I'm not so sure of how one would rule this interaction, but I'm interested in using Dimensional Shackles as a way for an NPC to teleport the party away while keeping the NPC in a place (plot reasons). According to the text on the item:
"In addition to serving as mundane manacles, the shackles prevent a creature bound by them from using any method of extradimensional movement, including teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence. They don't prevent the creature from passing through an interdimensional portal."
That being said, a spell like Teleport only reads the following:
"This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select. If you target an object, it must be able to fit entirely inside a 10-foot cube, and it can't be held or carried by an unwilling creature."
Since the shackles only appear to negate the actual effects of a spell and not negate the ability to cast such spells while one is restrained by them, would that mean that the spell can still be cast and teleport eight other creatures, but just not those shackled (in this case, I would be assuming it be the caster)? Likewise, I'm not sure that a spell such as Teleportation Circle counts as an interdimensional portal, so I wonder: would Teleportation Circle work for a shackled caster? Though the shackles might not prevent them from stepping into a Teleportation Circle, it is still a method of teleportation, so they personally couldn't use it, but could a shackled creature still cast Teleportation Circle for others to warp through?
To put the question most simply: can a caster still cast these spells to teleport others without them personally being able to be teleported? I'm interested to know how others interpret these rules- let me know what you think!
If shackles on your feet prevent you from running, should they prevent someone else from running? Someone bound by Dimensional Shackles would not teleport as a result of the Teleport spell, but the spell itself would still function.
I think that you can interpret this as simple as it is:
The Dimensional Shackles prevent the creature from benefit from any extradimentional movemente like teleportation effects bu it does not prevent the creature from cast spells.
Creatures tied to it must be ruled as if its tied to regular manacles, as mentioned in the item description "In addition to serving as mundane manacles..." so applyingthe restrained condition to the creature would work just fine (maybe ignore the movement reduction from the condition it its locked over wrists).
Now we must know what you as GM think about using somatic components while restrained (in that case tied to manacles). In RAW, I don't remember any rule that stantds against it so it's up to you as GM to decide either if casters are able to perform somatic components while tied in this way, if it must make an dex save in order to overcome the limited movement of its hands or if the somatic components need totally free hands to be performed.
Also, note that I mention just somatic complications from these matter. If the spell in question didn't need somatic but needs material components, the limitation is to its access to it (if its arms are tied in its back would it be able to handle a arcane focus or a pouch?).
Anyway, the point is: the manacles don't prevent tied creatures to cast spells of any kind, just from benefiting from those mentioned effects.
would that mean that the spell can still be cast and teleport eight other creatures, but just not those shackled (in this case, I would be assuming it be the caster)?
Correct only the shakled target won't teleport or planeshift.
would Teleportation Circle work for a shackled caster? Though the shackles might not prevent them from stepping into a Teleportation Circle, it is still a method of teleportation, so they personally couldn't use it, but could a shackled creature still cast Teleportation Circle for others to warp through?
It could as nothing prevent it from spellcasting.
As a DM, i would be tempted to have the spell cause a Mishap since it failed to teleport you and other creatures. ☺
It is weird that this item makes the spell able to do something it couldn't normally do though.
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else. It would be like casting dimension door and trying to shove someone else through it without going yourself.
If this is a plot thing though, it would be easy enough to just homebrew a new item that did allow for it, so declaring that the "regular" dimensional shackles work that way doesn't seem like a big deal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else.
RAW the spell doesn't say it fails to teleport if you are not teleporting with them since it can selfless teleport with object. The spell takes into consideration that it happen when you cast it, but Dimensional Shakles comes mess with that.
RAW the spell doesn't say it fails to teleport if you are not teleporting with them since it can selfless teleport with object.
It also doesn't say you can teleport a group of creatures that doesn't include you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is weird that this item makes the spell able to do something it couldn't normally do though.
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else. It would be like casting dimension door and trying to shove someone else through it without going yourself.
If this is a plot thing though, it would be easy enough to just homebrew a new item that did allow for it, so declaring that the "regular" dimensional shackles work that way doesn't seem like a big deal.
The same way that the spell say "you and up..." the Shackle prevents just you from benefiting from the teleportation. Also, the spell mention "creatures of your choice that you can see within range" and since it does not mention the caster body as the catalist for the other creatures teleportantion but its choice I would say that they would be teleported anyway while the caster itself would have its teleportation suppressed by the item in the exact same moment as it happens.
I mean, that would be my understanding by strick RAW.
It is weird that this item makes the spell able to do something it couldn't normally do though.
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else. It would be like casting dimension door and trying to shove someone else through it without going yourself.
If this is a plot thing though, it would be easy enough to just homebrew a new item that did allow for it, so declaring that the "regular" dimensional shackles work that way doesn't seem like a big deal.
The same way that the spell say "you and up..." the Shackle prevents just you from benefiting from the teleportation. Also, the spell mention "creatures of your choice that you can see within range" and since it does not mention the caster body as the catalist for the other creatures teleportantion but its choice I would say that they would be teleported anyway while the caster itself would have its teleportation suppressed by the item in the exact same moment as it happens.
I mean, that would be my understanding by strick RAW.
As I said, this is far more a "what works for the plot" thing than a "let's use strict RAW" thing, but nothing you just said actually supports your position on the RAW.
It seems like you're arguing backwards from what you want to work and trying to find justifications for it -- which you don't even need, because if you just want it to work because it's cool and fits the story you want to tell, then have it work because it's cool and fits the story. RAW is irrelevant at that point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is weird that this item makes the spell able to do something it couldn't normally do though.
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else. It would be like casting dimension door and trying to shove someone else through it without going yourself.
If this is a plot thing though, it would be easy enough to just homebrew a new item that did allow for it, so declaring that the "regular" dimensional shackles work that way doesn't seem like a big deal.
The same way that the spell say "you and up..." the Shackle prevents just you from benefiting from the teleportation. Also, the spell mention "creatures of your choice that you can see within range" and since it does not mention the caster body as the catalist for the other creatures teleportantion but its choice I would say that they would be teleported anyway while the caster itself would have its teleportation suppressed by the item in the exact same moment as it happens.
I mean, that would be my understanding by strick RAW.
As I said, this is far more a "what works for the plot" thing than a "let's use strict RAW" thing, but nothing you just said actually supports your position on the RAW.
It seems like you're arguing backwards from what you want to work and trying to find justifications for it -- which you don't even need, because if you just want it to work because it's cool and fits the story you want to tell, then have it work because it's cool and fits the story. RAW is irrelevant at that point.
It is weird that this item makes the spell able to do something it couldn't normally do though.
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else. It would be like casting dimension door and trying to shove someone else through it without going yourself.
If this is a plot thing though, it would be easy enough to just homebrew a new item that did allow for it, so declaring that the "regular" dimensional shackles work that way doesn't seem like a big deal.
You and up to 8 others try to teleport and only you fail. That is what the item says it does. It doesn't counter the spell (which would have been easy to say if that was the intent), the spell still happens but only you are immune to the effect. Other targets of the spell are still effected by the spell as normal, because neither the item nor the spell say they aren't.
It is weird that this item makes the spell able to do something it couldn't normally do though.
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else. It would be like casting dimension door and trying to shove someone else through it without going yourself.
If this is a plot thing though, it would be easy enough to just homebrew a new item that did allow for it, so declaring that the "regular" dimensional shackles work that way doesn't seem like a big deal.
You and up to 8 others try to teleport and only you fail. That is what the item says it does. It doesn't counter the spell (which would have been easy to say if that was the intent), the spell still happens but only you are immune to the effect. Other targets of the spell are still effected by the spell as normal, because neither the item nor the spell say they aren't.
If we stuck in that matter of "what it says" I would mention again what I've mention in a previous not-quoted reply that the Dimensional Shackles says "teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence" and nothing is said about within-same-plane-locations magical travel which is the case of the teleport spell.
I'm curious if that chenges any of the arguments you are putting on that or its just about the spell and what happens if whatever thing prevents the caster to benefit from it.
Also, some of you know if any source have specific descriptions over the diferences between within-plane magical travel and extraplanar travel? Couse I've searched on PHB and DMG over this matter in purpose of that debate over here and didn't find anything beyond some mentions in some spells.
"teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence" and nothing is said about within-same-plane-locations magical travel which is the case of the teleport spell.
It's "[teleportation] or [travel to a different plane of existence]" as teleportation is usually on the same plane of existance.
You and up to 8 others try to teleport and only you fail. That is what the item says it does.
It... doesn't. If the shackles explicitly said that's what they did, this thread wouldn't exist.
The up to eight other creatures are optional when you cast teleport to transport people. You are not. Nothing in the spell, or the shackles, suggest they can go anywhere without you.
the spell still happens but only you are immune to the effect
The shackles say nothing about the creature in them being "immune to teleporting". They say it can't use that means of travel.
In addition to serving as mundane manacles, the shackles prevent a creature bound by them from using any method of extradimensional movement, including teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence.
"Using" is way more ambiguous in this context than you seem to be allowing for.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence" and nothing is said about within-same-plane-locations magical travel which is the case of the teleport spell.
It's "[teleportation] or [travel to a different plane of existence]" as teleportation is usually on the same plane of existance.
I think I'd misread it or make a poor translation.
So its "[teleportation] or [travel to a different plane of existence]" and not "[teleportation or travel] to [a different plane of existence]" and "extradimentional" stands to physic space like x-y-z and include either within same-plane spaces as outer-plane spaces. Right? Well, in that case it chenges what I've being reading over it and gotta delete that to prevent it to induce other to the same mistake.
Anyway, getting back to the argumentation over what overcomes the combination of effects I would agree that the other creatures goes trhough the teleport while the effect of the shackle applies only over the creature bound to it and the effect of the spells over the creatures relly on the sight and choice of the caster and will of the targets. As much as if the spell were cast by another creature that choose someone shackled, the whole group goes while just that shackled one would be prevented to benefit from the effect.
"Using" is way more ambiguous in this context than you seem to be allowing for.
And it can be read as "is way more ambiguous in this context than you seem to be denying"
I mean, that ambiguousness is the great point. The item don't say that it prevents the whole effect from happening, neither say that you can't cast the spell. The word is "using" but also "using > method of extradimentional movement" and its relied on it. Also the spell don't say its mandatory for you to go trhough to the whole thing happen, it says "you and..." becouse you can't opt out, but it isn't assuming a exceptional situation of other magical effect from prevent you and just yourself to go.
Than you can read: prevent for "using = the attempt for using (cast the spell)" or prevent for "using = benefit from it"
In that way nor your assumption neither ours has a clear point and none can say "thats what happens/didn't happens couse thats whats being said..." but both can say "thats seems legit and can be read this way". You can use that ambiguousness thing to refute that interpretation but it falls through your own thou.
And lets be fair, the "what stands by RAW" really matter here? There's a lot of other exemples of exceptional situations that the item/spell/rule description didn't cover enought or aren't too clear, and the "RAW" for those cases is: the golden rule.
I would think the specific vs general rule would kick in here. A teleportation or plane shifting spell would function as normal, but the shackled creature would be excluded, even if the caster was the shackled creature.
the only time I would rule differently would be if the shackled caster used dimension door, and tried to bring another creature along. Since that creature is not a target of that spell, and the spell says “bring” I would rule that if the caster failed to travel, so does the other creature
In that way nor your assumption neither ours has a clear point and none can say "thats what happens/didn't happens couse thats whats being said..." but both can say "thats seems legit and can be read this way". You can use that ambiguousness thing to refute that interpretation but it falls through your own thou.
My argument has been not to use RAW as a shield for what you want to do when it's actually just ROC, so, uhh, whatever.
EDIT: Not that it really matters, but I seriously doubt this use of the shackles is RAI, either.
The trope of a magic item that enslaves/restricts a caster and prevents them using their magic for themselves, and instead only lets them use it at the pleasure of the person holding the leash/shackles/whatever, is a fairly common one. If that's what the devs wanted, that's what they would have made.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not so sure of how one would rule this interaction, but I'm interested in using Dimensional Shackles as a way for an NPC to teleport the party away while keeping the NPC in a place (plot reasons). According to the text on the item:
"In addition to serving as mundane manacles, the shackles prevent a creature bound by them from using any method of extradimensional movement, including teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence. They don't prevent the creature from passing through an interdimensional portal."
That being said, a spell like Teleport only reads the following:
"This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select. If you target an object, it must be able to fit entirely inside a 10-foot cube, and it can't be held or carried by an unwilling creature."
Since the shackles only appear to negate the actual effects of a spell and not negate the ability to cast such spells while one is restrained by them, would that mean that the spell can still be cast and teleport eight other creatures, but just not those shackled (in this case, I would be assuming it be the caster)? Likewise, I'm not sure that a spell such as Teleportation Circle counts as an interdimensional portal, so I wonder: would Teleportation Circle work for a shackled caster? Though the shackles might not prevent them from stepping into a Teleportation Circle, it is still a method of teleportation, so they personally couldn't use it, but could a shackled creature still cast Teleportation Circle for others to warp through?
To put the question most simply: can a caster still cast these spells to teleport others without them personally being able to be teleported? I'm interested to know how others interpret these rules- let me know what you think!
If shackles on your feet prevent you from running, should they prevent someone else from running? Someone bound by Dimensional Shackles would not teleport as a result of the Teleport spell, but the spell itself would still function.
I think that you can interpret this as simple as it is:
The Dimensional Shackles prevent the creature from benefit from any extradimentional movemente like teleportation effects bu it does not prevent the creature from cast spells.
Creatures tied to it must be ruled as if its tied to regular manacles, as mentioned in the item description "In addition to serving as mundane manacles..." so applyingthe restrained condition to the creature would work just fine (maybe ignore the movement reduction from the condition it its locked over wrists).
Now we must know what you as GM think about using somatic components while restrained (in that case tied to manacles). In RAW, I don't remember any rule that stantds against it so it's up to you as GM to decide either if casters are able to perform somatic components while tied in this way, if it must make an dex save in order to overcome the limited movement of its hands or if the somatic components need totally free hands to be performed.
Also, note that I mention just somatic complications from these matter. If the spell in question didn't need somatic but needs material components, the limitation is to its access to it (if its arms are tied in its back would it be able to handle a arcane focus or a pouch?).
Anyway, the point is: the manacles don't prevent tied creatures to cast spells of any kind, just from benefiting from those mentioned effects.
This is an interesting one. It shouldn't prevent the spell as written.
It is weird that this item makes the spell able to do something it couldn't normally do though.
Correct only the shakled target won't teleport or planeshift.
It could as nothing prevent it from spellcasting.
As a DM, i would be tempted to have the spell cause a Mishap since it failed to teleport you and other creatures. ☺
I don't think it would work per strict RAW. It's you and up to eight other willing creatures, not you or up to eight other willing creatures. The "you" is required -- if the caster isn't moving, neither is anyone else. It would be like casting dimension door and trying to shove someone else through it without going yourself.
If this is a plot thing though, it would be easy enough to just homebrew a new item that did allow for it, so declaring that the "regular" dimensional shackles work that way doesn't seem like a big deal.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RAW the spell doesn't say it fails to teleport if you are not teleporting with them since it can selfless teleport with object. The spell takes into consideration that it happen when you cast it, but Dimensional Shakles comes mess with that.
It also doesn't say you can teleport a group of creatures that doesn't include you.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The same way that the spell say "you and up..." the Shackle prevents just you from benefiting from the teleportation. Also, the spell mention "creatures of your choice that you can see within range" and since it does not mention the caster body as the catalist for the other creatures teleportantion but its choice I would say that they would be teleported anyway while the caster itself would have its teleportation suppressed by the item in the exact same moment as it happens.
I mean, that would be my understanding by strick RAW.
As I said, this is far more a "what works for the plot" thing than a "let's use strict RAW" thing, but nothing you just said actually supports your position on the RAW.
It seems like you're arguing backwards from what you want to work and trying to find justifications for it -- which you don't even need, because if you just want it to work because it's cool and fits the story you want to tell, then have it work because it's cool and fits the story. RAW is irrelevant at that point.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It doesn't because the spell can selfless teleport and there's no way to willingly opt out, but the Dimensional Shakles are exceptional here.
I was just making fun of "strict RAW" dude lol
You and up to 8 others try to teleport and only you fail. That is what the item says it does. It doesn't counter the spell (which would have been easy to say if that was the intent), the spell still happens but only you are immune to the effect. Other targets of the spell are still effected by the spell as normal, because neither the item nor the spell say they aren't.
If we stuck in that matter of "what it says" I would mention again what I've mention in a previous not-quoted reply that the Dimensional Shackles says "teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence" and nothing is said about within-same-plane-locations magical travel which is the case of the teleport spell.
I'm curious if that chenges any of the arguments you are putting on that or its just about the spell and what happens if whatever thing prevents the caster to benefit from it.
Also, some of you know if any source have specific descriptions over the diferences between within-plane magical travel and extraplanar travel? Couse I've searched on PHB and DMG over this matter in purpose of that debate over here and didn't find anything beyond some mentions in some spells.
It's "[teleportation] or [travel to a different plane of existence]" as teleportation is usually on the same plane of existance.
It... doesn't. If the shackles explicitly said that's what they did, this thread wouldn't exist.
The up to eight other creatures are optional when you cast teleport to transport people. You are not. Nothing in the spell, or the shackles, suggest they can go anywhere without you.
The shackles say nothing about the creature in them being "immune to teleporting". They say it can't use that means of travel.
"Using" is way more ambiguous in this context than you seem to be allowing for.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think I'd misread it or make a poor translation.
So its "[teleportation] or [travel to a different plane of existence]" and not "[teleportation or travel] to [a different plane of existence]" and "extradimentional" stands to physic space like x-y-z and include either within same-plane spaces as outer-plane spaces. Right? Well, in that case it chenges what I've being reading over it and gotta delete that to prevent it to induce other to the same mistake.
Anyway, getting back to the argumentation over what overcomes the combination of effects I would agree that the other creatures goes trhough the teleport while the effect of the shackle applies only over the creature bound to it and the effect of the spells over the creatures relly on the sight and choice of the caster and will of the targets. As much as if the spell were cast by another creature that choose someone shackled, the whole group goes while just that shackled one would be prevented to benefit from the effect.
And it can be read as "is way more ambiguous in this context than you seem to be denying"
I mean, that ambiguousness is the great point. The item don't say that it prevents the whole effect from happening, neither say that you can't cast the spell. The word is "using" but also "using > method of extradimentional movement" and its relied on it. Also the spell don't say its mandatory for you to go trhough to the whole thing happen, it says "you and..." becouse you can't opt out, but it isn't assuming a exceptional situation of other magical effect from prevent you and just yourself to go.
Than you can read: prevent for "using = the attempt for using (cast the spell)" or prevent for "using = benefit from it"
In that way nor your assumption neither ours has a clear point and none can say "thats what happens/didn't happens couse thats whats being said..." but both can say "thats seems legit and can be read this way". You can use that ambiguousness thing to refute that interpretation but it falls through your own thou.
And lets be fair, the "what stands by RAW" really matter here? There's a lot of other exemples of exceptional situations that the item/spell/rule description didn't cover enought or aren't too clear, and the "RAW" for those cases is: the golden rule.
I would think the specific vs general rule would kick in here. A teleportation or plane shifting spell would function as normal, but the shackled creature would be excluded, even if the caster was the shackled creature.
the only time I would rule differently would be if the shackled caster used dimension door, and tried to bring another creature along. Since that creature is not a target of that spell, and the spell says “bring” I would rule that if the caster failed to travel, so does the other creature
My argument has been not to use RAW as a shield for what you want to do when it's actually just ROC, so, uhh, whatever.
EDIT: Not that it really matters, but I seriously doubt this use of the shackles is RAI, either.
The trope of a magic item that enslaves/restricts a caster and prevents them using their magic for themselves, and instead only lets them use it at the pleasure of the person holding the leash/shackles/whatever, is a fairly common one. If that's what the devs wanted, that's what they would have made.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)