to hide from an enemy after taking damage.  The rope, while invisible would still be in the wielders hands and would reappear after the teleportation and before the wielders next turn. 
Here is a question, if a creature teleports from a grab but ends up still adjecent to that creature, is the grab broken?  yes, they teleported away from the grab but they are still within the creatures grasp.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

Here is a question, if a creature teleports from a grab but ends up still adjecent to that creature, is the grab broken?

Yes
Sign In to post comments