jreyst's page

Sorry, but way too complicated for me. I just backported the 4E rules as they seemed 1) better than the 3.x rules and 2) simple enough.

I think having multiple attacks based on BAB is both technically reasonable, and satisfying to players. For me, it just "makes sense" that someone with a high bab (a very skilled combatant) should be able to make additional attacks. Now, some might argue in favor of just rolling that into extra damage on one attack, but for me personally, that's just a BIT too abstract and 4E-ish. I don't like going to that level of abstract, even if it DOES make sense and might speed play. I personally am willing to sacrifice some speed of play in favor of maintaining some level of connection to reality. With all of that said, I am really in favor of some rethinking of combat and attacks etc, but feel that this might be too "low-level" of a change to merit being included in the final rules. Jason already has a metric butt-load of stuff to do and test and making such fundamental changes may be too drastic at this stage. I know I would rather have a high quality product in my hands in August as opposed to something rushed out and perhaps requiring tons of errata right out of the gate.

I think a Perception check is a good way of leaving the trigger less-specific, without being abusive.

I think the player should be able to declare one opponent as his focus, against whom he doesn't have to make a Perception roll, but have the option to change his readied action against another hazard, if he can perceive it.

Modern D&D doesn't have facing rules, but it may be worth applying modifiers to Perception inside or out of a 'fire arc', which may be an actual cone (for a readied archer), or a small burst (for a melee-specialist wanting to watch 'anyone in reach').

Personally i agree but all of my players would say it was too complicated.

One of the main complaints I have with the existing Leadership rules is that it allows one player to have a larger share of game time than other players (by effectively giving him more actions in combat). I decided to basically gut the existing Leadership feat and replace it with the following. Everyone is free to take it as-is or let me know how whacked it is :)

Leadership in my campaign ties into the concept of Action Points. I'll explain both below.

Action Points

Leadership Feats

Thoughts?

Yesterday I posted that I had changed Flanked into a Condition and today I will mention that I also changed Readied into a Condition. This one will probably be more controversial (and potentially broken) but I wanted to get others opinions on it.

The reason I did this was one of my players was continually bothered by the delay in each combat round when one player or another would take time to carefully enunciate the terms of his readied action, causing a noticeable delay in the action while he thought about what might happen and what he would do in that case.

The player who proposed this idea to me did it purely in the interest of speeding up combat rounds. With all of that said, here is the house rule I implemented (but have yet to really see happen in play much):

In comparison, choosing to delay allows a character or creature to use all of his actions normally, but at a later point in the round. He is not able to interrupt other actions when delaying.

Thoughts?

Put me down for having opposition schools either be completely unavailable or require higher level slots to cast. I extremely dislike specialists still being able to cast opposition school spells.

The idea of cumulative bonuses is appealing, but might me too much. +2 to hit for the first two, +3 if there are 3, +4 if there are 4, etc.; could go as high as +8 (or +16 if there were folks with reach weapons in the second row). But, heck, if it's you vs. 8 people, them having a +8 chance of hitting you seems about right.

I agree, cumulative bonuses has a certain appeal, but perhaps it would be better as a talent for rogues or certain monster races, and leave flanking as it is for all others.

You could make a Rogue talent that says

"Gang Tactics: Whenever you attack a target that has the flanked condition, you gain an additional +1 to attack for every other attacker."

Sure the wording would have to be cleaned up but you see what I mean. You could also grant certain races (like kobolds or goblins) a special racial feature with the same name and same mechanics, making the little dudes more intimidating. I dunno, just a thought.

Assuming the -2AC method though, and nothing more, how does your new Flanking idea fit with Rogues using Sneak Attack? Maybe Rogues then get a base Sneak Attack die amount (2d6 at first lvl) plus an additional +1 damage for each additional combatant. This gives the impression that Rogues will like to wait until the best opportunity to strike, maximizing the surround bonus.

If the target has the Flanked condition he is subject to any rule that normally applies to anyone who is flanked normally.

I agree that this:

--A--
--T--
B--C

should also be problematic for the defender, and in all reality, the flanked "condition" should really take effect in that situation as well. I just stuck with it requiring opposite attackers for some link to the existing rules and trying not to make it TOO easy to flank/be flanked etc.

In my campaign I changed Flanked to a condition that one gets if one has at least two opponents that threaten him, who are opposite each other. The flanked condition gives a -2 ac penalty. The reason I did this is because I found it odd that if two enemies are opposite each other, each of them gains a bonus to strike the enemy, but if someone else joins in the fray, they do not get a similar bonus unless they too have someone opposite them. My reasoning is that once someone has at least two enemies threatening him from opposite sides, he should be just as screwed vs. whomever else joins in the fray. Just an idea that has worked ok in my games.

you know the more I think about this, the less I like the idea about mages and rogues getting a hit die bump.

That was the first thing I ignored in PF. One of the things I like is differentiation between the classes, and sorry, but for me, base hit dice are kinda sacred cows. Wizards have d4 hp... rogues d6... that's just the way it is. My player's didn't even bat an eye.

I mean hell, its why there are d4's, d6's, d8's, d12's etc in a dice set. For me, I want to use all my dice, for various things. Its why I bought all those funny shaped things with numbers on them, don't take away the things that use them, I want MORE things that use funny dice! I want some spells that use d12's, some that use d4's, etc. I get a kick out of using all those dice and don't WANT it standardized on one type of die.

rant rant rant and stay offa my lawn!

[ooc]The greater issue, in my experience, is that spellcasters on the same side as the martial characters, in many cases, tend to take care of everything before the martial characters even have a chance to really do anything.

I do agree that this might be the bigger issue.

Round 1:
Fighter wearing heavy armor> Charge up to enemy but can't quite reach him because his armor slowed him down too much.

Wizard> Cast sweet spell that disables enemy (dominate, confusion, etc)

Round 2:
Fighter wearing heavy armor> Sits down and sulks.

Wizard> Dominates enemy into attacking the fighter just to prove how stupid he is.

It's a nice idea, theoretically, but have you ever seen a Wizard of mid level or higher miss a concentration check? Another thing Kirth only touched on is that in 1e, you could actually disrupt a spell. 3x makes it nearly impossible.

I agree, 3.x makes it extremely hard to disrupt spells.

Before, spells took a number of segments to cast, allowing the fighter to run up and interrupt the casting. Now, the spell is almost always cast immediately on the casters action and unless the opponent has a readied action, or threatens the caster, there's no chance of disrupting the spell. Then... add in that virtually every arcane caster always maxes out Concentration so he virtually never fails to cast his spell.

There really isn't much danger. I really want this to change.

I no longer award xp's and simply have the player's level their pc's after every 3rd/4th session. This way they are not penalized for sessions that are mostly roleplaying. I do not penalize player's for missing sessions either. Missing one of my awesome sessions is punishment enough I figure ;) Anyway, you'd be surprised how liberating it is not worrying about experience points anymore.

I do:

Roll 1st level hit points as any other level, ie, 1 x your hit die, and then add to that your Constitution score. This maintains a decent amount of randomness and still adds a buffer of extra hit points. For example, a wizard with a 12 Constitution would roll 1d4+12. A barbarian with a 19 Constitution would roll 1d12+Constitution score. Note that you do not also then add you Con modifier as that is already represented by adding your Con score.

In the end though, I think I have concluded that I dislike the extra hit points in general. It just makes fights longer and seems to not serve much purpose. I still do it though just because all of the players cry whenever I mention stopping.

Personally I'd love to see many spells casting times increase. That's another thing that was a sneaky bump to casters in 3.x, that their spells now just went off on their action. In previous editions spells had casting times in "segments" and if you got hit during those segments you lost the spell, thereby reducing some of the spellcasters overall power advantages. Casting magic took time. Now the melee sorts have to ready an attack against the caster or be in threatening range when the spell casting begins etc. Before, the spellcaster could begin casting fireball on segment 3, the bad guy moves up to him and whacks him on 5, and if the spellcaster is still awake his spell is lost. Now, losing the spell was core, but we always had a concentration type roll to keep the spell. Anyway, my point is, I'd love to see VERY MANY SPELLS get their casting times increased, and start with the more powerful or problematic ones first.

Here's an idea... bring speed factor back. Dagger speed factor was +2 if I recall, whereas two-handed sword was +10. For those who may not have played back then, you wanted low on your init roll and so the speed factors really helped dagger wielders go first. It was cool, simple, and gave some love to lighter weapons. I'm sorely tempted to houserule speed factors back into my games just because our group is advanced enough to be able to handle them and I like the additional level of flavor the rule provides.

Here is a thought - how about allowing clerics capable of channeling positive energy to hold at bay undead instead of damaging them and/or making them flee?

Completely agree. I prefer to imagine the evil critters cowering at the edge of the protective circle, milling about, waiting for the clerics defenses to drop so they can swarm him, not running off like freaking babies lol

I know this is the complete opposite of normal DR rules, but I just think that a paladin should have DR5/non-evil, meaning that it only applies to evil opponents. Alternatively, if that is too good, make it DR5/non-evil, non-outsiders, non-undead, so that it only applies to evil undead or evil outsiders? Couldn't that be done?

Maybe I missed this in another thread!

So what forum would be most appropriate to post comments or questions on subjects like:

How will the final rules deal with the fact that some characters consume a much greater portion of encounter time than others because they are controlling many things, such as summoned creatures, animal companions, dominated monsters, familiars, cohorts, etc?

4E addresses this, I believe poorly, by strictly limiting everyone to one action (basically) even if you have an animal or monster etc. I *strongly* dislike the 4E method, though I agree that something should be done. In many combats a spellcaster often consumes a much larger portion of time than other players if the character summons a lot of monsters or already has animal companions or familiars or cohorts etc. Will Pathfinder take some steps to mitigate this or Jason do you not feel this is really an issue?

Other questions...

Sight Distances - I'd like to see some more in-depth sight distance rules that take reality into consideration, at least a little. For example, it should be easier to see an elephant from a long distance away than it is a mouse. It should be harder to see a sparrow flying overhead than it is to see a 747. You should be able to see a light source from a long distance away. For example, if you are in a 1000' long hallway, and you are in utter darkness, how far away can you see the light from a torch down the 1000' tunnel? From 1000' away or not until you are 200' away? Perhaps this is nitpicking but this sort of thing comes up often in games I am in.

I have many other concerns but I am sure they are beyond the scope of Pathfinder to resolve now, perhaps in Pathfinder 2.0 :)

Thanks jreyst, These rules seem simple enough so that they are actually usuable, give a good DC. I especially like "Craft Magic Item" as Class Skill. (I suggest for Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids).

Yes, Craft Magic Item is a class skill for any class that can currently use Craft {Magic Item] feats.

I personally don't really like the Idea that Non-Spellcaster such as Fighters can make magic Items of any Kind,

Well I am torn here. I want to be able to have a grizzled old veteran soldier who sits alone hermitted on a mountaintop able to take the heart of a giant and a crap-load of Craft Weapon skill points and spend a week forging the axe of giant-slaying. He spends hours and hours on end immersing the blade as it is being forged into the blood of the giants heart, then burning mystical incense over it, then immersing it in specially prepared oils, and then after a series of difficult skill checks, he hands off the great axe he now calls "Karg, Slayer of Giants" to his brother, who seeks the giants who destroyed his village the winter before.

The idea being that fighters (or master weapon/armor smiths) can actually make magic weapons, shields, or armor (but not other magic items). I picture a clan of dwarves secluded in a deep cavern near a volcano that spend the 9th month of every 10th year submerging newly formed masterwork hammers into the spewing lava from an ancient volcano. These hammers then gain the flaming burst ability (assuming the crafters make very difficult checks).

Now, on the flip-side, I don't like the idea of mages spitting out keen, icy long swords. I like the idea of whomever is doing the crafting be intimately in tune with the usage of the item being crafted, ie, warrior sorts for weapons and armors, mages for staves that spew fireballs, or priests for cups that heal when drank from, or bards for lutes that sing songs that put people to sleep. Sure, by the current rules, any mage as long as he has the sleep spell can make sleep items. I think the item being enchanted should come into play somehow, and I think the rules presented so far are a step in that direction.

I am also coming up with a method by which some items (masterwork or otherwise) can become magical unintentionally as a result of great events such as having been used to kill a major world NPC or having saved the wielder/wearer from a horrendous burning death from the worlds oldest dragon etc. I can see instances where a particularly brave hero defends another from the blast of an epic dragons fire breath with his beat up old rusted shield, and as a result that poor old shield somehow from that point forward seems to grant fire resistance to all within 10' of the wielder.

Just some crazy ideas. I don't like just anyone being able to make just anything but I DO like the idea of certain classes or character types being able to make magic items appropriate to their profession, UNDER THE RIGHT circumstances.

Would there be any benefit to counting helmets as separate piece of armor as far as calculating AC is concerned?

I'd like to see helmets have a mechanical benefit.

I would really like to see masterwork item prices as a multiples of regular items. I don't really care what multiple, but all masterwork items should be double or triple or quadruple the price of their regular counterparts.

Now, what I'd REALLY like to see is an expanded masterwork selection, something like:

Masterwork quality - +2 modifier, x5 cost
High quality - +1 mod, x2 cost
Average quality
Low quality - -1 mod, 1/2 price if you can get anyone to buy this crap.
Inferior quality - -2 mod, unsellable without a Bluff

Couldn't agree more, on both counts.

I agree that it might cause more players to consider heavy armored tanks. I know in my campaigns players more often build dex based light armor fighters so I'd love to see some encouragement towards more heavily armored tanks.

Starting Wealth: Too much, too little, or just right?

Seems fine to me. In all the years of playing DnD this is one of those things I don't ever remember hearing or having an argument about.

There is talk about adding a halfling weapon to the weapon list, just to round it out for each race. My current favorite is the war sling (see the races playtest), but I am still open on this one. Thoughts.

Seems fine also.

Are there any issues with any pieces of equipment (weapons, armors, etc)? Cost, balance, utility?

I'd like to see heavily armored characters be able to beat out the no-armor wearing folks when it comes to AC, or at least stay competitive.

I'd love it if shields were more effective.

I'd love to see weapon speed factors return, though I admit I am probably in a very small minority on that one.

Maybe a few more exotic weapons would be nice.

I know this one crosses playtest categories, but I'd like it if the player's could find a rusted old dagger that can be magical. Perhaps magic weapons that gain their powers accidentally as a result of grand events, and not always requiring masterwork items. This isn't a min-max idea so much as a flavor idea. Sometimes I want an item that looks and feels ordinary but yet is perhaps a mighty relic.

Is there a simpler way for keeping track of encumbrance? I have thought about some alternate systems, but I am not convinced they are worth the effort. Do you value encumbrance rules?

I almost never worry about encumbrance unless some player gets silly with it and starts pulling wagons out of their pack. Otherwise, its too much tedious bookkeeping. I let the player's just act within reason and usually that's fine.

I personally really preferred the 2E method of doing things over the 3.X Prestige Class concept. In 2E (as I'm sure many of you will remember) you still chose your base class normally and then applied subkits. You could be a fighter > cavalier or a cleric > shaman for example. You didn't have to wait to get into the PrC, you started off at 1st level as that subkit. I don't know why its not still done that way, as the entire concept seemed "cleaner" to me.

1) Choose a class.
2) [Optionally] Choose a sub-class.
3) Done.

Neat.

As opposed to:

1) Choose a class.
2) Make sure you have all of the attribute requirements you might later need to get into the PrC you really want to play.
3) Make sure you choose the right feats and skills so that you don't have to wait even longer to get the PrC you really want to play.
4) Advance several levels, not playing the character you really want to play.
5) Choose the Prestige Class you really wanted to play.
6) Advance in that class a few levels and then realize your spell progression blows.
7) Drop the PrC.
8) Done!

Ugh.

Not sure if anyone cares or not, but I note with some interest, that the magic item creation rules now appear to be heading in a direction remarkably similar to rules I came up with some time ago. You can feel free to take any of this, or ignore it.

+++

In <my campaign world> magic item creation is risky. You could fail. You could even hurt yourself. Worse yet, you could invest a lot of time, money, and resources and get nothing in return. There are no item creation feats anymore, instead characters must possess the Craft Magic Item skill. All characters with Craft Magic Item as a class skill are able to craft Scrolls and Potions automatically with no skill check necessary.

Make a Craft Magic Item skill check at the end of each day (full 8 hour period) spent working on the item. You gain no benefit by spending more than 8 hours in one day working on an item. If you spend anything less than a full 8 hours then you cannot make a check for that day and you still expend one days raw materials.

Check

To create a particular type of item, the crafter needs to be at least the minimum level shown on Table 1.

Table 1: Craft Magic Item Skill Minimum Level and DCs

Type of Item, Min Level, DC
Wondrous, 3rd, 22
Wand, 5th, 24
Rod, 9th, 26
Staff, 12th, 28
Ring, 12th, 31

To craft an item the DM makes a craft skill check for the crafter at the end of each day of work or alternately makes the roll as if the crafter took 10 on his check. The player may indicate how many times he would like to take 10 but the crafter may not take 10 for the final check in any event. The DM must roll a specific number of successes before getting a Mishap or complete failure.

The item is complete when the crafter rolls a number of successes equal to the price of the item divided by 1000. The crafting process may finish prematurely if the crafter suffers a mishap or if he runs out of raw materials before accumulating enough successes.

Table: Craft Check Modifiers

Action, Modifier
Working intermittently, -2,
Working without proper tools, -2
Working while traveling, -2
Being aided, +2

Others may assist in the crafting process. Follow normal “aid another” rules. Note that this may speed up crafting time and as a result reduce total costs.

Secondary effects
For each effect enchanted into the item beyond one, increase the DC by +2.

Special

Dwarves and Gnomes craft at an accelerated rate, completing 1,500gp worth of work on check results of DC to DC +4 and complete 375 gp worth of work for each 5 over the DC.

Table: Craft Check Results

Check, Result
Natural 1, Failure. Reduce number of successes scored thus far to 0. Check for Mishap*.
Fails by 10+, Failure. Reduce number of successes scored thus far to 0.
Fails by 5-9, Reduce number of successes scored thus far by 3.
Fails by 0-4, Do not add a success to your success count.
Succeeds, Add 1 Success to your Success Count. If you only needed one more Success, then the item is complete, otherwise add 1 to your Success Count.
Succeeds by more than 5, Add 2 to your Success Count for every 5 you surpass the DC. Add 3 to your Success Count if your character is a Gnome or Dwarf.

* Mishaps are detailed in the Thundain 2.0 DM’s Guide.

Curses

Consult the standard 3.5 SRD Curses rules at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm

Skill Focus
Though there is just one Craft Magic Item skill, a player that wishes to focus on the creating of one type of magic item can select Skill Focus (Craft Magic Item - Scroll), Skill Focus (Craft Magic Item - Wand), etc. Skill Focus cannot be applied to the base Craft Magic Item skill.

Magic Item Types

Potions

The character must possess ranks in Craft (alchemy) equal to or greater than the spell level of the spell enchanting the potion.

Repairing Damaged Items

• Repairing a broken item costs 1/2 of the items base price, requires half the time it would take to craft a new item of the same sort, and the DC to repair a broken item is half the original creation DC.

• Restoring spent charges in an item that uses charges costs 1/50th of the items base price per charge restored (may not exceed 50 total), requires 1 hour of time and the DC to restore charges is half the original creation DC.

+++

Okay, resurrecting this thread with a rough sketch. Keep in mind this is a first draft. Many things are missing, but I am trying to cover the "basics". As of now I am expecting the game to go from 1st to 10th level. Comments are welcome and appreciated!

By the way, this is a great idea. I have three kids and have thought for some time how there is a real need for a basic or *starter* edition of DnD (or now Pathfinder).

I was thinking of some derivative of the word "Scout" as the name or code name, ala Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts. Perhaps, "Pathfinder Scouts"?

...problems displaying table...

I recommend using a Google spreadsheet.

ala

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pg3rpbuiUpPniNf0SkGfTJg

Jason? Are you out there? Hello? Is this thing on?

yeah, some more thoughts from Jason would be good on this one. I have a player that believes the ability is fine as is. I, however, felt that int/wiz mod applied to both attack and damage was too good but instead of eliminating the damage mod altogether as some have suggested, I just made the damage = 1/2 level.

Seemed fair to me.

I was actually toying around with that idea. I can't wrap my head around it to actually make it work properly tho.

In my campaign that is starting the first weekend of October I will be ignoring experience points altogether and just telling players that they will level after every two sessions, ie, between sessions 2 & 3 then between4 & 5 etc.

Then, I say, if you want to gestalt multi-class it requires the Multiclass Feat for each class beyond one that you take and you level after every three sessions (if you are dual class) or after every four sessions (if you are triple class).

Here is the level progression:

# of Classes
Session 1 2 3
1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1
3 2 1 1
4 2 2 1
5 3 2 2
6 3 2 2
7 4 3 2
8 4 3 2
9 5 3 3
10 5 4 3
11 6 4 3
12 6 4 3
13 7 5 4
14 7 5 4
15 8 5 4
16 8 6 4
17 9 6 5
18 9 6 5
19 10 7 5
20 10 7 5
21 11 7 6
22 11 8 6
23 12 8 6
24 12 8 6

So, after 12 sessions:

• a single class character will be 6th level
  
• a dual class character will be 4th level
  
• a triple class character will be 3rd level
  

So, after 24 sessions:

• a single class character will be 12th level
  
• a dual class character will be 8th level
  
• a triple class character will be 6th level
  

I'm going to try it out and see how it goes.

I like the concept of a Leadership feat but think that it could be implemented completely differently. I constructed a house ruled Leadership that lets the character with the feat get some of the types of abilities that a 4E Warlord gets (helping his team etc.)

As additional info, I am also planning to use an "Action Point" system and the Leadership feat ties into those Action Points.

Here is the wording I currently have. My first PF campaign is set to begin the 1st weekend in October so I have some time to change or fix wording etc so please feel free to let me know if I'm completely on crack here :)

Leadership [General]
Your inspiring words and deeds make your allies more effective in battle.
Prerequisite: Charisma 13, Intelligence 12
Benefit: This feat provides multiple benefits. All effects only benefit allies within 30’ of you, and with whom you have line of sight to.

• All allies gain a +1 morale bonus to initiative rolls. This benefit is in effect at all times.
  
• You gain 2 additional Action Points (see below) at each level.
  
• You may give your Action Points to allies. Giving/receiving an Action point does not require an action.
  

Action Points
All characters gain 5 Action Points at each level. Each point can be exchanged:

• for an extra Standard, Move, or Minor (formerly called Swift) Action.
  
• for a bonus 1d4 per 4 levels that can be added to (or removed from) any d20 roll you make or that directly affects your character. For example, levels 1-4 +1d4; levels 5-8 2d4; levels 9-12 3d4; etc.
  
• to treat any damage roll you make as if you had rolled maximum on the dice. You may decide after rolling damage.
  
• to treat any damage roll made against your character as if the attacker had rolled minimum on the dice. You may decide after damage has been rolled.
  
• for an immediate saving throw to break an ongoing affect which you have already failed a saving throw against.
  
• for a free Recovery (see below) action (does not use your recovery action).
  

No more than one point can be used by one PC per round (unless given an Action Point by a character with the Leadership feat).

The Leadership Feat allows a player to spend Action Points to aid his allies. Action Points received from a character with the Leadership feat may be spent in addition to a characters own Action points. For example, if a player uses one of his own Action points to gain an additional Move action he could also spend a point received from a character with the Leadership feat in the same round.

Recovery Action
I am also using a 4E style "Second Wind" / "Healing Surge" concept called a Recovery Action. This action allows a PC (as a Move action) to recover LEVEL+Con modifier in HP. A character can gets 1 Recovery Action per day per point of Con bonus +1.

** The point of the Recovery Action is to attempt to extend the 15 minute adventuring day a bit.

I also have Greater Leadership and True Leadership feats that have Leadership as a prereq and in the case of Greater Leadership, gives more Action Points and a bonus to attack rolls to allies nearby, and in the case of True Leadership, the character actually gets some non-adventuring followers who work to establish a base of operations for the PC.

Thoughts?

I honestly thing we should go back to 1e/2e style multiclassing and make it cost a feat. Because the 3e experience chart progression doesn't level off you avoid the problem of multiclass characters catching up and only being a level behind. Just make the character divide his experience between two classes. By the time the party is 20th level, your multiclassed character is 14/14 level which is a bit better than being 10/10. I thought about giving a 20% cost break for favored class which would make the multiclassed character 16/16 by the time everyone is 20th level. Of course, I do hate characters with ECLs and I dislike prestige classes so this doesn't answer those concerns unless somebody has an idea.

I was thinking something similar, to just let players multi-class the old way but I'm concerned it would break too many things. You could make the multi-class feat say something like "a character with the multi-class feat may not have a prestige class". I dunno, I do strongly like the idea of classic multi-classing but just too afraid of what else would break.

I know it is not really relative to the specific topic of this thread, but it is still about Turn Undead...

I really don't like the mechanics for Turn Undead in D&D 3rd edition. Too many rolls, too many modifiers, too complicated, too slow.
I prefer to turn around the concept, and instead of the cleric making a roll, the undead are making it.
This is inspired by the variant in Unearthed Arcana.

Technically, it's a saving throw against the turn.
The DC is 10 + cleric level level + Charisma modifier.
In case of a turn resistance it is added to the save.
If the save is failed, the creature is under an effect similar to fear, even if immune to mind effects.
The creatures of HD inferior to half the cleric's level must flee.
The cleric can use this ability 3 times a day, plus his Charisma modifier and the ability affects one creature per level plus his Charisma modifier.

I *love* that. Simple and clean, although I'd maybe want to limit the maximum HD a cleric can affect, maybe something like Level + Chr modifier as max HD he can affect or something.

Just a thought...comments?

Excellent idea, makes sense, and gives Rogues somewhere else to put skills.