I don't think it's common sense at all. I have killed someone using a suggestion spell, and I still don't think it's a directly offensive effect because it doesn't have to be. They were very extenuating circumstances and I couldn't have accomplished anything glibness wouldn't have. You could suggest to have someone run away because you will hurt them, for example. I don't think that's offensive because you could do such a thing with diplomacy, and it's not an offensive effect, except perhaps in a bazaar.
Then you are not applying it. The bluff score does not force a creature to act a certain way. Suggestion forces a creature through strength of magic to act a certain way. The difference is choice. That's common sense. If you are forcing me to do something without being granted a choice that's an attack. You are inflicting a status effect on me. There's no debating that.
I don't think it's common sense at all. I have killed someone using a suggestion spell, and I still don't think it's a directly offensive effect because it doesn't have to be. They were very extenuating circumstances and I couldn't have accomplished anything glibness wouldn't have. You could suggest to have someone run away because you will hurt them, for example. I don't think that's offensive because you could do such a thing with diplomacy, and it's not an offensive effect, except perhaps in a bazaar.Then you are not applying it. The bluff score does not force a creature to act a certain way. Suggestion forces a creature through strength of magic to act a certain way. The difference is choice. That's common sense. If you are forcing me to do something without being granted a choice that's an attack. You are inflicting a status effect on me. There's no debating that.
It depends on the suggestion. While you ultimately have to accomplish the task, it's up to you how you do it unless it's ultra-specific. The main thing I'm getting at here is that it doesn't say they have to go do it immediately. In fact, it gives them an hour per level to decide. I get what you're getting at, but I don't think forcing someone to do something they want to do already, for example, or suggesting a new course of action that is not necessarily self destructive constitutes an attack and should break invis. An attack is something that harms a person, and some things that provide penalties could be considered attacks. I don't believe this effect harms a person. It's sort of like darkness, for example. It can be disadvantageous, sure, but it doesn't hurt anyone with damage or give them a penalty.
In terms of skills, diplomacy does force you to act in a certain, if roundabout, way. Not for PCs, but for NPCs. In addtion, have someone not act on a bluff phrased properly at a table after they beleive it. Nothing gets the hackles stirred up like someone not doing something reasonable that they beleive as truth that needs to be done right now.
As an example:
Bluff:That liquid over there is acid you should go swim in it.
Even if you believe it is water you are under no compulsion to go swim it, and you may just decide to walk away.
suggestion spell:That liquid over there is acid you should go swim in it.
The spell compels you to go swim in it. The two are definitely not the same since the spells forces you into a specific action that may be harmful. It is an attack on the mind in the sense that it can control you where as bluff can not. <--In short the spell is form of magical mind control.
suggestion: You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.
The short version according to the PRD---> Suggestion: Compels subject to follow stated course of action.
The above is why bluff is not an attack. It can't make you do anything. It exerts no force over you in any manner. It justs hands out bad information. Suggestion can force you to act on bad information.
It depends on the suggestion. While you ultimately have to accomplish the task, it's up to you how you do it unless it's ultra-specific. The main thing I'm getting at here is that it doesn't say they have to go do it immediately. In fact, it gives them an hour per level to decide. I get what you're getting at, but I don't think forcing someone to do something they want to do already, for example, or suggesting a new course of action that is not necessarily self destructive constitutes an attack and should break invis. An attack is something that harms a person, and some things that provide penalties could be considered attacks. I don't believe this effect harms a person. It's sort of like darkness, for example. It can be disadvantageous, sure, but it doesn't hurt anyone with damage or give them a penalty.I don't think it's common sense at all. I have killed someone using a suggestion spell, and I still don't think it's a directly offensive effect because it doesn't have to be. They were very extenuating circumstances and I couldn't have accomplished anything glibness wouldn't have. You could suggest to have someone run away because you will hurt them, for example. I don't think that's offensive because you could do such a thing with diplomacy, and it's not an offensive effect, except perhaps in a bazaar.Then you are not applying it. The bluff score does not force a creature to act a certain way. Suggestion forces a creature through strength of magic to act a certain way. The difference is choice. That's common sense. If you are forcing me to do something without being granted a choice that's an attack. You are inflicting a status effect on me. There's no debating that.
The spell does not give you an hour to decide. Once you fail the will save you will go about completing the task. The time limit on the spell is how long the victim has before the task is completed or the spell expires.
.......If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do....If the condition is not met before the spell duration expires, the activity is not performed.
edit:according to the invis spells targeted spells are attacks. It does not say targeted spells that cause direct harm are attacks. It just says targeted spells are attacks. There are a decent number of targeted spells that don't do direct damage so if they wanted those spells to not be counted it could have easily been stated. That also stops the invisible caster from spamming the party with mind control spells as a balancing act.
The main thing I'm getting at here is that it doesn't say they have to go do it immediately. In fact, it gives them an hour per level to decide.
Sooooo the point of your argument is that the spell doesn't count because it doesn't work? You're essentially telling me I can do the activity whenever the heck I feel like it even beyond the duration of the spell. So why even cast it?
Again this is common sense. The spell doesn't give the capacity for the target to make the decision it says they do it period. All it does in that regard is allow the caster to enforce a trigger when the suggestion can take place. The way you describe the spell matches not a single precedent set by AP's, written encounters, or heck even other GM's I've talked to or played with.
Lastly if forcibly removing someone's will is not a harmful act then I'm a scientologist.
I'd like to note that there is in fact a tagline added to spells to determine immediately whether or not they're harmless. It's usually put in parenthesis called "harmless".
edit:according to the invis spells targeted spells are attacks. It does not say targeted spells that cause direct harm are attacks. It just says targeted spells are attacks. There are a decent number of targeted spells that don't do direct damage so if they wanted those spells to not be counted it could have easily been stated. That also stops the invisible caster from spamming the party with mind control spells as a balancing act.
Or I'll just go with what he said. That works too.
As an example:
Bluff:That liquid over there is acid you should go swim in it.
Even if you believe it is water you are under no compulsion to go swim it, and you may just decide to walk away.suggestion spell:That liquid over there is acid you should go swim in it.
The spell compels you to go swim in it. The two are definitely not the same since the spells forces you into a specific action that may be harmful. It is an attack on the mind in the sense that it can control you where as bluff can not. <--In short the spell is form of magical mind control.suggestion: You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.
The short version according to the PRD---> Suggestion: Compels subject to follow stated course of action.
The above is why bluff is not an attack. It can't make you do anything. It exerts no force over you in any manner. It justs hands out bad information. Suggestion can force you to act on bad information.
If you say something is acid go swim in it the spell immediately fails because that is unreasonable, except to something that wants to die or is immune to acid.
But I see your opinion now. I just guess the majority of people I know have been houseruling it to work that way because they also don't consider it an attack.
What if we say that the intent of the suggestion is what matters, here? Because suggesting that someone paint their toenails purple or doing something silly will never seem like an attack to me. The fact that it also doesn't force them to do it immediately makes it seem less like an attack, as opposed to command which is definitely a nonlethal offensive option, like disarming someone in combat.
Charm person is a bit more justifiable, but my main point here is the invisibility+aura thing. I guess it's harder to find an example of this now than I thought it would be.
The main thing I'm getting at here is that it doesn't say they have to go do it immediately. In fact, it gives them an hour per level to decide.Sooooo the point of your argument is that the spell doesn't count because it doesn't work? You're essentially telling me I can do the activity whenever the heck I feel like it even beyond the duration of the spell. So why even cast it?
Again this is common sense. The spell doesn't give the capacity for the target to make the decision it says they do it period. All it does in that regard is allow the caster to enforce a trigger when the suggestion can take place. The way you describe the spell matches not a single precedent set by AP's, written encounters, or heck even other GM's I've talked to or played with.
Lastly if forcibly removing someone's will is not a harmful act then I'm a scientologist.
I'd like to note that there is in fact a tagline added to spells to determine immediately whether or not they're harmless. It's usually put in parenthesis called "harmless".
You technically have to add the word "now" to the suggested sentence. If the guy can't paint his toenail purple, what's he going to do? Fall down into despair because he can't achieve his sudden sentence-long motivation? No, he continues on his way, looking for purple paint, and when he finds it he completes the task. Replace purple paint with some thing that they might want, such as a sword. If there is no sword, the suggestion doesn't fail, they just go on their way till they hit the sword even if it tells them to do it now.
But yeah, at this point it's obvious you're not willing to see things the way I see them, and that's fine. I'm not even arguing the same point anymore so I'm confused as to what the big deal is.
As far as removing free will being an attack... Eh? That's a hell of a slippery slope.
If you say something is acid go swim in it the spell immediately fails because that is unreasonable, except to something that wants to die or is immune to acid.
It is only unreasonable if they know it is acid. If they just see a liquid they will think it is water until they step in it.
But I see your opinion now. I just guess the majority of people I know have been houseruling it to work that way because they also don't consider it an attack.What if we say that the intent of the suggestion is what matters, here? Because suggesting that someone paint their toenails purple or doing something silly will never seem like an attack to me. The fact that it also doesn't force them to do it immediately makes it seem less like an attack, as opposed to command which is definitely a nonlethal offensive option, like disarming someone in combat.
Charm person is a bit more justifiable, but...
The issue is that it qualifies for the purpose of interacting with the invis spell and since this discussion is how things interact with the invis spell, specific trumps general even if a group would normally rule otherwise.
With that aside:
I would also consider myself to be attacked if someone tried to mind control me, and while suggestion is not as strong as charm or dominate it still takes control of you even without the invis spell it could still be considered an attack by many people. You don't have to do something that is quantifiable by numbers(hp damage, level drain), and so on for it to be an attack.
I don't consider making me(via spell) put on makeup a harmful thing, even if it is embarrassing, but an intrusion on the mind is no less an assault than one on the body. It seems the game designers look at it the same way or suggestion would have gotten a free pass.
If you say something is acid go swim in it the spell immediately fails because that is unreasonable, except to something that wants to die or is immune to acid.
It is only unreasonable if they know it is acid. If they just see a liquid they will think it is water until they step in it.
But I see your opinion now. I just guess the majority of people I know have been houseruling it to work that way because they also don't consider it an attack.What if we say that the intent of the suggestion is what matters, here? Because suggesting that someone paint their toenails purple or doing something silly will never seem like an attack to me. The fact that it also doesn't force them to do it immediately makes it seem less like an attack, as opposed to command which is definitely a nonlethal offensive option, like disarming someone in combat.
Charm person is a bit more justifiable, but...
The issue is that it qualifies for the purpose of interacting with the invis spell and since this discussion is how things interact with the invis spell, specific trumps general even if a group would normally rule otherwise.
With that aside:
I would also consider myself to be attacked if someone tried to mind control me, and while suggestion is not as strong as charm or dominate it still takes control of you even without the invis spell it could still be considered an attack by many people. You don't have to do something that is quantifiable by numbers(hp damage, level drain), and so on for it to be an attack.I don't consider making me(via spell) put on makeup a harmful thing, even if it is embarrassing, but an intrusion on the mind is no less an assault than one on the body. It seems the game designers look at it the same way or suggestion would have gotten a free pass.
I think their main reasoning was in case of something like what I was talking about with the Ravenloft monster, where it stayed invisible while bombarding you with effects.
The main thing here is that a lot of the (su) effects can't be considered effects that are attacks, like auras which imply some kind of defense, and despite people not being affected by them would turn invis off simply because there was another creature standing in their aura due to the way the effect works.
|
. I don't think stealing something counts as an attack.
Where you put the limit?
Disarming someone count as an attack? After all it simply remove the weapon from his and, he don't suffer any "damage".
Sundering something is an attack? You are damaging a inanimate object. If you remove something from my person against my will it is not a action affecting me indirectly. It is a very direct action affecting me in a negative way.
@ Madcap Storm King
While I disagree with your premise as practically all your examples are attacks that directly affect a target, the invisibility spell has some weird problem.
If you have some damaging spell protecting your gear at home a thief trying to rob you and getting hurt by your protections can make it fail even if you are on another plane.
Our disagreement can be resolved only by a extremely accurate definition of what is an attack. Probably it would need several pages of text.
Something that generally should be not necessary as the intent of doing harm is the key part, and it is evident in almost all the situations you cited.
I think their main reasoning was in case of something like what I was talking about with the Ravenloft monster, where it stayed invisible while bombarding you with effects.The main thing here is that a lot of the (su) effects can't be considered effects that are attacks, like auras which imply some kind of defense, and despite people not being affected by them would turn invis off simply because there was another creature standing in their aura due to the way the effect works.
The issue with aura is they provide an immediate potential bad effect, just like a fireball would, but the difference is that you have to enter into melee, and the only reason a monster would move that close to you is to make you suffer from the aura since its arms are long enough to give you an item, assuming you are on friendly terms without subjecting you to it.
I don't agree with blanket grouping SU's into attacks or not attacks since some SU's provide DR or better AC. They would not be attacks.Things like death effects, would be an attack.
Auras do have an area affect and a monster can avoid you getting in it if it chooses to. I would not houserule them to not be attacks.
Even the monster than can steal spells can choose to not use the ability. It also does not have an immediate negative result which attacks do.
PS:I do wish it had been an aura, and I can see a GM ruling it as an attack or not doing so depending on how he views the ability.
. I don't think stealing something counts as an attack.Where you put the limit?
Disarming someone count as an attack? After all it simply remove the weapon from his and, he don't suffer any "damage".
Sundering something is an attack? You are damaging a inanimate object. If you remove something from my person against my will it is not a action affecting me indirectly. It is a very direct action affecting me in a negative way.
I think stealing should break invis, but I don't think it does by the rules unless you use the steal combat maneuver. For the purpose of this thread though I am only going by what I think the intention of the rules are, not what I would like for them to be. All CMB's break invis by the rules since they are attacks.
@ Diego Rossi
This is exactly my point: It's hard to tell what is an attack and what isn't with a lot of abilities with the supernatural descriptor. I guess most of the ones I'm thinking of are hard for me to come up with at the moment or in an older edition. But anyway my point is that you shouldn't lump them in with the "Spell is affecting someone as a target" portion of the spell because it results in things like what I'm about to explain.
@ Wraithstrike
My main purpose here was say a monster with an aura is walking through a building invisible. Another invisible creature walks into his aura. Since they are now in the area of the effect, if his aura is treated like a spell, he drops out of invisibility because, whether he wants to or not, he's using the effect on the creature. Meanwhile, the other guy is still invisible.
Actually, no. He's not invisible, he just runs down the hallway into the aura. That circumstance is one that I think is weird if we lump that in, especially since I think that any sleep effects that are (su) or something just as powerful are already covered by specific rulings.
I did think the X---- thing's effect would work the best for this. The real question with it is does stealing buff spells for itself count as an offensive action? (I am not expecting an answer here, just wondering out loud)
Interesting thing about that thing's ability: It steals spells as a swift action. Its ability can't work most fo the time unless someone tries readying a spell to cast on its turn or it readies by RAW. I did not play it like this. < My best attempt to illustrate that I'm not some kind of RAW monkey.
I'm of the opinion that this really needs errata'd, as well as what constitutes an attack. I've asked 3 people today if they considered suggestion/charm person an attack and NONE of them did. I didn't tell them about this conversation either, as that would have influenced the result.
And while I'm at it, stealth needs work as well.
@ Wraithstrike
My main purpose here was say a monster with an aura is walking through a building invisible. Another invisible creature walks into his aura. Since they are now in the area of the effect, if his aura is treated like a spell, he drops out of invisibility because, whether he wants to or not, he's using the effect on the creature. Meanwhile, the other guy is still invisible.
I see your point, but most of these monsters are very big, and I think what happens in an actual game is more important than trying to find a way to make an example work, even though by the rules the monster with the aura that won't turn off might be in trouble assuming he can sneak past anyone anyway. Being huge or larger is not the way to be stealthy.
I think that "swift action" is a typo and it should be immediate. As a swift action the ability is not all that impressive. <--I houseruled it into an immediate action for my game, the one time I used it.
The invis rules have always worked that way though. I think many people have a habit or partially reading abilities or learn something under a GM, and assume it is the rules, only to find it is a houserule. I am guilty of it also. It seems I learn some obscure(to me) rule every week.
As an example I never knew greater dispel magic gave you a +4 bonus when used as a counterspell.
What happens when you roll a nat 1 versus an AoE damaging spell is something I did know, but was a surprise to some very well versed posters.
That is why I like these boards though. Everyone gets to learn from someone else.
edit:stealth I agree with.
@ Wraithstrike
My main purpose here was say a monster with an aura is walking through a building invisible. Another invisible creature walks into his aura. Since they are now in the area of the effect, if his aura is treated like a spell, he drops out of invisibility because, whether he wants to or not, he's using the effect on the creature. Meanwhile, the other guy is still invisible.
I see your point, but most of these monsters are very big, and I think what happens in an actual game is more important than trying to find a way to make an example work, even though by the rules the monster with the aura that won't turn off might be in trouble assuming he can sneak past anyone anyway. Being huge or larger is not the way to be stealthy.
I think that "swift action" is a typo and it should be immediate. As a swift action the ability is not all that impressive. <--I houseruled it into an immediate action for my game, the one time I used it.
The invis rules have always worked that way though. I think many people have a habit or partially reading abilities or learn something under a GM, and assume it is the rules, only to find it is a houserule. I am guilty of it also. It seems I learn some obscure(to me) rule every week.
As an example I never knew greater dispel magic gave you a +4 bonus when used as a counterspell.
What happens when you roll a nat 1 versus an AoE damaging spell is something I did know, but was a surprise to some very well versed posters.
That is why I like these boards though. Everyone gets to learn from someone else.
edit:stealth I agree with.
Yes, I suppose so. Maybe something like the gremlins which have auras would be a better example. Pugwampi I believe have a negative affecting aura they can't turn off.
I was trying to justify this because of some things I half-remembered, but I guess it can go either way. It is a muddy area of the rules for a reason, because things are complicated being mostly non-standard effects.
I houseruled the hell out of that monster. It does not work as intended.
I am glad that we both got to learn something, I'm just sorry that it had to be full of unnecesary internet drama.
Like I've said time and time again, I've played this game for eight years and I'm still learning new rules.
|
|
Note: I haven't read several posts, so maybe this is outdated, but:
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
Those are all separated but interrelated statements.
a) For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
Self explanatory. Using the term effect would be better but it still work.
b) Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions.
Not necessarily linked only to the spell part. It work to define who is a foe for all your actions as far as the Invisibility spell work.
Using Lay of hand on someone require a touch, if you are using it on a friend in combat it still require a touch attack but it will not break invisibility as you don't perceive him as a foe.
c) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell.
Again self explanatory.
d) Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.
And here we start to diverge. For me stealing something from a person is causing harm and so it is an attack. Madcap and Wraithstrike seem to disagree even if in different ways.
e) If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.
I.e.: target the guy with any effect causing harm (in the broader sense of the term) to him or include the target in a area of effect of something causing harm.
Even auras that give negative modifiers and other similar stuff count for this part of the spell description.
f) Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
Again self explanatory.
The mess is born of an attempt to avoid some shenanigans with spells while specifying that spells and actions indirectly affecting someone don't break invisibility, but the RAI to me seem very clear: if you target someone with the intent to cause harm to him the invisibility spell is broken.
Same thing is you purposefully use an AaE effect that includes a foe in it.
Note in this situation the two invisible and undetected guys passing near each other, each one with a "harmful" aura will not immediately become visible as they don't perceive he other guy as a foe.
The moment in which one of them perceive the other as a foe and keep his aura active to affect him he will become visible.
Pick-pocketing neither incurs damage, negative modifiers nor a negative condition. That action may directly target a foe's attended item, but is not harmful in the same sense I described above. Moreover, the
deleterious effect is indirect; the pick-pocketer is taking an item, which is necessary only when casting spells with material components.
ohmmmmmm
In D&D, you are your stuff. Your stuff is you.
Stuff you are holding gets your saving throws. Put a bar of iron on the ground, someone casts heat metal, it gets hot. Pick it up, cast the same spell, it gets a save.
Stuff you are wearing becomes more durable while you wear it. A backpack in the crosshairs of a fireball is toast. A backpack a high level fighter is wearing being hit with the same fireball is fine (99% of the time)
If you are protected from fire, your stuff is protected from fire, even stuff you picked up after you got the spell.
Targeting a creatures stuff is the same thing as targeting the creature.
Targeting a creatures stuff is the same thing as targeting the creature.That's nice, but you haven't explained how it incurs direct harm in the same sense invisibility's rules use.
As I said, pickpocketing does not directly incur damage, negative modifiers or negative conditions.
You don't need to directly harm someone to break invisibility, you just need to target them.
If you target them, and targeting their stuff is targeting them, then you've targeted them.
Targeting breaks invisibility.
Targeting a creatures stuff is the same thing as targeting the creature.That's nice, but you haven't explained how it incurs direct harm in the same sense invisibility's rules use.
As I said, pickpocketing does not directly incur damage, negative modifiers or negative conditions.
You don't need to directly harm someone to break invisibility, you just need to target them.
If you target them, and targeting their stuff is targeting them, then you've targeted them.
Targeting breaks invisibility.
Targeting has a specific term with invis. It references AoE's and target per the magic chapter. You are using the generic term which would also include targeting them for harm by cutting a rope on a bridge which would not break the spell.
Targeting a creatures stuff is the same thing as targeting the creature.That's nice, but you haven't explained how it incurs direct harm in the same sense invisibility's rules use.
As I said, pickpocketing does not directly incur damage, negative modifiers or negative conditions.
You don't need to directly harm someone to break invisibility, you just need to target them.
If you target them, and targeting their stuff is targeting them, then you've targeted them.
Targeting breaks invisibility.
Targeting has a specific term with invis. It references AoE's and target per the magic chapter. You are using the generic term which would also include targeting them for harm by cutting a rope on a bridge which would not break the spell.
Yeah, spells all break it, harmless ones, daylight, any spell that targets a foe or includes it in its area.
You are using the generic term which would also include targeting them for harm by cutting a rope on a bridge which would not break the spell.
No. I'm not.
|
|
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.By the spell's own definition, sleight of hand does not qualify as an attack. It is not a ... attack action or combat maneuver.
Stop right here.
Notice the difference?The spell speak of "attacking a creature", you speak of "a attack action".
The first is a term of the English language, the second is a specific game term.
The two are not the same thing.
As long as you use the two terms as if they were interchangeable you are speaking of something different from the spell limitations.
The spell go to great length to exclude some specific form of attack (those that do indirect harm) and to include other (spells that affect the a foe) even when they don't do harm (if you cast chaos hammer against a chaotic creature your invisibility is broke, even if you don't do any damage).
Think about that a bit.
So, the question here of "does this break invisibility?" is answered by a two prong test. The first prong is whether it is considered an attack, and it is not. The second prong is whether it incurs direct harm, and it does not. Considering sleight of hand fails both prongs of this test, the conclusion is that it does not break invisibility.
Your first prong fail the moment you equate attack (colloquial English) to attack action (game term).
It the rules meaning was an attack action the game term would have been used.The second depend heavily on your definition of harm. You prefer a very narrow definition, I think we should use a broad definition.
Teleport makes high level play much more interesting. Because of teleport you can spend three weeks crafting badly needed gear upgrades (or paying to have them crafted) and then arrive at your destination at the same time you would have if you'd taken a ship.
You can also jaunt back and forth from unprotected locations. Rope trick? Why bother? Just go home for the night and return to that dank crypt in the morning.
If your plot relies on a long trip, that's unfortunate, because long trips are boring. When playing through overland travel at low levels I often stare into space and wish for death. Why in the world would I subject myself to extra percentile rolls for random encounters and lots of discussion of overland travel speeds? Boom, we're there. The cultists expected us to come through the only pass and set up an ambush in the mountains? Well nuts to them, looks like the temple is only half-guarded when the party arrives. :P
Teleport makes high level play much more interesting. Because of teleport you can spend three weeks crafting badly needed gear upgrades (or paying to have them crafted) and then arrive at your destination at the same time you would have if you'd taken a ship.
You can also jaunt back and forth from unprotected locations. Rope trick? Why bother? Just go home for the night and return to that dank crypt in the morning.
If your plot relies on a long trip, that's unfortunate, because long trips are boring. When playing through overland travel at low levels I often stare into space and wish for death. Why in the world would I subject myself to extra percentile rolls for random encounters and lots of discussion of overland travel speeds? Boom, we're there. The cultists expected us to come through the only pass and set up an ambush in the mountains? Well nuts to them, looks like the temple is only half-guarded when the party arrives. :P
....
Reminds me of a story our rogue actually spotted the scrying sensor and didn't say anything to anyone else....didn't realize the significance I guess wizard(me) marked the spot with arcane marks and memorized the area, then we popped home.....When we came back for day (three I think) the teleport trap....errg darkness arrows, slime, I got downed on that first round, though later I was informed the teleport trap would pop us back there anyway if we try to leave like that...
Anyway moral of the story: be very careful with teleports. Don't let the bad guys know where you are going to show up Teleport trap covers 13 40ft cubes at the minimum. CYA