Ward and Yoink

[Mythic]

Suggestion to make -Yoink and -Ward have a more interesting interaction than the Be-all End-all of "rescue people" RP especially from places like cells.

Warded area's and -ward should set a certain amount of "Charges" they can block from things like -yoink. Meaning a group of people who add -ward to an area, would have a far easier time keeping people there

This would be extended so that things like Teleporting to try and "flee" an area, would use up charges on -warded areas. Which replenish (for things like cells)

An example if this makes little sense

Player 1 and 2 set a -Ward each on the same area. This gives a total "ward charge" of 5

Players 3, 4 and 5 all use -yoink on player 6 who's being held by 1 and 2. This using 6 "Charges" And the option to be -yoinked from the area appears.

It'd make -yoink less useless and still keep -ward valuable when it comes to capture/imprisonment

Thoughts?

[AskRyze]

I'd totally be up for that if -yoink actually burned out if it failed. As it stands, you can keep attempting -yoink for as long as you can and don't have to expend resources (be it the use of the spell, resting, or components)

[Halibutthead]

It'd make -yoink less useless

wat?

[Mythic]

Useless when encountering -Ward. Its a pretty great epic spell as is.

And yeah, It should be burnt up and go on a longer cooldown than 1 min when encountering -ward

[Dagonlives]

-Yoink is an already un-counterable spell that can be prevented only by a 3 feat epic tier spell focus. It cannot be stopped, or interrupted just prevented. The actual yoink spell occurs immediately and without any counter-play from those observing. There isn't even a visual cue it's happening. Why do we want to make it better?

I'd rather -ward place a ten minute debuff on any character who steps in the warded area, that avoids them from using any teleport mechanic regardless of where they go. That way we avoid loading and transition abuse.

[Skald Haldi]

I agree with Mythic's purpose (make yoink / ward / teleport more interesting). I'm all for it, but not the method.

We need to avoid a "number of friends" game. Some factions have a lot more people who can ward / yoink. A numbers game would remove power from the smaller factions / individuals.

Some of the best RP I've had would never have happened if my (very powerful) faction had been able to rescue me so easily.

On the other hand, the PVP rules make rescue RP almost impossible. I was going to write a feedback post about that - when I realized it's really the same question. The "number of friends" game would again prevent those rare and special cross-faction RP opportunities from happening.

If anything, I would decrease the power of teleport / yoink somehow. Is the ONLY way to prevent it right now an epic feat with two prerequisite feats? My suggestion instead is to give an interruption delay to teleport / yoink. Add emote text and animation to the person being teleported / yoinked so that anyone can bump them and stop it.

[magistrasa]

Had personal experience with this recently. Took a prisoner, put him in a warded location, used messengers to coordinate a trade, sent one of my people in position to yoink the captive, we step out of the warded area to allow the ally's yoink, and the prisoner instantly gets yoinked... by someone else. There was no way for us to know though, so we were just like "huh.... that was........... faster than expected...................." suspecting it didn't go as planned but no way of knowing otherwise. So we get to the prisoner exchange point, all 6 of us wait around for like a half hour, then the person who was supposed to be yoinking shows up and goes like "hey where's the guy"

Luckily some hilarious roleplay throughout the wait made it somewhat worth the effort (shout out to Ecthelion's dwarf friend, I don't remember what your name was), but it was really kind of a bummer that all happened when our side was perfectly coordinated around the mechanics to deliver a live prisoner, putting effort into keeping the prisoner alive and engaged and interested in the roleplay, pulling people into the story that we wouldn't have a chance to interact with otherwise, and then at the one sliver of time in which we had to allow ourselves vulnerability, there's nothing we can do to stop the whole thing from going up in smoke.

Doubly insulting was the fact that the other side apparently did it "right" - they didn't bring their prisoners, they brought the prisoners' corpses. Can't yoink a corpse, nor can a corpse get away. In the aftermath of that whole mess, it kinda seems like that's the only way to guarantee that you accomplish a prisoner exchange. And that sucks, because that's significantly less exciting for all the people involved.

So, yeah. I'd be in favor for some counterplay to yoink. A lingering ward sounds good, as does a couple rounds of charge-up that someone could interrupt. I don't really have any ideas of my own - just support for a change to yoink that doesn't make it so that it can instantly end ongoing roleplay, and the thought that if -ward and -yoink are going to get some counterplay for each other, OP's method is probably not the way to do it, considering the conjurer is probably in the position where they can rest over and over and retry the yoink ad nauseum, whereas if the abjurer tries to rest and reapply the ward in the midst of said yoink spam, the target is probably going to get yoinked during that rest. So you're demanding two abjurers to counter only one conjurer. That's silly. Worse, that's not exactly fun, and I don't know if it qualifies as "interplay" either.

[Rotary]

I was a part of the other side and just wanted to clarify we never killed our prisoner. We used guards, two abjurers and a yoinker to get the prisoner where we needed, as somewhat safely as we could without them getting yoinked by someone else.

It also helped somewhat that nobody knew we had our prisoner until they were in the cell.


Edit: But yes I agree with the sentiment here, changes to ward and yoink to make them less effective at ending RP would be nice.

[Nobs]

Spells
A fair number of spells prevent teleportation; a wizard will struggle to gain access to some of them, but the skill Use Magic Device and a wand or staff will solve that.

The 4th-level Sor/Wiz spell dimensional anchor [abjur] (Player's Handbook 221) for 1 min./level prevents 1 creature from using any extradimensional movement if a ranged touch attack succeeds versus the target.

the 4th-level Sor/Wiz spell Otiluke's suppressing field [abjur] (Complete Mage 112) for 10 min./level in a 20 ft. emanation stops all spells from a particular school; conjuration is the obvious choice.

The 5th-level Sor/Wiz spell investiture of the orthon [trans] (Fiendish Codex II 104-5) for 1 min./level grants the caster a 20 ft. radius aura that prevents of extradimensional movement like the spell dimensional lock.

The 5th-level Clr spells hallow [evoc] (PH 238) and unhallow [evoc] (PH 297) for 1 year when the spell dimensional anchor is tied to the hallow or unhallow spell prevents extradimensional movement out of an area. This is the house rule I use as there are no guidelines that describe what tying the dimensional anchor to the hallow and unhallow actually does.

The 5th-level Sor/Wiz spell zone of respite [abjur] (Spell Compendium 244) for 1 min./level in a 20 ft. radius emanation prevents extradimensional movement and summoning into the area.

The 6th-level Clr spell forbiddance [abjur] (PH 232) permanently prevents extradimensional movement into or out of an area.

The 9th-level Sor/Wiz spell Halaster's teleport cage [abjur] (City of Splendors: Waterdeep 155) permanently prevents teleportation into an area and sends the would-be teleporter somewhere random on the plane, while allowing teleportation within the area but sending the would-be teleporter somewhere random within the spell's area.

just from google

[-XXX-]

The tools at hand are fine as they are. This all boils down to player conduct.
Same way as using exploits to circumvent -ward_teleport is bad, -yoinking a captive immediately after their apprehension can be described as questionable and selfish behavior.

[Nitro]

The tools at hand are fine as they are. This all boils down to player conduct.
Same way as using exploits to circumvent -ward_teleport is bad, -yoinking a captive immediately after their apprehension can be described as questionable and selfish behavior.

That's not something you can change sort of literally making it against the rules to do though. As long as -yoink exists in its current iteration, people will see it as the first, easiest and sometimes only method to rescue captives because it's safe, instantaneous and makes sense from an IC perspective. Why wouldn't you have the person who can teleport people to him to you after all?

Which sucks because if someone actually wants to do prisoner RP, it doesn't make any sense IC to turn down a -yoink request. You often see people get castigated for doing so in fact, mistrusted as spies or traitors because they didn't take the easy rescue when offered it.

So I'd be all for nerfing -yoink. It's a tool of convenience but losing it or reducing its utility doesn't hurt that badly.

[Honeybunny]

Allow -ward to be put on an individual. (For a duration?)

Don't make -ward vs -yoink an absolute. The person who uses ward sets a DC based on their spellcraft (or level or whatever) and the -yoinker has to beat that DC. Failure consumes the spell, components, piety etc.

Makes -Ward not so absolute
Makes -Ward more useful for a prisoner as the person can be moved about without someone yoinking them immediately
Makes -Yoink not 100% fully countered by -Ward but still likely that -ward beats it.

[-XXX-]

Just make sure that the -yoinking spellcaster is kept in the dark when it comes to any information about the reasons why the -yoink failed (so that they can't tell whether the target resisted the -yoink or the area is warded).

That would give players much more liberty when it comes to resisting -yoink treating it more like an OOC decision whether they enjoy the captive RP and want to take part in it, or whether they'd rather spend their valuable online time doing something else.
Please note that partaking in any captive RP is not mandatory. It is entirely optional and hinges on the player of the captive PC. Forcing players to take part in prisoner RP is not something that you should be trying to do.

[magistrasa]

I was a part of the other side and just wanted to clarify we never killed our prisoner.

There was more than one prisoner in that situation! The main person we wanted to take back was kept a corpse, that's what I was referencing. (We didn't even know you had that other person until we got there, lol)

[BHR55]

I was a part of the other side and just wanted to clarify we never killed our prisoner.

There was more than one prisoner in that situation! The main person we wanted to take back was kept a corpse, that's what I was referencing. (We didn't even know you had that other person until we got there, lol)

Using this situation as a reference point. Would it be interesting to have -yoink be made into a "If willing" you go to the summoner. If you choose not you you have to pass a will save to resist? This way if two people try to -yoink, dismissing the choice you don't want is not so easy. The usual wards against Scry could apply for Yoink as well?

This would have the obvious problem that a bunch of conjurers could just spam it until they catch the person in question. . . which would get old and abused real fast in my opinion. Maybe I could see something like the above working, if it limited its usage to one use per RL 24 hours on a given unwilling subject. While leaving it available for willing participants as normal?

Ward is really easy to wait out, or defeat by transition, it would be nice it it followed the caster for instance. Especially since it is one use per rest, even with multiple abjurers unless the area you want to get someone to is only a couple transitions away moving a prisoner requires goofy mages running ahead, resting, then warding. Rinse and repeat.

[Cerk Evermoore]

The yoinker is def at an advantage in these situations unless someone on the enemy faction disguises himself as the victim so he gets the yoink promp jumping through the portal and killing the conjourer.
( I don't condone that but it is a pretty funny concept. )

[BHR55]

The yoinker is def at an advantage in these situations unless someone on the enemy faction disguises himself as the victim so he gets the yoink promp jumping through the portal and killing the conjourer.
( I don't condone that but it is a pretty funny concept. )

Would this actually work? I figured the script could know the difference, funny concept indeed! An element of danger to conjurers summoning!

[Cerk Evermoore]

In my post I forgot to mention "Don't actually do this."

[Blood on my Lips]

Using this situation as a reference point. Would it be interesting to have -yoink be made into a "If willing" you go to the summoner. If you choose not you you have to pass a will save to resist? This way if two people try to -yoink, dismissing the choice you don't want is not so easy. The usual wards against Scry could apply for Yoink as well?

You can currently refuse a yoink. I don't want to see a will save added to resist a yoink. This would be forcing RP on someone. There are many situations where a player may not want to be yoinked, many of which are not RP related.

[xanrael]

I'd also be pretty worried over how an unwilling -yoink would be used.

1. Have a group of PvP buddies that want John dead meet you at [place you need a key to use the door]
2. -yoink John to you
3. -ward teleport to keep John from escaping
4. Take as long as you want to RP before murdering them

I think a single -anchor command that makes a ranged touch attack and if successful prevents teleportation for an individual and burns your -ward teleport for the day could work. If it lasts turns/level could even have a reset timer on it (and -ward teleport).

I will make the comment that at a certain point though everyone needs to be a willing participant. I'm not saying this is the case in the example above and just speaking in general here so I hope no one takes this personally as I know nothing about the participants or the situation mentioned earlier.

If the player of a prisoner is having a rotten/boring time during a prisoner exchange that they're looking for any method to shorten it they're going to be way more willing to accept that (un)timely -yoink than not. Not saying that you'd need to treat the prisoner well, but keeping the player engaged should be a priority.

[Ecthelion]

I was a part of the other side and just wanted to clarify we never killed our prisoner.

There was more than one prisoner in that situation! The main person we wanted to take back was kept a corpse, that's what I was referencing. (We didn't even know you had that other person until we got there, lol)

Yeah, one was dead and the other was alive. I don't know until when I could have raised him, when I did check the portal said person was logged off. This was quite long at Shadowvar, due to the yoink.
I'm in agreement these mechanics could use a lift, though I do not have many ideas.