Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Why was the Cleric's Turn ability changed from 3.5?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

401 to 450 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Timothy Withem wrote:

I haven't read this entire thread front to back, but this was always my problem with 3.5 turning...

scenario - a small village is being attacked by undead from the local graveyard at night and they request the aid of our brave heroes to stop the undead from picking off travellers in the middle of the night. In comes the group, making their way into the cemetary at dusk and awaiting the rising of the undead menace.

The sun sets and suddenly, the foul creatures begin clawing their way from the earth and moving toward our heroes. Cue the cleric, holy symbol aloft: "Foul and unnatural creatures, flee form the holy might of (insert deity name here)!" The roll succeeds, causing a group of undead to flee...into the nearby village the group was asked to protect. Good job, cleric! You're useless again (actually not just useless...counter-productive).

It's counter-productive to get 10 rounds to destroy the undead while not risking injury to anyone? How does PF channel compare in that scenario? Cute contrived situation though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
The Pathfinder cleric ability to deal with undead requires more work to function; not only do you have to put effort toward increasing your save DC, but you must take a feat for a failed save to have an effect (1/30 to 1/10 of a creature's total hit points doesn't count as a meaningful effect).

But it can still have an effect and it has an effect beyond just harming undead and can do them both at the same time. Turn Undead does not. I get it, channel energy isn't as good as people want but the reality is still that it is useful more often and in more situations for more levels than Turn Undead. Versatility is important with an ability. Channel energy is more versatile.

Shadow Lodge

Is the gaveyard in the center of town or something? And what about the extremely ueless Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard that are just standing there rather than cutting down the undead while they flee, (except now divided and unable to attack back. . .), all making the Cleric look good?

The PF alternatives: 1.) waste a healing because it is not needed yet, 2.) likely fail to Turn anything, but at a much closer range this time, (and if it does suceed, exact same issue you described), or 3.) Channel to harm Undead, which does nothing for the party, does not slow anything down, and basically does the equivalent of a scratch, if they fail their saves.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
But it can still have an effect and it has an effect beyond just harming undead and can do them both at the same time. Turn Undead does not. I get it, channel energy isn't as good as people want but the reality is still that it is useful more often and in more situations for more levels than Turn Undead. Versatility is important with an ability. Channel energy is more versatile.

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone thought it was a good idea to put the ability to harm undead and the ability to heal allies together. If you have to subtract from your resource pool that is normally reserved to provide between combat healing to you allies to become a minor inconvience to undead at best, why bother even having the ability. Channel's ability to harm is far outclassed by its ability to heal, meaning their is pretty much no good situation to use the ability. Channel easily could've been added to the cleric without removing a special option from dealing with undead, especially considering how few class features they have as it is.


shallowsoul, the point is that with your anti-undead build the cleric has had to sacrifice every other feat and possible other ability in order to be effective against undead when using Turn Undead. Your build has one purpose in life, to turn undead. He hasnt taken any spell boosting or combat boosting feats or abilities. You focused his all of his options into one class feature that may or may not have an effect in the game and might not even be used.

Channel Positive Energy is infinitely better in that it can be used for other things than fighting undead. You do not have to waste feats to try to make use of that class feature. Now, with that said channel positive energy is a subpar option against most undead (unless they are massed). But, you are not forced to burn everything you have just to make channeling useful.

Neither Turn Undead nor Channel Positive Energy affect undead the way people want without seriously implementing resources into those abilities. However, channel positive energy offers a second use that is always useful.

BTW, if you are going to build an 'uber turn undead' cleric you might as well try to build an 'uber channel energy' cleric just to compare the two.

- Gauss

Shadow Lodge

Because people still insist that the Cleric is too powerful and best, and the Beta Cleric Channeling was too much fun and useful.


Beckett wrote:
The PF alternatives: 1.) waste a healing because it is not needed yet, 2.) likely fail to Turn anything, but at a much closer range this time, (and if it does suceed, exact same issue you described), or 3.) Channel to harm Undead, which does nothing for the party, does not slow anything down, and basically does the equivalent of a scratch, if they fail their saves.

Exactly.

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
The Pathfinder cleric ability to deal with undead requires more work to function; not only do you have to put effort toward increasing your save DC, but you must take a feat for a failed save to have an effect (1/30 to 1/10 of a creature's total hit points doesn't count as a meaningful effect).
But it can still have an effect and it has an effect beyond just harming undead and can do them both at the same time. Turn Undead does not. I get it, channel energy isn't as good as people want but the reality is still that it is useful more often and in more situations for more levels than Turn Undead. Versatility is important with an ability. Channel energy is more versatile.

Actually Channel is not more versatile. You are ignoring all of the feats that you can pick up for Turn Undead that can enable you to do other things with your Turn Undead attempts.

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

shallowsoul, the point is that with your anti-undead build the cleric has had to sacrifice every other feat and possible other ability in order to be effective against undead when using Turn Undead. Your build has one purpose in life, to turn undead. He hasnt taken any spell boosting or combat boosting feats or abilities. You focused his all of his options into one class feature that may or may not have an effect in the game and might not even be used.

Channel Positive Energy is infinitely better in that it can be used for other things than fighting undead. You do not have to waste feats to try to make use of that class feature. Now, with that said channel positive energy is a subpar option against most undead (unless they are massed). But, you are not forced to burn everything you have just to make channeling useful.

Neither Turn Undead nor Channel Positive Energy affect undead the way people want without seriously implementing resources into those abilities. However, channel positive energy offers a second use that is always useful.

BTW, if you are going to build an 'uber turn undead' cleric you might as well try to build an 'uber channel energy' cleric just to compare the two.

- Gauss

Sacrifice what exactly? What other feats do the cleric really need to take?

Go ahead and try to build an "uber" Channel Energy build and I can promise you that my build will get the job done a lot better.


shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
The Pathfinder cleric ability to deal with undead requires more work to function; not only do you have to put effort toward increasing your save DC, but you must take a feat for a failed save to have an effect (1/30 to 1/10 of a creature's total hit points doesn't count as a meaningful effect).
But it can still have an effect and it has an effect beyond just harming undead and can do them both at the same time. Turn Undead does not. I get it, channel energy isn't as good as people want but the reality is still that it is useful more often and in more situations for more levels than Turn Undead. Versatility is important with an ability. Channel energy is more versatile.
Actually Channel is not more versatile. You are ignoring all of the feats that you can pick up for Turn Undead that can enable you to do other things with your Turn Undead attempts.

Not this again.

Look, Channeling positive energy is by default more versatile - right out of the book, without any feats to modify it - , because it has two applications: harm undead, or heal the living.

Turning - right out of the book, without any feats to modify it - just does one thing: make undead flee or destroy them, if you're lucky.


Fabius Maximus wrote:

Not this again.

Look, Channeling positive energy is by default more versatile - right out of the book, without any feats to modify it - , because it has two applications: harm undead, or heal the living.

Turning - right out of the book, without any feats to modify it - just does one thing: make undead flee or destroy them, if you're lucky.

I disagree.

3.5 Turn Undead: (1) Make undead flee or (2) destroy them on occassion.

PF Channel Positive Energy: (1) Heal allies or (2)...pretend to help in combat against undead while really just wasting your turn and a valuable healing resource. Go team!

Shadow Lodge

Or Bolster Undead (for Rebuking) or Command Deathless. Bolstering is about as useful as Channeling to Harm Undead, I would say.

Shadow Lodge

The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:

Not this again.

Look, Channeling positive energy is by default more versatile - right out of the book, without any feats to modify it - , because it has two applications: harm undead, or heal the living.

Turning - right out of the book, without any feats to modify it - just does one thing: make undead flee or destroy them, if you're lucky.

I disagree.

3.5 Turn Undead: (1) Make undead flee or (2) destroy them on occassion.

PF Channel Positive Energy: (1) Heal allies or (2)...pretend to help in combat against undead while really just wasting your turn and a valuable healing resource. Go team!

Pretty sure they are referring to the healing be useful right out of the book, which it is(ish).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Anecdotal stuff.
----
I have a cleric in my party. She has like 20 Charisma, Sun and Healing Domain. Her feats include: Turn Undead, Alignment Channel (Evil), Selective Channeling, Improved Channeling. Oh, and she's 15th level.

In combat terms, her healing channels are empowered (i.e. 7d6 times 1.5), and her undead damage is 7d6+15 (DC 24, all turning resistance modifiers are ignored). She can also damage evil outsiders or make undead flee.

In other words, she can do all 3.5 cleric could, she can do it better (Will DC 24, with all turning resistances ignored) and she still gets other neat abilities (her favorite tactic is to summon lillends or elementals, and, so-to speak, go to war with her own private army), using her channels to keep her army (and the part alive).

By herself she can pretty much allow her party to ignore any constant damage effect for enough rounds to make a difference. That's of course in addition to stuff her pet summons do, or spell she casts. No wonder she wields no weapons or wear armor - to get to her you need to get through thick wall of bouncers.
----
Turn Undead can be the most self-damaging abilities as the party discovered once. You DON'T panic intelligent incorporeal undead. Period.
Unless you want them to come back later, hide in solid objects (like walls) and kill you with life stealing/ability damage/negative levels.

The party fears the specters. And wraiths. Vampires? Sunbeam plus spoon. Liches? Dimensional Anchor plus heavy whacks (the usual liches, not the uberbastard end-game villains). Horde of Shadows/Specters/Wraiths? Rrrrrrruuuunnnn!

Regards,
Ruemere


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
The Pathfinder cleric ability to deal with undead requires more work to function; not only do you have to put effort toward increasing your save DC, but you must take a feat for a failed save to have an effect (1/30 to 1/10 of a creature's total hit points doesn't count as a meaningful effect).
But it can still have an effect and it has an effect beyond just harming undead and can do them both at the same time. Turn Undead does not. I get it, channel energy isn't as good as people want but the reality is still that it is useful more often and in more situations for more levels than Turn Undead. Versatility is important with an ability. Channel energy is more versatile.
Actually Channel is not more versatile. You are ignoring all of the feats that you can pick up for Turn Undead that can enable you to do other things with your Turn Undead attempts.

Perhaps we're not using the same definition of "versatile." Channel energy has more options in more cases than turn undead. That means it's more versatile. You may not think it's a better ability, but that doesn't mean it's not more versatile. Besides turning undead, without any feats or magic items, what else does turn undead do? Channel energy can heal or harm and it can do both at the same time. By definition it is more versatile.

Shadow Lodge

Both at the same time?


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Perhaps we're not using the same definition of "versatile." Channel energy has more options in more cases than turn undead. That means it's more versatile. You may not think it's a better ability, but that doesn't mean it's not more versatile. Besides turning undead, without any feats or magic items, what else does turn undead do? Channel energy can heal or harm and it can do both at the same time. By definition it is more versatile.

The healing of channel positive energy may be applicable in more situations that turn undead, but channel energy does pretty much nothing in the way of damage against undead, so it isn't fair to present it as a reasonable option.


The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
The "undead stuff" isn't secondary; it's a waste of space and an appeal to flavor. It's almost like PF copy-pasted 90% of their rules and fumbled when they had to create their own stuff (channel hurting undead, combat maneuvers...).

Elusive jack, I can not agree with you more. Some terrible rules in PF.


shallowsoul wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

It's still situational.

1) It can only be used against undead
2) It isn't desirable to use all the time against undead

Even if you get an ability to apply it to other types of creatures, 2 still applies.

What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish with this argument? Tell me what 'winning' looks like.

It's supposed to be used against undead. Why do you think it's called "Turn Undead"?

Why isn't it desirable? I can tell you that myself and a lot of people I know use it.

What are you trying to accomplish with this argument? You keep spouting bits of opinion with anything to back you up. I have already presented facts that show the ability is perfectly capable of handling undead. Corner cases like the 20HD zombie are not good arguments against the ability.

Winning is the dust that gets blown into the wind from all those undead that I just destroyed and the satisfaction on the other party member's faces.

1) it's not useful when fighting non-undead. Therefore, it is only useful some of the time, namely all the times you don't fight undead. Even in Ravenloft, you don't always fight undead.

2) I've already covered situations it isn't necessarily desired to have undead flee from you. It has happened in a campaign I played, so I know it is possible and you can't prove otherwise, unless you're flat out calling me a liar, because I was the cleric, and I didn't turn because I felt it was a poor tactical option.

I meant winning in this debate, not a scenario. What is it you think you are going to convince me of?

I've been playing 3.X for 10 years, I like Channel Energy better. Is it weaker against undead? Yes, but I don't care. Where Turn Undead is strong enough to destroy, those monsters are already easy to defeat. I will take the free out of combat healing that doesn't waste my spells or require me to buy a wand.


I agree with you guys. Turn Undead is more effective against undead.

I don't care. I appreciate the free healing more. I'll memorize some searing lights if I need to.


ruemere wrote:

Anecdotal stuff.

----
I have a cleric in my party. She has like 20 Charisma, Sun and Healing Domain. Her feats include: Turn Undead, Alignment Channel (Evil), Selective Channeling, Improved Channeling. Oh, and she's 15th level.

In combat terms, her healing channels are empowered (i.e. 7d6 times 1.5),

As far as I know there is no feat or ability that grant your healing channeling x 1,5. Is this a houserule?

Also, You have a char 20 and invested 4 feats. A 3.5 cleric with those investment would be good at turning too.

As for the healing part...again: Channel as healing in battle SUCKS unless you use quicken channel. After battle use wands, and as pointed out a 3.5 clerics did have more spells per day that the cleric in pathfinder. But really, you don't really need a cleric to heal people.

From TriOmegaZero's page: Why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric.

A Player's Guide To Healing by OneWinged4ngel:

(And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal)
Healin'. Patchin' up the wounds. Sewing the Fighter's larynx back in after he took an arrow through the neck and lived and wanted to tell about it. Every player knows the drill. But oddly, a lot of players just use really... silly methods of going about healing themselves, and have some wild misconceptions about how to do it effectively and even how much of a priority it should be.
The Problems
Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't, many even spend inordinate amounts of money on extremely inefficient healing items that may hurt them more than help them.
To summarize a few common issues:
Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them.
Players spend too much money on healing, often spending wads of cash on things like potions of Cure Moderate Wounds.
Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment.
Many players just don't know how to get the best healing for their buck.
Some Information and Comparisons
First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. The reason for this is simple. The cost is exorbitant, and it's really not worth it. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, 18.5 hp, and it will cost you 750gp, and it will take either a standard or a full round action to use, and it will provoke AoOs unless you did some further investment to prevent that, and on top of that it probably smells bad and tastes bitter. Yuck. For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? And hey, wouldn't you like the option to heal even more for efficiency, outside of battle? There's even another option, this one for artificers, that costs a mere 50 gp a pop: Infuse an ally with Greater Healing armor. This will give them 6d8+30 total healing (3d8+15 as a swift action, usable twice). As an added bonus, it will even automatically heal you if you get knocked unconscious. The point is... potions are bad. Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth.
Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously.
First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option.
Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt.
Actually, the Artificer can prove to be a fantastic healer, cheaply (we're talking 37.5% market price here) turning out healing belts, wands of lesser vigor, and providing Greater Healing armor infusions (a mere second level infusion) at an early level. The Paladin and Ranger can use wands of Cure Light Wounds without penalty, and the others can use UMD to master the efficient wands. On top of that, members of *any* class can easily chip in with the very efficient Healing Belt.
These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards.
How to Heal Effectively
(Author's note: I have excluded a few very potent and efficient means of healing because things like the infinite-healing-for-cheap trap and other such things are just plain abusive, and few sane DMs will allow them)
Blessed Bandages (10gp, MiC page 152): 10gp to automatically succeed to stabilize an ally. Can definitely save a friend at very low levels.
Wands of Cure Light Wounds (750gp, Core): The hallmark of efficiency. These wands will dish out an average of 5.5hp a pop, and with 50 charges that will add up to 275 total healing. This wand gains an advantage over Lesser Vigor in two respects: Speed of use, and the fact that Lesser Vigor is a Cleric and Druid only spell, and thus is only available to those classes and UMD users, while Paladins and Rangers and the like will stick to Cure Light Wounds.
Wands of Lesser Vigor (750gp, Spell Compendium Page 229): These are the most efficient healing wands around! You get 11 hp per pop (though it takes a full minute to gain that 11 hp), and you get a total of 550hp of healing for your 750gp.
Healing Belts (750gp, MiC page 110): For 750gp, *anyone* can heal 6d8 hp a day, and even burst heal for 4d8hp as a Standard action with a Touch range, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity like spells and scrolls. Also, with the MiC rules for adding common effects, you don't even need to worry about "keeping the slot free" anymore. You can actually just say, give one of these to everyone in a party of 5 for 30d8 healing per day, and just subsidize your healing costs. This is a great way to keep everyone alive at low levels. As if this weren't good enough, you get feel-good +2 bonus to Heal checks as a bonus.
Artificers can heal very effectively with Greater Healing Armor (MiC page 12), dishing out 3d8+15 healing *twice* usable as a swift action, and even automatically healing a character should they fall unconscious. Best of all, this only costs you 50gp for a total of 6d8+30hp healing, and is available at a very low level.
Wand of Faith Healing (Spell Compendium): It's kinda cheesy, but it's worth mentioning if your DM allows it. It's exactly the same as Cure Light Wounds, except maximized and only usable on people who share your faith (which can easily just be everyone in your party). I personally don't allow this spell as a DM.
Touch of Healing (Reserve Feat, Complete Champion pg 62): This one is for the actual "healers." As long as you have a healing spell of second level or higher ready to cast, you can heal anyone up to half their total hp (but no higher, meaning you have to use more abilities to fully heal them) for free. Basically, for the cost of a feat, you get a lot of free healing.
Summon Nature's Ally IV (Core): Summoning a Unicorn nets you a free set of 3 CLWs, 1 CMW, and a Neutralize Poison. It has a caster level of 5th, so that'll total 5d8+20 points of healing (and a neutralize poison). It's even something a druid can cast spontaneously. Not bad.
Revivify (Cleric 5, Spell Compendium page 176): Revive your dead buddy for 1000gp as a standard action instead of for 5000gp as a much longer action, and best of all *no level loss.* A no brainer really. You just need to be quick about it, acting within 1 round of the victim's death!
Revenance (Cleric 4, Paladin 4, Bard 6): This spell can target any character that died within 1 round / caster level of casting. The subject comes back to life (as if by Raise Dead except with no penalties) and is able to fight (with a +1 morale bonus on attack, damage, and saves against the person who killer her) for 1 minute per level, at the end of which the character dies again. The real seller here is that it has a wider window to cast than Revivify (1 round / level), and moreover the ally will die at the end of the spell (or after being killed again), often allowing you to use Revivify when it would otherwise be impossible (window passed) or too dangerous (in the middle of combat).
Delay Death (Cleric 4, Spell Compendium page 63): As an *Immediate Action*, the ally becomes unable to die from hit point damage (they'll still fall unconscious, they just won't die.) This means that you can instantaneously cast this spell when a buddy takes their final hit, and they won't die for 1 round/level (during which time you can finish the encounter, then heal them up.) Can definitely be a lifesaver.
Tomb Tainted Soul (Feat, Libris Mortis): This handy feat allows you to be healed by negative energy. This means that a living Dread Necromancer can heal you to full as much as she likes with Charnel Touch, and that you can heal yourself with things like Uttercold metamagiced spells and the like.
Amulet of Retributive Healing (2000gp, MiC Page 69): This handy little doodad lets you double up on your healing 3 times per day. When activated (as a swift action) this amulet allows you to cure yourself of an amount of damage equal to however much you cured your buddy of. So, if you cast Heal on your ally, you can activate this item to use a free quickened Heal on yourself. Works with scrolls and everything, too.
Collar of Healing (5000gp, MiC page 90): As an *Immediate action* once per day, heal your animal companion of 50hp and cures the Fatigued or Exhausted conditions. Keep your little buddy going. As an added bonus, it works at any range (as long as you're on the same plane), and lets you know your companion's exact hit point total at all times.
Heal (Core): Heal is a great spell. It really is. It's the healing spell you actually might want to use in fights fairly often. It heals a ton of damage, and it takes away ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. A laundry list of status effects, some of which are quite deadly in their own right! However, Heal is not a necessary party role in and of itself! Again, you don't actually need *any* in-combat healing to have a highly effective party. Still, when you *do* have a Cleric or Druid around, there's no reason they shouldn't have this ready. If you don't have a Cleric or Druid around, you may want to consider a scroll or two of this for those few situations where you really do want a Heal (i.e., your buddy just got blasted for 100 damage and got stunned to boot).
Divine Ward (Feat, PHB II): This feat will help out the "true healers," allowing them to use Close Range instead of Touch Range for their healing spells on one ally by spending your Turning attempts. You can get a similar results with Divine Metamagic (Reach Spell) (Which happens to be doubly useful for, say, a ranged Slay Living).
Augment Healing (Feat, Complete Divine): Add +2 healing per level of the healing spell cast. Simple and effective for a dedicated healer, should you choose to get one.
False Life (Sor/Wiz 2, Core):
Instead of taking up an action to heal during combat, take an action to heal up to 1 hour / level before combat ever happens! See also, Aid (Cleric 2, PHB)
Empathic Transfer (Egoist 2, Psychic Warrior 2, XPH): This useful power is the standy of healing as a Psionic character. The method is a little unique as opposed to standard methods of healing, but it works just as well. You eliminate anywhere from 2d10 to 10d10 (depending on augment) hp of damage from an ally, and transfer half of that damage onto yourself. Combined with Vigor (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH), and Share Pain (Psion 2, XPH) both shared to your psicrystal through Share Powers, the temporary hit points will absorb all of the damage.
Vigor (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH): This power giives you 5 temporary hit points per power point spent, lasting for a minute per level. It's like healing *before* you ever take damage, and lets you buff beforehand in order to avoid the need to heal in combat.
Amulet of Tears (2300gp, MiC page 70): Another source of temporary hit points, this handy item stores 3 charges per day and grants temporary hit points lasting for 10 minutes based on the number of charges spent. For 1 charge, you gain 12 tmporary hit points, and for 3 charges grants 24 temporary hit points.
Share Pain (Psion 2, XPH): This power transfers half of the damage dealt to you to a willing subject, and thus helps a good deal with damage mitigation. It lasts for an hour per level, so can last for a full day's worth of encounters, and a popular use is to combine it with a Vigor (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH) power shared with your psicrystal and make your psicrystal the subject, effectively doubling the effect of vigor and transferring a good deal of hp damage onto a target that is often a noncombatant.
Shield Other (Cleric 2, Paladin 2, Core): This is much like Share Pain, except it deals half of an ally's damage to you, helping you to protect them. It also adds a +1 resistance bonus to saves and a +1 deflection bonus to AC for the target, as an added plus.
Vampiric Touch (Sor/Wiz 3, Duskblade 3, Core): 1d6 damage per two levels, and gain temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. This spell is notable for combining offensive abilities and effective in-combat "healing" into the same attack. This spell is useful in spell storing weapons, or channeled through a Duskblade's "Arcane Channelling" ability. It is generally *not* a good idea for the average mage to run up into melee and try to touch an enemy with it, because the damage will be low and the temporary hp probably won't save you from a world of pain (unless you have other protective spells and such up). Also note that if you're an Unseen Seer or Arcane Trickster, you can increase the amount healed with sneak attacks!
Bloodstone weapon enhancement (+1, page 29 MiC): Stores and casts Vampiric Touch just like a spell storing weapon, except that it's automatically empowered. Basically, this will deal extra damage on attacks equal to (1d6 per two caster levels)*1.5, *and* give the wielder of the weapon temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. Thus, you're adding to damage and to healing at the same time! See also: Vampiric Touch.
Bodyfeeder weapon enhancement (+3 bonus, XPH): This handy enhancement will grant its wielder temporary hit points equal to the damage dealt by any critical hit he dishes out. With an expanded critical hit range, you can expect this to give a steady stream of temporary hp. This enhancement can be granted by an artificer spending a 3rd level infusion and a small amount of gp. (Note: Though "Wrathful Healing" is almost certainly more effective, it's much less likely to be allowed)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@others.
The "Only 3.5 core book vs Pathfinder Core book" argument is just bad or straight out dishonest.

Pathfinder is based on 3.X (and even some 2nd ed) and hence Paizo could from the start fix what needed to be fix and add the feat that people wanted, and what feets the Devs thought the game needed.

Especially since the creation of Pathfinder was based on the experience from people - including the Devs - playing the game since 2000 and from the Game test feedback from the community.

I haven't counted all the feats in both book but I bet that there are far more feats (and spells) in Pathfinder that the 3.5 core book.

Also, why shouldn't we use Splatbooks and what count as Splatbooks ? I mostly use only the Core book and The APG, but we as a gaming group use Core, APG, UC, UM and Inner sea world Guide.
My cleric has Quick Channel from UM and she has a subdomain from the APG.
One of the other players play a Magus (UM), the two others play archetypes from APG and most players have picked feats or spells from all four books.
So only core book counts and APG, UC and UM are all Splatbooks ?
No Dervish Dance? Is the Inner sea world Guide is a Splatbooks ?

C'mon.
Pathfinder is a mash of 3.5 core book + 3.5 Splatbooks + game play experience + world largest playtest + some really great and innovative ideas.
Core vs. Core as a fair comparison is just nonsense. Pathfinder is already part Splatbook and people playing this game do use APG, UC, UM and other stuff.

3.5 was tweaked by the use of splatbooks. Pathfinder is too, and by errata. They still haven't told us what will happen with the Monk's flurry. So this, high and mighty, attitude that "ability X didn't work properly as it was presented in the core book and we should only look at the core book" doesn't hold any truth to it.

BTW, Need I say that quicken turning was a free action, that extra turning granted 4 more turnings per day and that it didn't cost you 2 turnings you use it and that there were A LOT of Divine feats that was based on turning.


Irontruth wrote:

I agree with you guys. Turn Undead is more effective against undead.

I don't care. I appreciate the free healing more. I'll memorize some searing lights if I need to.

I sort of agree with you, but I would like some more Channeling love.

Some more items and some tweeking. Perhaps a feat that lets you boost Channeling healing/damage twice per day.

Make Variant Channeling feats that lets you use core channel and X times per day you can instead use one of the Variant Channeling options.


The following is NOT a comparison of Turn undead compared to 3.5 undead but it is instead a comparison of 3.5 turning imported into PF in its entirety and compared to PF undead. IE: If the feat or ability is turn undead related, import it. Primarily I am looking at 3.5’s PHB, DMG, and Complete Divine.

Let us assume a cleric of with a 14 charisma and the Domains of Glory and Sun. (Both are in 3.5 and PF)

3.5: +2bonus to turning (Charisma) +2bonus to turning +1d6 damage (Glory domain),+1level (Improved Turning feat), +2turning check @level 2 (5ranks religion).
Total: +4turning (6@lvl2), +1level, +1d6+2 damage
Equipment: Phylactery of Undead Turning (+4turning level, 11000gp, acquire at level 10)
Spell: Eagle’s Splendor at level 3 (+2 turning check and damage, able to cast at level 3)

PF: +2DC(Charisma), +2DC (Glory domain), +level in damage(Sun domain), no turn resistance (Sun domain), +1DC (Sacred Conduit trait), +2DC (Improved Channel feat)
Total: +7DC, +level in damage, no turn resistance.
Equipment: Phlactery of Positive Channeling (+2d6damage, 11000gp, acquire at level 10)
Spell: Eagle’s Splendor (+2DC, able to cast at level 3)

For the Turn Undead (feat) the DC boost would be: +5 (since the Glory Domain appears to not apply, if it does increase chance of success by 10%).

Comparison:

The following assumes level=CR battles (minimum level 1) and assume the above stats. It also assumes that, in the case of templates, we are using the example creatures in the bestiary. We could apply those templates to all sorts of creatures to come up with all sorts of results but that would increase the sample size to rediculous proportions.

Note: All results are averages. Damage is calculated this way: (%chance of success*avg damage+%chance of failure*avg damage/2).

Skeleton: CR1/3, 1HD, 4hp, Will+2
3.5 result: 90% chance of success, 14.5 skeletons destroyed
PF Turn result: 60% chance of success.
PF damage result: 3.825damage = 1.05channels

Zombie: CR1/2, 2HD, 12hp, Will+3
3.5 result: 75% chance of success, 7.25zombies turned
PF Turn result: 55% chance of success.
PF damage result: 3.7125damage = 3.23channels

Ghoul: CR1, 2HD, 13hp, Will+5, +2resistance
3.5 result: 35% chance of success, will affect 3.63 Ghouls turned
PF Turn result: 45% chance of success
PF damage result: 3.4875damage = 3.73channels

Skeletal Champion: CR2, 3HD, 17hp, Will+3, +4resistance
3.5 result: 25% chance of success, will affect 2.21 Skeletal Champions turned
PF Turn result: 60% chance of success
PF damage result: 4.675damage = 3.64channels

Shadow: CR3, 3HD, 19hp, Will+4, +2resistance
3.5 result: 80% chance of success, will affect 3.7shadows turned
PF Turn result: 65%
PF damage result: 8.75damage = 2.17channels

Wight: CR3, 4HD, 26hp, Will+5
3.5 result: 95% chance of success, will affect 4.625 Wights turned
PF Turn result: 60%
PF damage result: 8.5damage = 3.06channels

Mummy: CR5, 8HD, 60hp, Will+8
3.5 result: 65% chance of success, 2.56 Mummies turned
PF Turn result: 50%
PF damage result: 12.4damage = 4.84channels

Wraith: CR5, 5HD, 47hp, Will+6, +2resistance
3.5 result: 80% chance of success, 2.93 Wraiths turned
PF Turn result: 60%
PF damage result: 13.175damage = 3.57channels

Ghost: CR7, 7HD, 73HP, Will+7, +4resistance
3.5 result: 50% chance of success, 2.05 Ghosts turned
PF Turn result: 60%
PF damage result: 17.85damage = 4.09channels

Spectre: CR7, 8HD, 52hp, Will+9, +2resistance
3.5 result: 65% chance of success, 2.25 Spectres turned
PF Turn result: 50%
PF damage result: 16.8damage = 3.1channels

Greater Shadow: CR8, 9HD, 58HP, Will+7, +2resistance
3.5 result: 65% chance of success, 2.14 Greater Shadows turned
PF Turn result: 65%
PF damage result 19.25damage = 3.01channels

Mohrg: CR8, 14HD, 91hp, Will+9
3.5 result: 0% chance of success, 0.0 Mohrg turned
PF Turn result: 55%
PF damage result: 18.15damage = 5.01channels

Vampire: CR9, 8HD, 102hp, Will+12, +4resistance
3.5 result: 65% chance of success, 2.04 Vampires turned
PF Turn result: 40%
PF damage result: 19.875damage = 5.13channels

Devourer: CR11, 14HD, 133HP, Will+12
3.5 result: 100% chance of turning, 2.18 Devourer’s turned. (Note: 65% chance without phylactery)
PF Turn result: 45% (Note: if the 3.5 Phylactery were allowed this would be 55%)
PF damage result: 30.225damage = 4.4channels (Note: 24.8damage without the phylactery)

Lich: CR12, 11HD, 111hp, Will+11, +4resistance
3.5 result: 100% chance of turning, 2.1 Liches turned. (Note: 65% chance without phlactery.)
PF Turn result: 55% (Note: if the 3.5 phylactery were allowed this would be 65%)
PF damage result: 33damage = 3.36channels (Note: 27.225damage without the phylactery)

From this it appears that PF Turn Undead is less wonky (averages around 50% odds with no outliers whereas 3.5turn undead has numerous outliers).

Regarding damage, its only use is for destroying weak undead or incorporeal undead.

I still prefer the idea of Channel Energy. I still prefer its usefulness for healing. However, unless hitting massed small undead it is not worth using. I could easily see the channel energy ability being doubled in damage (not healing) without adversely affecting the game. Something along the lines of 1d6/level. Note: this would require the Phylactery of X Energy being changed to 4d6 to keep it consistent.

- Gauss


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
The Pathfinder cleric ability to deal with undead requires more work to function; not only do you have to put effort toward increasing your save DC, but you must take a feat for a failed save to have an effect (1/30 to 1/10 of a creature's total hit points doesn't count as a meaningful effect).
But it can still have an effect and it has an effect beyond just harming undead and can do them both at the same time. Turn Undead does not. I get it, channel energy isn't as good as people want but the reality is still that it is useful more often and in more situations for more levels than Turn Undead. Versatility is important with an ability. Channel energy is more versatile.
Actually Channel is not more versatile. You are ignoring all of the feats that you can pick up for Turn Undead that can enable you to do other things with your Turn Undead attempts.
Perhaps we're not using the same definition of "versatile." Channel energy has more options in more cases than turn undead. That means it's more versatile. You may not think it's a better ability, but that doesn't mean it's not more versatile. Besides turning undead, without any feats or magic items, what else does turn undead do? Channel energy can heal or harm and it can do both at the same time. By definition it is more versatile.

Exactly.


Gauss wrote:
I could easily see the channel energy ability being doubled in damage (not healing) without adversely affecting the game. Something along the lines of 1d6/level. Note: this would require the Phylactery of X Energy being changed to 4d6 to keep it consistent.

I would support this (then the damage could at least be notable, even if it is only fireball damage), though would still prefer an adverse effect on undead. Perhaps undead should be vulnerable to positive energy as well?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zark wrote:
ruemere wrote:

Anecdotal stuff.

----
I have a cleric in my party. She has like 20 Charisma, Sun and Healing Domain. Her feats include: Turn Undead, Alignment Channel (Evil), Selective Channeling, Improved Channeling. Oh, and she's 15th level.

In combat terms, her healing channels are empowered (i.e. 7d6 times 1.5),

As far as I know there is no feat or ability that grant your healing channeling x 1,5. Is this a houserule?

Healing domain power.

Quote:
Also, You have a char 20 and invested 4 feats. A 3.5 cleric with those investment would be good at turning too.

All I'm saying is that she can act like 3.5 cleric, too. Hence, this thread is really groundless.

Quote:
As for the healing part...again: Channel as healing in battle SUCKS unless you use quicken channel. After battle use wands, and as pointed out a 3.5 clerics did have more spells per day that the cleric in pathfinder. But really, you don't really need a cleric to heal people.

So? That was just to prove that one can Turn Undead in PFRPG.

Also, all nice spell toys can be used up. Just don't let the PCs rest. And then you're really thankful for those channels.

Regards,
Ruemere


2 people marked this as a favorite.

ruemere: The healing Domain power affects Cure Spells only. It does not affect channel positive energy, heal spells, breath of life or any other healing effect that does not have the word 'cure' in it.

- Gauss


Yes, That's why I said: (As far as I know) there is no feat or ability that grant your healing channeling x 1,5.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dorn Of Citadel Adbar wrote:

Ok, I'm playing in a pathfinder game and I would really like to know why in the Hell did they change the whole turning aspect of the Clerics? I mean in all of the versions so far you had to present your holy symbol and try and turn said bad undead creatures. But now its an area of affect ability. WTF?? You still have to present your Holy symbol, but it now affects everything within 30ft. Even the stuff you didn't know was there? REALLY.

Can someone please explain to me why this was changed to this nerfed aspect. I'm ok with the whole channel energy thing, kinda. I still don't think a 1st lvl cleric should be able to harm a greater undead creature, but oh well.
Actually no just please tell me where to look or explain in detail, because I will be asking questions.

I'm late to the show, but here's a couple of reasons that have probably already been addressed...

1) Turning was always an AoE.
2) Turning was damn useless against far too many undead in 3.x (see below).
3) Turning now affects all undead at least a little, and can heal your party giving you more options.
4) Turning now has a Turn Undead feat that forces undead to flee if they fail a saving throw (still better than old turning).

In 3.x, turning requires your Cleric to roll several times. First you roll a "turning check" which is 1d20 plus your Charisma modifier. This is to determine the most powerful undead creature you may turn with this attempt. With a 15 Charisma, you will statistically turn undead with HD equal to yours 50% of the time, and +1 HD higher 50% of the time. Maximum HD + 4 (for rolling a 22+) and minimum HD -4 (for a 0 or lower). So if a 3rd level cleric rolls a 12, then he can turn enemies f 3 HD or lower.

THEN the cleric makes a "turning damage" check. You roll 2d6 + your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. Now the average roll is 7 HD + level + charisma. So that 3rd level cleric with a whopping 15 Charisma (seriously, 15 means it's a prime stat) is going to turn about 12 HD worth of undead, but no undead higher than 3 HD.

So our cleric runs into a group of 1 HD skeletons. He turns and destroys them with no issues. However, later his group encounters a a chimera skeleton. Now the chimera skeleton is only CR 4, but has 9 HD. The cleric more than likely will be wasting actions trying to turn it.

Then you also had turn resistance. Most undead that weren't mindless wimps have at least a +2 turn resistance. Some had as much as +4. Turn resistance was added to the monster's HD to see if they could turn or destroy them. This was a big problem for clerics, because it was already difficult to turn creatures with more hit dice than themselves, and they had difficulties driving off multiple low-CR foes because their turned-HD divided so quickly, especially at higher levels.

In essence, Turning Sucked. And it sucked hard. At higher levels, it was nearly useless. Until you applied certain prestige classes to it, which either made it obscenely overpowered, or still completely useless (because either you were obliterating undead, or there are no undead to obliterate).

Now Pathfinder's Channel Energy is much more appropriate. For one, you're channeling positive energy which means it should heal living things. That is after all what positive energy does. Whenever you use it you're guaranteed to do something, even if the enemies save vs the channel and take a tiny bit of damage. It makes it a decent AoE for sweeping mooks, and has applications when you're not fighting undead. With the feat, you turn it into an AoE with a kicker effect. The kicker effect is actually more reliable in my experiences than original turning.

Example: Our 3rd level cleric, in Pathfinder our cleric has 2d6 points of positive energy per blast, and a DC 13 saving throw DC for Turn Undead. He is surrounded by a group of zombies and decides to just blast it out while his friends are whittling them to pieces. Every round he pops an AoE to deal an average of 7 damage to all the zombies with a will save for half. Alternatively, he forces them all to make will saves or be panicked.

Even if he encounters a 9 HD monster, he can still try to hurt it, or even force it into a panic by spamming Turn Undead. Before he couldn't even try. This also means multiple clerics can assist one-another by all channeling together. While this might mean nothing to some, I enjoy it for thematic reasons, since I think that surrounding an enemy with 20 low-level clerics should still channel enough positive energy to at least be an annoyance to a higher level undead creature (and in this case they are either channeling to try and force the big bad to roll a 1 on his saving throw, or are piling on so much chip-damage as to force him to break).

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
The Pathfinder cleric ability to deal with undead requires more work to function; not only do you have to put effort toward increasing your save DC, but you must take a feat for a failed save to have an effect (1/30 to 1/10 of a creature's total hit points doesn't count as a meaningful effect).
But it can still have an effect and it has an effect beyond just harming undead and can do them both at the same time. Turn Undead does not. I get it, channel energy isn't as good as people want but the reality is still that it is useful more often and in more situations for more levels than Turn Undead. Versatility is important with an ability. Channel energy is more versatile.
Actually Channel is not more versatile. You are ignoring all of the feats that you can pick up for Turn Undead that can enable you to do other things with your Turn Undead attempts.
Perhaps we're not using the same definition of "versatile." Channel energy has more options in more cases than turn undead. That means it's more versatile. You may not think it's a better ability, but that doesn't mean it's not more versatile. Besides turning undead, without any feats or magic items, what else does turn undead do? Channel energy can heal or harm and it can do both at the same time. By definition it is more versatile.

Since there are several books that contain options for Turn Undead attempts, they all need to be looked at.

When taking all those feats into account, 3.5's Turn Undead becomes a lot more versatile because you can turn those attempts into lots of other things to do besides turning undead.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:
Dorn Of Citadel Adbar wrote:

Ok, I'm playing in a pathfinder game and I would really like to know why in the Hell did they change the whole turning aspect of the Clerics? I mean in all of the versions so far you had to present your holy symbol and try and turn said bad undead creatures. But now its an area of affect ability. WTF?? You still have to present your Holy symbol, but it now affects everything within 30ft. Even the stuff you didn't know was there? REALLY.

Can someone please explain to me why this was changed to this nerfed aspect. I'm ok with the whole channel energy thing, kinda. I still don't think a 1st lvl cleric should be able to harm a greater undead creature, but oh well.
Actually no just please tell me where to look or explain in detail, because I will be asking questions.

I'm late to the show, but here's a couple of reasons that have probably already been addressed...

1) Turning was always an AoE.
2) Turning was damn useless against far too many undead in 3.x (see below).
3) Turning now affects all undead at least a little, and can heal your party giving you more options.
4) Turning now has a Turn Undead feat that forces undead to flee if they fail a saving throw (still better than old turning).

In 3.x, turning requires your Cleric to roll several times. First you roll a "turning check" which is 1d20 plus your Charisma modifier. This is to determine the most powerful undead creature you may turn with this attempt. With a 15 Charisma, you will statistically turn undead with HD equal to yours 50% of the time, and +1 HD higher 50% of the time. Maximum HD + 4 (for rolling a 22+) and minimum HD -4 (for a 0 or lower). So if a 3rd level cleric rolls a 12, then he can turn enemies f 3 HD or lower.

THEN the cleric makes a "turning damage" check. You roll 2d6 + your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. Now the average roll is 7 HD + level + charisma. So that 3rd level cleric with a whopping 15 Charisma (seriously, 15 means it's a prime stat) is going to turn about 12 HD...

Gotta completely disagree here. It's already been shown that Turning does work and it does work well.

Leaving out feats, skills, items, spells and other things didn't work in Sean's argument and it's not working in yours.

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:

I agree with you guys. Turn Undead is more effective against undead.

I don't care. I appreciate the free healing more. I'll memorize some searing lights if I need to.

So what in God's name are you arguing about then? The ability does exactly what it was designed to do.

If you want it to do other things just spend the feats to do it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He/She is saying that they woud rather have Channel Energy (for healing) and use spells and other tactics vs Undead. Nothing wrng with that. I don't agree, and like 3E Turning (even PHB1 only) much more than Channel Energy, but it's not a bad or wrong arguement, just preference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

ruemere: The healing Domain power affects Cure Spells only. It does not affect channel positive energy, heal spells, breath of life or any other healing effect that does not have the word 'cure' in it.

- Gauss

Sadly, you're right.

She'll have to do with Mass Cures then :)

Regards,
Ruemere


shallowsoul wrote:

Gotta completely disagree here. It's already been shown that Turning does work and it does work well.

Leaving out feats, skills, items, spells and other things didn't work in Sean's argument and it's not working in yours.

Hm, I'm not sure what's not working about pointing out that there are literally tons of undead creatures with tons of hit dice that are very low on the CR scale. You will statistically not turn them, and waste your turns. For example, an Ettin skeleton in 3.5 was CR 5. It had 10 HD. It was quite literally impossible for a 5th level cleric to turn an Ettin regardless of Charisma. A CR 4 wyvern zombie had 14 HD. No prayer to turn that either. Same in Pathfinder. A CR 9 zombie has 25+ HD. No prayer there either.

At least in Pathfinder's Turn Undead, said zombie would only have a +14 Will save. At 9th level, you have a base DC of 14, plus your Charisma modifier, plus feats and such. So while unlikely, you do have a chance to actually send it fleeing in panic. A much higher chance than in 3.5 (which is "never").


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What shallowsoul is forgetting is that all those wonderful options are not available as part of the OGL so Paizo was going to have to make some changes to get the classic cleric capability for fighting undead either with their own mechanic or by mimicking WotC (that was their stated design goal so changes were happening one way or another). Since mimicking WotC is bad form (and potentially a violation of copyright), it was better for them to create their own mechanic.

Turning should work great against classic, simple undead like zombies. It doesn't unless you put a lot of effort into it. Some may say that's a problem with the CR system and others say it's with Turning. It doesn't really matter though. The end result was that Turning didn't function the way that many of us wanted and certainly not the way Paizo wanted.


I bet, if they copied those feats, but changed the name and wording, they could legally get away with it. This is non-lawyer, armchair speculation though.

You can't copyright rules, it's been tried with board games and you can't do it. You can copyright things like setting and art, and the text that you write, but rules for a game are very difficult.

Since the OGL exists, and the feats are part of the same game (but not placed under OGL), I think it could reasonably be argued that WotC doesn't really have any standing to stop people from creating nearly identical feats, as long as the text and name isn't verbatim.

Now, it's probably not worth a lawsuit to prove this though, plus it isn't necessarily a lock either. But the cost in lawyers would far outweigh any potential increase in sales from a few extra feats.

That said... at a gaming table, all the Turning feats can just be applied to Channeling, this seems like such a "duh" concept, that I have to flat out ignore the "Turning gets more options through feats" argument. Because it is EXTREMELY reasonable to suggest that those same feats could be powered by Channels.

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

What shallowsoul is forgetting is that all those wonderful options are not available as part of the OGL so Paizo was going to have to make some changes to get the classic cleric capability for fighting undead either with their own mechanic or by mimicking WotC (that was their stated design goal so changes were happening one way or another). Since mimicking WotC is bad form (and potentially a violation of copyright), it was better for them to create their own mechanic.

Turning should work great against classic, simple undead like zombies. It doesn't unless you put a lot of effort into it. Some may say that's a problem with the CR system and others say it's with Turning. It doesn't really matter though. The end result was that Turning didn't function the way that many of us wanted and certainly not the way Paizo wanted.

The problem is the CR system because if you look at a "Spectre" for instance it's challenge rating is 7 while it has seven hit dice.

SPECTRE
Medium Undead (Incorporeal)
Hit Dice: 7d12 (45 hp)
Initiative: +7
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), fly 80 ft. (perfect)
Armor Class: 15 (+3 Dex, +2 deflection), touch 15, flat-footed 13
Base Attack/Grapple: +3/—
Attack: Incorporeal touch +6 melee (1d8 plus energy drain)
Full Attack: Incorporeal touch +6 melee (1d8 plus energy drain)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Energy drain, create spawn
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., incorporeal traits, +2 turn
resistance, sunlight powerlessness, undead traits, unnatural aura
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +7
Abilities: Str —, Dex 16, Con —, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 15
Skills: Hide +13, Intimidate +12, Knowledge (religion) +12,
Listen +14, Search +12, Spot +14, Survival +2 (+4 following
tracks)
Feats: Alertness, Blind-Fight, Improved Initiative
Environment: Any land and underground
Organization: Solitary, gang (2–4), or
swarm (6–11)
Challenge Rating: 7
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always lawful evil
Advancement: 8–14 HD
(Medium)
Level Adjustment: —

This creature is going to be something you do fight at 7th level because they got the hit dice right. Now with Turn Resistance it's going to be the equivalent of a 9HD creature which will be very easy for a 7th level cleric to turn.

They made Skeletons and Zombies so weak that they just made them bags of hit points so they won't go down so easy. Instead of making them stronger, their to hit better, and their damage better they just pile on the hit dice which makes turning a lot harder.

Using Skeletons and Zombies as examples do not do the argument any justice. The wonky CR system is the problem with these few undead types and you get dismiss it while trying to present a legitimate argument. This is exactly what Sean did. He tried to present an argument about Turn Undead while leaving out a lot of information.

I've mentioned this before but what could happen with the classic monsters is that the designers expect you to throw low hit dice zombies but throw "lots" of them in order to up the CR. Zombies and Skeletons are pretty much known to be used in large groups. So for example, 4 6HD zombies are supposed to be a CR 8, according to the DMG. Now a 6th or 7th level cleric would turn these guys easily and it actually falls with in the challenge rating for a 7th level group.

Not sure what you are trying to say Bob but those feats from Divine Power are available to a 3.5 cleric.

What's this "many" of us that you mention? You actually could be in the minority. I can tell you from my experience, and my many years in the Wizards boards, that you are in the minority.


Irontruth wrote:

I bet, if they copied those feats, but changed the name and wording, they could legally get away with it. This is non-lawyer, armchair speculation though.

You can't copyright rules, it's been tried with board games and you can't do it. You can copyright things like setting and art, and the text that you write, but rules for a game are very difficult.

Since the OGL exists, and the feats are part of the same game (but not placed under OGL), I think it could reasonably be argued that WotC doesn't really have any standing to stop people from creating nearly identical feats, as long as the text and name isn't verbatim.

Now, it's probably not worth a lawsuit to prove this though, plus it isn't necessarily a lock either. But the cost in lawyers would far outweigh any potential increase in sales from a few extra feats.

I'm not a lawyers either that's why I said "potentially." I also think that Paizo wouldn't want to hurt their relationship with WotC either. People buying WotC books/products through Paizo generates revenue for Paizo.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is also the issue that many of them just do not convert, (well or at all).


It's not the CR system that caused this problem. It was the way undead and turning worked. The CR system did what it was meant to do for the most part. It wasn't/isn't perfect. It couldn't be. It was meant to give GMs an idea of how powerful something is compared to something else then to tell the GM how to give out rewards based on that.

shallowsoul wrote:
This creature is going to be something you do fight at 7th level because they got the hit dice right. Now with Turn Resistance it's going to be the equivalent of a 9HD creature which will be very easy for a 7th level cleric to turn.

You and I have a different definition of "very easy." Out of the box, let's say the cleric has a 14 Charisma. On average he's going to roll a 12-13. That puts him at CR +0 or +1. The specter is CR +2. So while it is entirely possible, it is not necessarily "very easy." It only becomes very easy when you start taking more feats and spending your money on it. Remember a 7th level cleric has 3 feats and 19,000 gold. How many of your resources are you spending to get to make this "very easy." Also keep in mind that the game was build around 25 point buy, which could give you the elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. So it wasn't "very easy."

Quote:
They made Skeletons and Zombies so weak that they just made them bags of hit points so they won't go down so easy. Instead of making them stronger, their to hit better, and their damage better they just pile on the hit dice which makes turning a lot harder.

I know what they did. It was the wrong approach. That doesn't show that the problem was the CR system though. It shows that those creatures were built poorly.

Quote:
Using Skeletons and Zombies as examples do not do the argument any justice. The wonky CR system is the problem with these few undead types and you get dismiss it while trying to present a legitimate argument. This is exactly what Sean did. He tried to present an argument about Turn Undead while leaving out a lot of information.

It actually does mean a lot. You have decided that it doesn't but the reality is that you can't ignore iconic expectations and declare yourself winner. Here's the deal, zombies and skeletons have an expectation in the players' and GM's minds. They should be easy to deal with using classic abilities. Turning is just one of them. The more powerful undead should be harder. That's the expectation. That's how it should work. It did not work that way because the turning undead mechanic was poorly written and implemented. If you used just the Core Rules (maybe because it was Christmas 2000 and other books weren't out yet), you couldn't actually Turn Undead the way you should have.

Quote:
I've mentioned this before but what could happen with the classic monsters is that the designers expect you to throw low hit dice zombies but throw "lots" of them in order to up the CR. Zombies and Skeletons are pretty much known to be used in large groups. So for example, 4 6HD zombies are supposed to be a CR 8, according to the DMG. Now a 6th or 7th level cleric would turn these guys easily and it actually falls with in the challenge rating for a 7th level group.

Incorrect. Again, he has a slightly better than 50% chance turn any of them. Then, he can turn 2d6+7+2 (using the 14 Charisma I mentioned before). That's 16 hit dice total. That's a whopping 2 zombies. Encounter Level 8 would be 8 zombies. So in one round, you turned 25% of them. Sure, that's helpful, but you should be able to do much better than that against CR 2 creatures at that level.

Quote:
Not sure what you are trying to say Bob but those feats from Divine Power are available to a 3.5 cleric.

I'm trying to say that the books you mention are only available to the players that spent money on those books. They aren't available in Core and that's the way Paizo looked at it too. They didn't want the characters and their abilities to be functioning right out of the Core Rule Book. Now, it has been pointed out that Channel Energy does not meet that for some people especially as their characters level. It doesn't change the fact that Channel Energy works better and more often than Turning without any other investment from the group.

Quote:
What's this "many" of us that you mention? You actually could be in the minority. I can tell you from my experience, and my many years in the Wizards boards, that you are in the minority.

I'm going by my experience on the WotC boards, GiTP boards, Paizo boards, other boards, game store players, convention players, and just people I've met in other places who also happen to game. I also never claimed majority. I said "many." Not the same word nor is it necessarily synonymous. Funny thing, I had actually written "majority" then realized that I didn't have anything to back that up so I changed it to "many" which is something I don't have to have any statistical data to support.


One thing that really sucks about Turn Undead is that if you play a multiclass cleric/something else, Turn Undead becomes pretty useless. Channel Energy, on the other hand, remains useful when used between combats to heal your buddies.

Silver Crusade

Maerimydra wrote:
One thing that really sucks about Turn Undead is that if you play a multiclass cleric/something else, Turn Undead becomes pretty useless. Channel Energy, on the other hand, remains useful when used between combats to heal your buddies.

That's the risk you take when you multi-class. Also, if you are worried about your Turn Undead then just turn the lesser undead or choose feats that allow you to do other things with your Turn attempts if it bothers you that much.

Channel Energy is just as bad when you multi-class as well because that cleric level is important for the Will save that creatures get.


shallowsoul wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
One thing that really sucks about Turn Undead is that if you play a multiclass cleric/something else, Turn Undead becomes pretty useless. Channel Energy, on the other hand, remains useful when used between combats to heal your buddies.

That's the risk you take when you multi-class. Also, if you are worried about your Turn Undead then just turn the lesser undead or choose feats that allow you to do other things with your Turn attempts if it bothers you that much.

Channel Energy is just as bad when you multi-class as well because that cleric level is important for the Will save that creatures get.

There's no Will save to heal your buddies (unless they don't want it for some reason).


shallowsoul wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
One thing that really sucks about Turn Undead is that if you play a multiclass cleric/something else, Turn Undead becomes pretty useless. Channel Energy, on the other hand, remains useful when used between combats to heal your buddies.

That's the risk you take when you multi-class. Also, if you are worried about your Turn Undead then just turn the lesser undead or choose feats that allow you to do other things with your Turn attempts if it bothers you that much.

Channel Energy is just as bad when you multi-class as well because that cleric level is important for the Will save that creatures get.

But the will save has no issues when it comes to healing all your allies an extra 7 HP 3-4/day (which can keep a party going longer and save on happy sticks).

Shadow Lodge

Which is not always a good thing, as I mentioned.

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
One thing that really sucks about Turn Undead is that if you play a multiclass cleric/something else, Turn Undead becomes pretty useless. Channel Energy, on the other hand, remains useful when used between combats to heal your buddies.

That's the risk you take when you multi-class. Also, if you are worried about your Turn Undead then just turn the lesser undead or choose feats that allow you to do other things with your Turn attempts if it bothers you that much.

Channel Energy is just as bad when you multi-class as well because that cleric level is important for the Will save that creatures get.

There's no Will save to heal your buddies (unless they don't want it for some reason).

I was talking about the damage aspect.


Beckett wrote:
There is also the issue that many of them just do not convert, (well or at all).

Looking through every book I can find, I found 34 feats. Out of those 34:

1 cannot be converted easily (uses the Turn Undead table)
2 are basically lesser versions of PF Channel
2 need modification
29 work just fine

That's looking through:
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Complete Adventurer
Complete Scoundrel
Complete Arcane
Complete Mage
Unearthed Arcana
Draconomicon
Ghostwalk
Libris Mortis
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Lords of Madness
PHB II
Heroes of Horror
Frostburn
Stormwrack

I excluded feats that modify the base turning ability (like increasing HD, adding a d6, etc) because obviously they don't convert, but they also don't add options, they just specialize the one you already have, so they aren't relevant to the discussion of "feats that increase options but aren't convertible".

85% work without conversion
91% work after modification
6% are redundant with PF channel
3% are unusable

I feel these numbers support my earlier statement, that most of the feats can be used in PF. I would still subject it to GM approval of course.

Shadow Lodge

@ Bob:

I still think that your are missing some of the problems with the CR system, especially when it came to Templates. Many of those super HD skeletons and zombies also had inappropriate HP, Saves, and other factors like that. The fact that they had so many HD also put them out of the range of spells specifically designed (and higher level at that and costly) to destroy Undead mobs.

Or the fact that in order for them to be created in the first place, the caster would have to actually be a much, much higher level and certainly wouldn't just ditch them in a dungeon and walk away. DM metagaming, the one thing worse than metagaming. . .

It would take a min of a 6th level Cleric to even create those Undead, (and use a significant portion of their resources), and also tap them out for creating more undead. In order to Control those Undead with Rebuking, your looking at min of 24 level (in core) or 12th level with additional material, just for the sheer HD.

taking a look at the MM, CR 4 Wyvern Zombie.

CR 4

HP - 94 <14 HD>
AC - 20
Grapple - +16
Attack - Slam +11 (2d6+7) or Talons +11 (2d6+5)
F +4, R +4, W +9

Now lets look at an Ogre, CR 3

HP - 29 <4 HD>
AC - 16
Grapple - +12
Attack - +8 (2d8+7)
F +6, R +0, W +1

Gargoyle, CR 4

HP - 37 <4 HD>
AC - 16
Grapple - +6
Attack - 2 claws +6/+6 (1d4+2) and Bite +4 (1d6+1)
F +5, R +6, W +4

Carrion crawler, CR 4
HP - 19 <3 HD>
AC - 17
Grapple - +12
Attack - 8 tenticles +3 (no damage, paralysis) and Bite -2 (1d4+1)
F +3, R +3, W +5

How about a CR 6 Ettin
HP - 65 <10 HD>
AC - 18
Grapple - +17
Attack - +12 (2d6+6)
F +5, R +2, W +5

I honestly just picked random creatures, but do you notice any differences?

401 to 450 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why was the Cleric's Turn ability changed from 3.5? All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.