Teleportation Circles - Permanence

[Zhorn]

So after viewing the Critical Role S2-E78 a few weeks back and seeing how Matt ran the teleportation circles, it had me wondering if I had my understanding of how teleportation circles work all wrong.

How I thought it worked (which I'm pretty keen on moving away from)

• Making a teleportation circle's sigil on the ground (not casting) is just a visual feature that would fall under very familiar / seen casually / viewed once / description for the purposes of trying to teleport TO said sigil.
• Casting the spell on the same location every day for a year makes the sigil into a targetable location for casting teleportation, as a permanent circle

In the episode;

• There are a series of permanent teleportation circles at are always active, so at any time you can walk over the sigil and be instantly teleported to the targeted location without needing additional castings of the spell (each being a one-way gate).
• In the destination rooms, there are inactive sigils on the ground that act as the landing target for the always active circles, or as destinations for casting teleport, or one off teleportation circle castings.
• In other episodes, they have displayed the sigils of other teleportation circle destinations as just landing points without sending people away when they walk over them, also not requiring a percentile roll to target (essentially that are 100% reliable as a permanent circle).

The wording of the spell is vague enough that either interpretation seems consistent with the written word, so I am curious of how others rule it at their tables, or have some citation or reference to what is the OFFICIAL way those circle are meant to operate.
This makes me this that casting the same teleportation circle spell (same sigil every) for a year should be setting up the permanent one way link, as that seems like a more reasonable justification for the cost and time commitment to the spell, especially considering any old random object taken from the target destination within the past six months also grants the 100% teleporting accuracy, and is considerably cheaper to the point of being comical. Just be sure to within every 5 month and 29 day window to teleport back and forth between two locations and swap out an associated item to each location. It will take a permanent teleportation circle a few hundred trips before it will be able to claim to be a solid investment.

In any case, I'm thinking I'll end up house ruling this that creating a destination sigil is not the same as creating a permanent teleportation circle.
potential house rule: To make a destination sigil, you must imprint a unique 10-foot-diameter sigil sequence on a surface (paint, carving, etc, as long at it can persist), on said sequence you cast teleportation circle to activate it. If the sigil exists already, the spell links to there as normal. If this IS a unique sigil sequence, the spell cannot send you anywhere as it's like dialling your own phone number (you get a busy signal). BUT, it does imprint that sigil into the weave, so any future castings link to this sigil sequence.

[Reynaert]

Teleportation is a 5th level spell which can take you to any Permanent Circle that you know. And nowhere else. So the reason for creating a Permanent Circle is to allow casters of this spell to go anywhere at all.

Teleport is a 7th (two levels higher) spell that can take you anywhere you want (with varying degrees of success), and a Permanent Circle from the previous spell is just a convenient target in that it has a 100% success rate.

In other words: Permanent Circles are primarily for the benefit of level 5 and 6 casters. (And maybe for the benefit of higher level casters for all the cases where it's not viable to have items on hand that are fresh from the target location).

Maybe what's confusing you in the Critical Role episodes are these 'always active' ones. These are wholly separate and can be viewed as magic artifacts. AFAIK they were *not* created by repeating the Teleportation Circle for a year, and even if they were that is a houserule and not official.

[darknite]

When you cast Teleportation Circle you scribe a circle with sigils that match a known, permanent Teleportation Circle somewhere in the same plane that then opens a short-duration portal to that permanent circle. The permanent Teleportation Circles are in-bound only, as they contain unique sigils for that are matched when casting the spell to get to one.

[Keravath]

Ultimately, how a teleportation circle is used in game is up to the DM. They are free to play it however they want. In their world, casting a teleportation every day for a year could create a permanent link to another location.

However, the only practical issue with that is that eventually the world would be flooded with permanent links. Consider a trading cartel that ships goods from Baldurs Gate to Waterdeep or to Port Nyanzaru in Chult or to Mulmaster. How much do these companies spend on ships, guards, food, or labour getting their goods from one location to another? In a world with permanent teleportation circles that are always active, every single company would be vying to acquire the ~36,000gp required to establish a permanent bi-directional link for their private use. It has a large cost over a period of a year but you won't be paying mercenaries, guards and many other expenses. In the DMG, a galley costs 30,000gp. Instead of a fleet of galleys, the trading cartel would set up a teleportation hub with links to its trading partners. It is safe, instantaneous, not vulnerable to pirates or weather, and only costs ~18,000 gold each way. They would also invent containerized shipping so that all their goods could be quickly and easily moved through the permanent links.

There would be lots of unemployment of sailors at least initially. The only need for ships would be warfare and exploration. Rich people would have their own permanent links to their work, their keep in the country, and their escape route out of town in case of attack. In addition, since the links are "permanent", they would stick around forever unless someone destroyed the sigils so unless teleportation circles are new there are likely old pre-existing teleportation circle networks from previous civilizations.

I think that, in terms of "intended", the repeated use of the spell is just meant to create a permanent SIGIL that can be used as a destination for the teleportation circle spell. The text says that when used in this way, it doesn't need to be used for transportation. Since teleportation circle requires a 9th level caster and the teleportation spell a 13th level caster, this approach makes it convenient though expensive for large organizations to have a permanent and error free teleportation destination available to those who know the "address" without the extreme disruption to the economy and society that would follow logically from the establishment of actual permanent links (no matter how cool they are :) ).

However, as mentioned, every DM is free to run it in whatever way they like, there isn't a "correct" interpretation. Reading the RAW depends on how you interpret "permanent teleportation circle".

The first sentence of the spell says "As you cast the spell, you draw a 10-foot-diameter circle on the ground inscribed with sigils that link your location to a permanent teleportation circle of your choice whose sigil sequence you know and that is on the same plane of existence as you."

The target for the teleportation spell when used for transportation is a "permanent" teleportation circle whose sigil you know. A DM could rule that a permanent teleportation circle can either be a source or a destination circle, meaning that the permanent teleportation circle can either contain a permanent link to another teleportation circle or it can just be a set of sigils that can be used as a destination for a teleportation circle spell. This is required since without the differentiation it is impossible to create the first teleportation circle since it would have no target sigil to link to and so could not be used for a permanent link.

Anyway, I think there is enough content in the spell to interpret it as the "permanent" teleportation circle being intended to inscribe a permanent and unique set of sigils that can then subsequently be used to target teleportation spells so they can be cast without error and not to create a permanent link but it is up to the DM in the end :)

[Segev]

It's also apparently something that occasionally confuses module writers for WotC.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Tomb of Annihilation

Show

In the Heart of Ubtao, Valindra Shadowmantle is said to have a teleportation circle she uses to get to and from Thay. She had no reason to come to the Heart before the Death Curse started, and as of any point the PCs are expected to potentially meet her there, it's been less than a month since the Death Curse began. There's no way she established a permanent Circle there in that time. It also talks about her "stepping into" the circle to go back to Thay, which, IIRC, is not how the spell works in this edition. (In 3e, the 9th level spell did work that way, though.)

[JackPhoenix]

So after viewing the Critical Role S2-E78 a few weeks back and seeing how Matt ran the teleportation circles, it had me wondering if I had my understanding of how teleportation circles work all wrong.

Nah, it's best to ignore anything CR claims does with the rules.

It is safe, instantaneous, not vulnerable to pirates or weather, and only costs ~18,000 gold each way.

It's also removable with a single level 3 (or level 5, if you don't want risk the chance of failure) spell and potentially completely non-magical hammer and chisel (or other appropriate tool) and a bit of time, prompting the same investment to make it work again.

[Zhorn]

Nah, it's best to ignore anything CR claims does with the rules.

It's somewhat the reason why I tend to ask for citations or references before I change or alter what I would have previously claimed as being the true meaning of the rules.
I tend to view streams of other games with the same level of credibility to RAW as I do any other people on the internet (forums, videos, etc). Unless their comments include a citable reference to something WotC would call official (so their printed rules books, modules, Sage Advice Compendium and @JeremyECrawford on twitter), then they are just saying their own preferences or houserules. It's why I made this post.

So far the closest thing to a reference provided was from Segev in

Spoiler: Spoilers for Tomb of Annihilation

Show

In the Heart of Ubtao, Valindra Shadowmantle is said to have a teleportation circle she uses to get to and from Thay. She had no reason to come to the Heart before the Death Curse started, and as of any point the PCs are expected to potentially meet her there, it's been less than a month since the Death Curse began. There's no way she established a permanent Circle there in that time. It also talks about her "stepping into" the circle to go back to Thay, which, IIRC, is not how the spell works in this edition. (In 3e, the 9th level spell did work that way, though.)

Which at the very least sets precedence in official material for destination sigils for teleportation circles to be established in a time frame considerably shorter than a year considering the chronology of the adventure.

"Permanent" is treated somewhat vague in the text as it doesn't distinguish whether it just means the circle persists, or the teleportation effect of the spell also persists.
Posters have referenced the text from Teleport and Teleportation Circle in the behaviour of casting the spell normally (which I do want to be clear in that I value and appreciate the input), but have not highlighted the wording that would be needed to lock down the answer as to how much of the spell is under the "permanent" part. Keravath hit the nail on the head in calling it an interpretation.
I will agree that the common understanding of the spell is as how I had previously understood it prior to viewing that Critical Role episode, aligning with the same views being expressed by the majority of responders thus far, and if someone where to ask for the RAW answer to this question in the future, I would say as such.

BUT, I'm inclined to start houseruling it at my table the other way in the name of fun, and for the more logically consistent feel I get from that interpretation.

• It justifies the cost if the spell can create a permanent one way portal.
• Creating the circle's sigil from the departure point make more sense as you are scribing the same destination sigil every day for a year (the wording of the spell doesn't specify that you need to do the same sigil every day, so it just seems messy that you could cast the spell to go to 360+ different locations over the course of a year, but in the end it becomes a unique sigil to be targeted).
• Creating a destination point wouldn't be a bog down endeavour requiring an insane amount of downtime and resources. The official crafting rules tend to be avoided or thrown out the window entirely for the same reason.

It is safe, instantaneous, not vulnerable to pirates or weather, and only costs ~18,000 gold each way.

It's also removable with a single level 3 (or level 5, if you don't want risk the chance of failure) spell and potentially completely non-magical hammer and chisel (or other appropriate tool) and a bit of time, prompting the same investment to make it work again.

Or a big sledge hammer, pickaxe, or chisel to deface the surface and break the sigil. Functionally, teleportation circle sigils would be incredibly vulnerable and would actually be an extremely risky investment for mercantile transactions. It just takes a few seconds of access for a rival to ruin your network.
Ultimately it come across as one of those pipe dreams rich entrepreneurs pursue and then get crippled by for not accounting for the behaviours of cut-throat competition, or the behaviours of 3rd parties on discovering an easily accessible non-secret teleportation circle system. Criminals would likely try to kill everyone that knew about it and take it over. City leaders would be inclined to outlaw them and have them destroyed on account of how big a hole in security they pose. AND THEN replacing the destroyed sigils becomes a nightmare of getting the spell re-cast in the same location every day for a year without disruption with an ever increasing cost that takes one bad day to have to start over again.
In the end, the only teleportation circle that would remain would be the secret ones wizards keep in their bases, who's sigils are only ever known to a handful of trusted allies.

[JackPhoenix]

I tend to view streams of other games with the same level of credibility to RAW as I do any other people on the internet (forums, videos, etc). Unless their comments include a citable reference to something WotC would call official (so their printed rules books, modules, Sage Advice Compendium and @JeremyECrawford on twitter), then they are just saying their own preferences or houserules. It's why I made this post.

Twitter isn't considered official anymore, just FYI, though it's still often the only window we have to the devs' minds when RAW is unclear (or even perfectly clear, in the case of many JC SA tweets).

Which at the very least sets precedence in official material for destination sigils for teleportation circles to be established in a time frame considerably shorter than a year considering the chronology of the adventure.

I don't have the adventure at hand, does the text specifically refer to the spell? Remember, NPCs do not have to follow all the rules PCs do. Perhaps centuries old lich from a culture extremely focused on arcane power has access to rituals or magic items that allow to circumvent the normal requirements. And when in doubt, there's always Wish.

[Keravath]

It's also apparently something that occasionally confuses module writers for WotC.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Tomb of Annihilation

Show

In the Heart of Ubtao, Valindra Shadowmantle is said to have a teleportation circle she uses to get to and from Thay. She had no reason to come to the Heart before the Death Curse started, and as of any point the PCs are expected to potentially meet her there, it's been less than a month since the Death Curse began. There's no way she established a permanent Circle there in that time. It also talks about her "stepping into" the circle to go back to Thay, which, IIRC, is not how the spell works in this edition. (In 3e, the 9th level spell did work that way, though.)

There is always the possibility that you could scribe the 10' diameter sigil on something portable. Even a 10' diameter slab of some thickness of stone, metal or wood might be sufficient. I don't think the spell indicates that the sigil isn't movable. (I think there is a sigil in Waterdeep Dragon Heist which my group came across and were trying to figure out a way to take up the floor of the room it was in and move it back to the inn they owned).

[Keravath]

Nah, it's best to ignore anything CR claims does with the rules.



It's also removable with a single level 3 (or level 5, if you don't want risk the chance of failure) spell and potentially completely non-magical hammer and chisel (or other appropriate tool) and a bit of time, prompting the same investment to make it work again.

True enough. However, they would then just have to make their transfer station as secure as possible with guards and their own mages on watch. They might even surround the sigil with an anti-magic field so that some trying to dispel it would actually have to stand on the sigil. They would also have their own mages on guard with counterspell to stop anyone trying to cast a spell withing viewing range of the portal.

They could also probably cover most of the teleportation circle with a protective covering of some sort to prevent damage. The spell indicates that you are transported to the nearest empty space if the space on the circle is already occupied. In addition, the rules don't indicate that the sigil actually has to be visible to work so you could probably safely cover the sigil after you had created the permanent portal, surround it with guards and counterspelling mages and start shipping things instantaneously over distances that it would take weeks for your competition to ship things.

[Tetrasodium]

So after viewing the Critical Role S2-E78 a few weeks back and seeing how Matt ran the teleportation circles, it had me wondering if I had my understanding of how teleportation circles work all wrong.

How I thought it worked (which I'm pretty keen on moving away from)

• Making a teleportation circle's sigil on the ground (not casting) is just a visual feature that would fall under very familiar / seen casually / viewed once / description for the purposes of trying to teleport TO said sigil.
• Casting the spell on the same location every day for a year makes the sigil into a targetable location for casting teleportation, as a permanent circle

In the episode;

• There are a series of permanent teleportation circles at are always active, so at any time you can walk over the sigil and be instantly teleported to the targeted location without needing additional castings of the spell (each being a one-way gate).
• In the destination rooms, there are inactive sigils on the ground that act as the landing target for the always active circles, or as destinations for casting teleport, or one off teleportation circle castings.
• In other episodes, they have displayed the sigils of other teleportation circle destinations as just landing points without sending people away when they walk over them, also not requiring a percentile roll to target (essentially that are 100% reliable as a permanent circle).

The wording of the spell is vague enough that either interpretation seems consistent with the written word, so I am curious of how others rule it at their tables, or have some citation or reference to what is the OFFICIAL way those circle are meant to operate.
This makes me this that casting the same teleportation circle spell (same sigil every) for a year should be setting up the permanent one way link, as that seems like a more reasonable justification for the cost and time commitment to the spell, especially considering any old random object taken from the target destination within the past six months also grants the 100% teleporting accuracy, and is considerably cheaper to the point of being comical. Just be sure to within every 5 month and 29 day window to teleport back and forth between two locations and swap out an associated item to each location. It will take a permanent teleportation circle a few hundred trips before it will be able to claim to be a solid investment.

In any case, I'm thinking I'll end up house ruling this that creating a destination sigil is not the same as creating a permanent teleportation circle.
potential house rule: To make a destination sigil, you must imprint a unique 10-foot-diameter sigil sequence on a surface (paint, carving, etc, as long at it can persist), on said sequence you cast teleportation circle to activate it. If the sigil exists already, the spell links to there as normal. If this IS a unique sigil sequence, the spell cannot send you anywhere as it's like dialling your own phone number (you get a busy signal). BUT, it does imprint that sigil into the weave, so any future castings link to this sigil sequence.

I bolded a bit there, that's kind of how they worked in 3.5 when you cast permanence on them. the teleport circle spell in the 5e PHB doesn't work like that; but not every spell or eldritch machine that can be cast is in the phb. eberron uses something similar to what he describes with house Orien transit network/teleport rooms/etc being things that Mark of Passage heirs can activate, they can even browse the network through some means to see what's available even if they've never been to that circle. A wizard or whatever who casts teleport can target one of those circles if they know it's address (or whatever) through means such as visiting a circle, using it with an orien heir activating it, or even just finding the right details written down somewhere by casting the teleport circle spell... but that nn-mark of passage individual casting teleport circle can't just activate the circle in the teleport room/transit station/etc or browse the network like the Orien Heir could.

In my game, Orien is happy to let a powerful caster use their established teleport circles, but doing so comes with a (reasonable) price that a caster would be stupid trying to leave unpaid given the pain that the dragonmarked houses (or any organizations capable of establishing & running a network of teleport rings) could bring to bear on a troublesome annoyance.

[Zhorn]

Twitter isn't considered official anymore, just FYI, though it's still often the only window we have to the devs' minds when RAW is unclear (or even perfectly clear, in the case of many JC SA tweets).

Good to know. I had been working off an earlier tweet in

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...re-official%2F
"When it comes to rules, only my tweets are official."

along with

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/d...Compendium.pdf
[NEW] Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter).
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.

Which to my reading I thought as only stating WotC staff who are not Jeremy Crawford cannot provide official rulings, but Jeremy Crawford still was with the statement of him compiling the SAC and his tweets being previews.

Had to dig a little but I did find what I think you referred to

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...389248?lang=en
"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls.

My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say."

So yes, @JeremyECrawford's tweets are no longer "official rulings" (but should still carry a lot of weight worth considering in related discussions).
[edit: for clarification, I think @JeremyECrawford tweets are still worth taking into consideration for discussions on rulings for the very reason as JackPhoenix states (quoted at the top of this post) in that it is one of the few avenues we have to get designer's insights.
That and I don't buy into the pile-on hate that gets thrown at the devs. I just find it distasteful and petty to dismiss ALL of their inputs based on a select couple that people disagree with *shrug*]

I don't have the adventure at hand, does the text specifically refer to the spell? Remember, NPCs do not have to follow all the rules PCs do. Perhaps centuries old lich from a culture extremely focused on arcane power has access to rituals or magic items that allow to circumvent the normal requirements. And when in doubt, there's always Wish.

While NPCs and Creatures can have special rules that play differently to what the PCs will have access to, generally if an ability they have works differently, it is stated as having a different function (Example; Iymrith from Storm King's Thunder can use Stone Shape to creature gargoyles [SKT, p241]), otherwise if it just says they have a spell, the spell is treated as being what the reference text says it is.
In this case;

Spoiler: ToA spoilers

Show

Tomb of Annihilation, p58

Valindra Shadowmantle is a lich with the following changes:

• Valindra is neutral evil.
• She speaks Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Dwarvish, Elvish, and Infernal.
• When preparing her spells, Valindra can swap out any spell on her list of prepared spells for another wizard spell of the same level.
• As a bonus action, Valindra can mask her shriveled flesh and appear to be a living elf. This magical illusion lasts until she ends it as a bonus action or until she uses her Frightening Gaze legendary action. The effect also ends if Valindra drops to 30 hit points or fewer, or if dispel magic is cast on her.
• She can't take lair actions in the Heart of Ubtao.

None of which state any difference to the teleportation circle spell.

Now, as she is an 18th level caster, and is able to swap out spell; she would have the ability to cast teleport to escape rather than teleportation circle, changing her escape time from 1 minute to instantaneous. BUT the book does specify she "slips through her teleportation circle back to Thay". It also says that the players cannot follow her as they don't know the destination sigil, so make of that what you will. I'm more interested in the teleportation circle creation process here.

Chronologically, Valindra has come to Chuult in search of the Soulmonger, sent there by Szass Tam AFTER it started interfering with lichs' ability to trap souls in phylacteries [ToA, p5]. So with the death curse only being active for 20 days at the beginning of the adventure [ToA, p6], that gives us our incredibly tight time window.

There is always the possibility that you could scribe the 10' diameter sigil on something portable. Even a 10' diameter slab of some thickness of stone, metal or wood might be sufficient. I don't think the spell indicates that the sigil isn't movable. (I think there is a sigil in Waterdeep Dragon Heist which my group came across and were trying to figure out a way to take up the floor of the room it was in and move it back to the inn they owned).

Which is a creative use of the spell, and one that I would definitely encourage at my table; create a destination sigil in safety, then relocate it to where you need it.
But for the case of this module "Valindra created a teleportation circle inside the heart (of Ubtao)", so we can't sneak around the timing set out here. Valindra has been in Chuult for 20 days or less at the start of the module, and has created a functioning teleportation circle's sigil by the time the players find and interact with her at The Heart of Ubtao.
Now you could drag the adventure out over a year in game to resolve this... But the ticking clock of the death curse is intended for the PCs to try and resolve the module as quickly as possible (their employer, Syndra Silvane, dies after 79 days [ToA, p8])

[Zhorn]

For any further discussions on how I should proceed with houseruling the spell (specifically precise wording); I've set up a thread in the homebrew forums for that purpose, as that's where that kind of discussion should belong.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...rtation-Circle

I'm still interested in hearing about any different interpretations or methods of using teleportation circles people at using in their games.

[Tetrasodium]

For any further discussions on houseruling the spell; I've set up a thread in the homebrew forums for that purpose.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...rtation-Circle

I think you might be missing the forest through the trees. In your original post you asked about how a particular GM put something in his world & predictably people explained both how and some sources for further inspiration/guidance that range from old editions to various settings.Being able to do this kinda stuff rather than slavishly follow the rules & setting docs with no interpretation, embellishment, or original creativity is one of the cornerstones of being a great gm by many standards of judgement. If you just dismiss it and expect the gm+everything the GM's world to be bound by the exact same rules as written as the beginning middle and end then you might as well be playing a computer game.

As to your other post, I'm not sure the point since A: It's been a few days with no discussion, & more importantly B: You don't seem to be asking or looking for anything in particular for people to help flesh out for you. People answering your question about a particular gm's game by telling you about GM'ing are answering your question even if it's not the kind of answer you expected.

Hope that helps

[Zhorn]

I think you might be missing the forest through the trees. In your original post...

The original post here was to help clarify my understanding of the spell in how it was supposed to behave as per the text, as seeing an example of it behaving differently to what I expected had me scratching my head if my interpretation was off.
The discussion also highlighted to me some details that should be accounted for if I'm to proceed with houseruling the spell in a different way than RAW and RAI.

As to your other post, I'm not sure the point since A: It's been a few days with no discussion, & more importantly B: You don't seem to be asking or looking for anything in particular for people to help flesh out for you.

The point of the other post is to get a good and clean spell text ironed out. Most faults, misunderstandings and arguments start because two people read the same thing and disagree on their meaning. It's generally a good idea to have many eyes pick apart a homebrew to find where the language could use tightening up for clarity, as someone is bound to see something I've missed. Hence having the intentions dot-pointed outside of the spell text and colour coding where the changes are.
After which I'll take the modified version of the spell and add it to my DM folder so I have a reference and not need to keep it memorised.
Plus: sharing. There have been a few minor tweaks to the game I've adopted because someone put their version up on the forums to share and critique.

[Yunru]

So yes, @JeremyECrawford not "official" (but should still carry a lot of weight worth considering).

Should it? We're talking someone with a history of being pedantic enough to argue anything from the strictest RAW perspective, and petty enough to try a retroactively be right if he feels he's not currently.

[Zhorn]

Should it? We're talking someone with a history of being pedantic enough to argue anything from the strictest RAW perspective, and petty enough to try a retroactively be right if he feels he's not currently.

People in the spot light tend to get a lot of negative opinions thrown their way for not being perfect. To quote myself from another thread a few months back;

Jeremy Crawford gets a lot of undue flack for changing opinions, and it's pretty unfair on him for people to keep throwing that up to invalidate his current rulings. A good deal of players that try their hands at homebrewing change and tweak their own rulings over time as they gain more understanding about their interactions in play. It's just natural for views and opinions to evolve over time with experience and hindsight. Think back on yourself a few years back? Did you have different opinions then that you do now? Does that invalidate your current opinion?

If you're the DM at your table, then you get to rule what stays and what goes. You are THE authority.
But if a discussion pops up regarding RAW and RAI, then the writings of the official lead rules designer are at the very least worth considering for the purposes of background information and context.
If you come across two comments from the same person that don't align, then whichever is the more recent of the two supersedes the other, just like for any other opinion that any other person may have.

[Yunru]

That's not how RAI works though. The intent is what was intended when the rules were written, not two years and one guy changes his mind and two (?) month's before the rules are changed to retroactively support his new view, to use your insinuated example.

[Zhorn]

@Yunru, I'm guessing there's a particular issue bugging you here regarding Jeremy Crawford's tweets, and I'm also guessing it has NOTHING to do with teleportation circles?

The aside JackPhoenix and I had was in general terms tangentially related to using other people's games (ie: Critical Role) and opinions (ie: forum users) as reference points, but your comments sound more like to your want to dig into specifics that are further removed from the intended discussion topic.

What's really on your mind, Yunru?

[Tetrasodium]

So yes, @JeremyECrawford not "official" (but should still carry a lot of weight worth considering).

Should it? We're talking someone with a history of being pedantic enough to argue anything from the strictest RAW perspective, and petty enough to try a retroactively be right if he feels he's not currently.

I'm not sure what specific tweet we are talking about since discussion seems to have skipped passed it & started straight to pounding the table over how crawford's tweets are official & others are not without ever quoting or linking to whatever it was he said.

I have to agree with Yunru here, you need only look at how he justifies dragonborn breath weapon in wildshape to "anything with a mouth-like orifice" in the druid podcast then ignores both RAW, RAI, and 100% of the guidance he himself gave in the druid podcast to rule in conflict with all three on warforged integrated protection in wildshape as a particularly glaring recent example. It's ok to be wrong, the problem comes with him being too unwilling to correct himself

[Zhorn]

I'm not sure what specific tweet we are talking about

Me either. They were originally only brought up as a side note and were not intended to be the focal point of discussion. For context: Posts #6, #7, #8, #12 for the exchange between myself and JackPhoenix.

discussion seems to have skipped passed it & started straight to pounding the table over how crawford's tweets are official & others are not without ever quoting or linking to whatever it was he said.

At this point I don't think anyone here is arguing that certain tweets are official rulings. And unless there is something in topic diversion that is going to loop around back to the discussion on Teleportation Circles, I have very little interest in it for this thread.

I have to agree with Yunru here, you need only look at how he justifies dragonborn breath weapon in wildshape to "anything with a mouth-like orifice" in the druid podcast then ignores both RAW, RAI, and 100% of the guidance he himself gave in the druid podcast to rule in conflict with all three on warforged integrated protection in wildshape as a particularly glaring recent example. It's ok to be wrong, the problem comes with him being too unwilling to correct himself

^ is this about teleportation circles? Because this sound more like trying to force in a discussion about a disliking of Jeremy Crawford instead of engaging in the thread topic.

[Yunru]

^ is this about teleportation circles? Because this sound more like trying to force in a discussion about a disliking of Jeremy Crawford instead of engaging in the thread topic.

Yes. It's about whether JC should be considered a source of RAI (which is clearly no, since RAI for what was written *can't* change), which is relevant to your point on using him as a source of RAI for teleport circles.

[Zhorn]

Yes. It's about whether JC should be considered a source of RAI (which is clearly no, since RAI for what was written *can't* change), which is relevant to your point on using him as a source of RAI for teleport circles.

Considering no such tweet about teleportation circles was referenced in this thread, I'm wondering where you're getting such a precise interpretation of the discussion from.

Post #1: I reference an episode of Critical Role that featured portals and teleportation circles
Post #6: JackPhoenix recommends ignoring Critical Role for rules claims
Post #7: I clarify the level of credence I give to streams, being the same as forum posts made without references to WotC material (rules books, modules, Sage Advice Compendium and @JeremyECrawford on twitter)
Post #8: JackPhoenix gives a polite FYI that twitter is no longer considered official for rulings, though still has insight value.
Post #12: I find the tweets related to this point and agree with JackPhoenix.

Again, no such tweet from Crawford on teleportation circles has been referenced.

[Tetrasodium]

Me either. They were originally only brought up as a side note and were not intended to be the focal point of discussion. For context: Posts #6, #7, #8, #12 for the exchange between myself and JackPhoenix.


At this point I don't think anyone here is arguing that certain tweets are official rulings. And unless there is something in topic diversion that is going to loop around back to the discussion on Teleportation Circles, I have very little interest in it for this thread.


^ is this about teleportation circles? Because this sound more like trying to force in a discussion about a disliking of Jeremy Crawford instead of engaging in the thread topic.

As @Yuneru already pointed out, it speaks to his credibility, you clearly think highly of it given your earlier statement:

It's somewhat the reason why I tend to ask for citations or references before I change or alter what I would have previously claimed as being the true meaning of the rules.
I tend to view streams of other games with the same level of credibility to RAW as I do any other people on the internet (forums, videos, etc). Unless their comments include a citable reference to something WotC would call official (so their printed rules books, modules, Sage Advice Compendium and @JeremyECrawford on twitter), then they are just saying their own preferences or houserules. It's why I made this post.

Citing a specific recent example of him ignoring RAW, his own guidance on the RAI of wildshape's "deliberate" vague wording, and the reasoning he explained in detail to rule one way with dragonborn in order to rule in contradiction of all three for warforge without being willing (or perhaps being unable) to correct himself after making such a mistake puts his rulings into a far more questionable state than the weight you give them. Liking crawford or not has nothing to do with that. As I pointed out earlier, a good GM should have the confidence to make rulings on their own rather than trying to emulate a human shaped set of computer scripts & algorithms... I'm on more solid ground by both RAW and RAI on that note as well.

A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players' characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.


Inventing, writing, storytelling, improvising, acting, refereeing-every DM handles these roles differently, and you'll probably enjoy some more than others. It helps to remember that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a hobby, and being the DM should be fun. Focus on the aspects you enjoy and downplay the rest. For example, if you don't like creating your own adventures, you can use published ones. You can also lean on the other players to help you with rules mastery and world-building.

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded.

How TO UsE THIS BooK
This book is organized in three parts. The first part helps you decide what kind of campaign you'd like to run. The second part helps you create the adventures-the stories-that will compose the campaign and keep the players entertained from one game session to the next. The last part helps you adjudicate the
rules of the game and modify them to suit the style of your campaign.

References to the workings of past editions and various settings that explain & shed light on the sort of thing you reference in the first post explicitly help to aid in doing precisely what both RAW & RAI say is something for the dm to do or not as suits the style of game they want to run. Things like the posts you are showing frustration over are so unacceptable that you need to keep creating new threads & questioning why someone would dare post it, perhaps a search of sageadvice.eu might better suit your goals since it will give you the answer you seem to be hunting for rather than the answers people think are important to the discussion?

[Zhorn]

Wow, okay, there’s a bit to unpack here. I’d really like to get back to the thread topic, but you really don’t want to let this go. At this point I can’t tell if there’s a legitimate misunderstanding, or you’re intentionally twisting things looking for an argument.

As @Yuneru already pointed out, it speaks to his credibility, you clearly think highly of it given your earlier statement:

It's somewhat the reason why I tend to ask for citations or references before I change or alter what I would have previously claimed as being the true meaning of the rules.
I tend to view streams of other games with the same level of credibility to RAW as I do any other people on the internet (forums, videos, etc). Unless their comments include a citable reference to something WotC would call official (so their printed rules books, modules, Sage Advice Compendium and @JeremyECrawford on twitter), then they are just saying their own preferences or houserules. It's why I made this post.

1) It is less about thinking so highly of their opinion and more just recognising the position they hold in relations to official rulings interpretations and design. Their job title is literally “Lead Rules Designer for Dungeons & Dragons”. Even with twitter and interviews out of the picture, their input into the final drafts of the rules before they go into print carries more weight that others in the company because that is their job role.

2) On twitter, that section you quoted me on is from earlier in the discussion prior to me seeing the exact tweet that removed the official rulings status from the @JeremyECrawford tweets (that part of the thread has already been covered quite handily by JackPhoenix, with all relevant tweets referenced in post #12). I have since gone back to that post and lined out “@JeremyECrawford on twitter” as a reference WotC would call official. Your quote of me even includes that correction.

3) I don’t agree with this “throw the baby out with the bathwater approach”. Just because their tweets are no longer official rulings it doesn’t mean that there is no value it using them for background information and context when discussing relevant RAW and RAI interpretations. < pay note to the wording I used here (echoing post #17). I did not say his tweets are RAI, I said background information and context. Designer insight is worth discussing.

4) The key point I was originally getting at in that post was to do with getting information from other people and 3rd parties (ie: watching game streams, talking to people on forums, etc). If there is not citable reference to official WotC material, anything they say you can only trust as an opinion of preference, not a reliable RAW or RAI interpretation. Like with anecdotes; good for discussion, but would be shaky grounds to use in evidence-based court. Like the twitter thing, still has discussion value, but still needs a link to a rulebook, module, or the SAC.

Citing a specific recent example of him ignoring RAW, his own guidance on the RAI of wildshape's "deliberate" vague wording, and the reasoning he explained in detail to rule one way with dragonborn in order to rule in contradiction of all three for warforge without being willing (or perhaps being unable) to correct himself after making such a mistake puts his rulings into a far more questionable state than the weight you give them. Liking crawford or not has nothing to do with that. As I pointed out earlier, a good GM should have the confidence to make rulings on their own rather than trying to emulate a human shaped set of computer scripts & algorithms... I'm on more solid ground by both RAW and RAI on that note as well.

5) Someone holding an opinion in one area that you disagree with does not mean any opinion they hold in another area is automatically rubbish and to be ignored. You can say liking or disliking Crawford has nothing to do with it, but you keep bringing up disagreements on topics unrelated to this one as you justification for him being discredited.
Same principle in the other direction too, someone being right in multiple areas does not mean they’ll be right in ALL areas. If Jeremy Crawford makes a tweet about Teleportation Circles, then THAT tweet will be relevant to this discussion. Dragonborn Druids and their racial Breath Weapon in Wild Shape? No relation to this thread’s topic.

-big snip-

References to the workings of past editions and various settings that explain & shed light on the sort of thing you reference in the first post explicitly help to aid in doing precisely what both RAW & RAI say is something for the dm to do or not as suits the style of game they want to run.

6) I don’t know what big checkmate move you had in your mind with this big rulebook quote. I’m pretty sure I’ve already expressed a willingness to make table rulings to suit my needs and deviate from official rules as suits tastes. So a big 300 plus word quote that boils down to ‘do what you were intending to do’ ? Or am I still missing the forest for the trees?

Things like the posts you are showing frustration over are so unacceptable that you need to keep creating new threads & questioning why someone would dare post it, perhaps a search of sageadvice.eu might better suit your goals since it will give you the answer you seem to be hunting for rather than the answers people think are important to the discussion?

7) And somehow I’ve managed to cause some great offense here for… what?

• I start a thread about clarification on Teleportation Circles after watching an episode of Critical Role has me questioning if my previous understanding was wrong, and also express interest in how others rule it at their table.
• By post #7 I’m in agreement with the people who’ve responded to the thread thus far that the CR version is not the RAW or RAI of what a permanent circle is (how it is being described is matching how I thought the spell functioned prior to viewing the episode).
• As this is a discussion thread, I decide to instead post the houseruled version in the Homebrew section to be its own thing for the purposes of analysing the language used and tightening up any loose phrasing. Review and critiquing, the core purpose of the homebrew forum. Seemed like a good way to proceed as this thread’s intended focus was

  I am curious of how others rule it at their tables, or have some citation or reference to what is the OFFICIAL way those circle are meant to operate.

  yet somehow this is some grand cardinal sin on my part?

Maybe I’m just missing a whole heap of context here, but reading that last paragraph sounds loaded with accusations that have me wondering if we’re even talking about the same thread any more.

“Things like the posts you are showing frustration over are so unacceptable that you need to keep creating new threads & questioning why someone would dare post it”
I have a mild confusion over this insistence of dragon breath in wildshape being relevant. What’s the post that has me showing such frustration over?
Are there other threads? Is there some trend of behaviour going on here? Have I got some dark habit of thread hopping and burning bridges all of the sudden?
“questioning why someone would dare post it” It makes me sound like I’m absolutely livid about something?
But please, do tell. What vile and angry thoughts are running through my mind. What anger and resentment do I hold in my heart for not getting the answer I want? What even is this answer I want?