|
So I took the alpha to my WFRP game last night to get some impressions from my group. The first thing that someone pointed out as a problem - what is to prevent a cleric from turning when there are no undead present to be turned. Essentially turning attempts are not just mass heals that also hurt undead.
His suggestion was to key the heal to the damage done. So when a cleric does X damage to undead creatures it also heals X HP to the living.
The second thing he pointed out was more of a pet peeve that a rules issue but why do all clerics turn undead? Do all gods hate undead so much that they give their clerics the ability to turn undead. Shouldn't the ability to channel positive energy have an effect that is more in line with you god and his or her domains?
Oh, and why would a neutral god allow you to either turn or rebuke undead? Wouldn't a god have one take on undead and all clerics of that god would follow it?
So I took the alpha to my WFRP game last night to get some impressions from my group. The first thing that someone pointed out as a problem - what is to prevent a cleric from turning when there are no undead present to be turned. Essentially turning attempts are not just mass heals that also hurt undead.
His suggestion was to key the heal to the damage done. So when a cleric does X damage to undead creatures it also heals X HP to the living.
Good idea.
The second thing he pointed out was more of a pet peeve that a rules issue but why do all clerics turn undead? Do all gods hate undead so much that they give their clerics the ability to turn undead. Shouldn't the ability to channel positive energy have an effect that is more in line with you god and his or her domains?
Because undead are created through negative energy, so it makes sense that positive energy is an anathema to them. It's not so much that the gods themselves hate undead (although some most certainly do), but that the cleric, who has the power to channel positive energy to heal, gets the added benifit that it harm undead as well.
Oh, and why would a neutral god allow you to either turn or rebuke undead? Wouldn't a god have one take on undead and all clerics of that god would follow it?
I got nothin on this one...
So I took the alpha to my WFRP game last night to get some impressions from my group. The first thing that someone pointed out as a problem - what is to prevent a cleric from turning when there are no undead present to be turned. Essentially turning attempts are not just mass heals that also hurt undead.
His suggestion was to key the heal to the damage done. So when a cleric does X damage to undead creatures it also heals X HP to the living.
Nice fix. I'm going to incorporate the new turning rules into my current game, and the potential abuse hadn't occurred to me - I'll be using your suggestion.
Evil clerics channel negative energy and neutral clerics choose one or the other.
And the neutral cleric should choose postive or negative based on the dogma of their god or character concept, if they're doing it right.
Just change the name of the ability to simply "Channel Positive Energy"
It just happens to harm undead when used in their presence.
Evil clerics channel negative energy and neutral clerics choose one or the other.
Nice simple solution, though some people will hate not calling it turn undead.
Nice fix. I'm going to incorporate the new turning rules into my current game, and the potential abuse hadn't occurred to me - I'll be using your suggestion.So I took the alpha to my WFRP game last night to get some impressions from my group. The first thing that someone pointed out as a problem - what is to prevent a cleric from turning when there are no undead present to be turned. Essentially turning attempts are not just mass heals that also hurt undead.
His suggestion was to key the heal to the damage done. So when a cleric does X damage to undead creatures it also heals X HP to the living.
I agree. Nice fix.
The upper-level description of "Turn or Rebuke Undead" on p. 44 says "dealing damage to undead creatures or causing them to be immobilized for a number of rounds."
Presumably "immobilized" is meant to apply to Rebuke, but there is no trace of it in the Rebuke description.
I have been in the habit of playing neutral clerics who channel negative (it fits Wee Jas particularly well) and I can't see continuing to do so with the new rules. Rebuke is highly hazardous to the other PCs and interferes with their ability to fight hostile undead (by healing the undead). Unless a "control" result can be reached, it's actively counterproductive against hostile undead.
Clerics of faiths like Lamashtu (prone to fight in the middle of a group of friendly monsters) will never want to use Rebuke at all. Neither will clerics who are mainly aligned with demons/devils, like Asmodeus, because again they'll nuke their own allies. It really works *only* for the stereotype of a lone priest with a horde of undead.
The control limit has been halved, so that clerics can now control only a tiny quantity of undead by this means. This also replicates a known 3.5 problem where the corporeal undead, especially skeletons and zombies, have way more HD than you'd expect and therefore cannot be controlled by someone of level appropriate to their strength. Could something other than HD be used here? HD are a poor measure of monster strength in general but a *terrible* measure of undead strength. CR would be better; it's far from perfect but at least it's attempting to be a measure of monster strength.
We were bothered by the tendency of my SCAP cleric of Wee Jas to control powerful incorporeal undead but fail with much weaker corporeal ones. For game balance you would really prefer clerics to control zombies and *not* shadows.
Mary
|
So I took the alpha to my WFRP game last night to get some impressions from my group. The first thing that someone pointed out as a problem - what is to prevent a cleric from turning when there are no undead present to be turned. Essentially turning attempts are not just mass heals that also hurt undead.
His suggestion was to key the heal to the damage done. So when a cleric does X damage to undead creatures it also heals X HP to the living.
I disagree. I thought this was actually a big part of the point of the change. Give clerics another way to heal, so their entire repertoire of spells is not just really a big heal reservoir.
It seems entirely appropriate to be able to channel positive energy to heal the party, even if there are no undead around. Turn Undead as is, is too situational. It's why books like Complete Divine spend so many feats giving clerics other ways to use that power. Why not build one in from the beginning?
Don't take that away from the clerics - it seems like a great addition.
Drew Garrett
|
Just change the name of the ability to simply "Channel Positive Energy"
It just happens to harm undead when used in their presence.
Evil clerics channel negative energy and neutral clerics choose one or the other.
Which doesn't handle the healing abuse issue.
But then, I imagine the abuse of this power is up for debate. I fall into the "potential for abuse" category. I rather like the idea of having an aura of healing that allies of the cleric can partake of when they need it for in-combat healing. Something similar to what you can find in Book of Experimental Might.
I also think both the BOXM and 4e have it right when they place the burden of limited healing on the individual and not the cleric.
The second thing he pointed out was more of a pet peeve that a rules issue but why do all clerics turn undead? Do all gods hate undead so much that they give their clerics the ability to turn undead. Shouldn't the ability to channel positive energy have an effect that is more in line with you god and his or her domains?
I always had an issue with this. First off, Turning Undead is problematic in 3e. Undead CRs are calculated under the assumption that the party won't have a cleric to turn them. Turning immediately short circuits most early encounters with the undead and then becomes increasingly useless as a cleric gains levels. So its preponderance is silly from a mechanical point of view.
From a "fluff" stance, the idea that every god allows for the turning of undead creatures is nothing more than a legacy of past editions and bears little relationship to how the gods might behave. But then, I have also have an issue with the fact every cleric can heal equally well. The reasons for that rule are entirely "meta-game".
I am sure I am in the minority but I was a pretty big fan of 2e clerics.
I am sure I am in the minority but I was a pretty big fan of 2e clerics.
Nope, you aren't...or rather, we both might be. 2E priests and spheres of influence are something I sorely missed in 3E. I finally sat down and started my own version of it. And by the looks of it, I'll be able to use that in Pathfinder as well.
I have been in the habit of playing neutral clerics who channel negative (it fits Wee Jas particularly well) and I can't see continuing to do so with the new rules. Rebuke is highly hazardous to the other PCs and interferes with their ability to fight hostile undead (by healing the undead). Unless a "control" result can be reached, it's actively counterproductive against hostile undead.
Clerics of faiths like Lamashtu (prone to fight in the middle of a group of friendly monsters) will never want to use Rebuke at all. Neither will clerics who are mainly aligned with demons/devils, like Asmodeus, because again they'll nuke their own allies. It really works *only* for the stereotype of a lone priest with a horde of undead.
Mary has a good point here. Even though most people might not have a neutral or evil cleric in a party...it will come up. And then those folks will have to set a nice class feature aside.
|
|
Perhaps having the cleric choose who is affected by the wave of negative or positive energy? So rather than a wave of energy that emanates, it's beams of energy (either negative or positive) that shoot out. This would solve the negative energy hitting your allies as Mary brought up.
Oh, I also like the idea of only healing the damage that you do to undead. That way, any of the current divine feats that have been printed are still useful.
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there everybody,
Although the name will soon be changed, this power was meant to be used as an alternative healing source for the party. Healing is too vital a commodity in the game to reside in only one source (spells), and this gives each party a fixed, reliable amount of healing each day. Add a paladin to the group and you get even more.
The key here is that the cleric will actually be able to adventure longer and cast more of his spells for their intended purpose with this rule. Which is a good thing.
Give it a try and let me know what you think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
So essentially, the potential 'abuse' for the ability is actually why the new rule was instituted. I was sure I had saw as much said in other threads as well.
|
|
Although the name will soon be changed, this power was meant to be used as an alternative healing source for the party.
That's cool. I would suggest customizing the positive energy bursts to the domains and allow the cleric to choose how they will be spent. For example - the war domain could add the clerics CHA modifier to the damage dealt by her allies for one round or some such.
It just seems that these bursts of positive and negative energy should be keyed to a cleric's deity in a meaningful way.
|
That's cool. I would suggest customizing the positive energy bursts to the domains and allow the cleric to choose how they will be spent. For example - the war domain could add the clerics CHA modifier to the damage dealt by her allies for one round or some such.
It just seems that these bursts of positive and negative energy should be keyed to a cleric's deity in a meaningful way.
You, sir, have just brought the Cool :)
I'd like to see some of this. Maybe call the new "turn undead" something as "divine burst" and make it have a 1-round effect dependant of domains.
War: +Char to allies' attack rolls.
Good: Damage/Turn undead.
Evil: Damage/Turn living.
Heal: 1d6/2 levels of healing.
Protection: +Char to allies' AC.
Fire/Air/Water/Earth: ER (proper type) 10+Char to allies.
...
That's cool. I would suggest customizing the positive energy bursts to the domains and allow the cleric to choose how they will be spent. For example - the war domain could add the clerics CHA modifier to the damage dealt by her allies for one round or some such.
But that's not what positive energy does: it heals living things and damages undead things. Plus there's a host of divine feats that already do "other" things with your turn undead attempts.
|
|
But that's not what positive energy does: it heals living things and damages undead things. Plus there's a host of divine feats that already do "other" things with your turn undead attempts.
I know that you can customize turns through feats but it has always bugged me that all clerics of a good alignment regardless of the nature and focus of your deity turn undead.
I played RuneQuest for decades and in Glorantha the cult that you belong to shapes your magical abilities in a significant manner. I would like the see a cleric's god matter beyond the domain ability.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I know that you can customize turns through feats but it has always bugged me that all clerics of a good alignment regardless of the nature and focus of your deity turn undead.
Hi, CWM.
I think it's a matter of world-building. Since we're making up the idea of magical pantheons anyways, we could decide that positive energy is an essential part of gods-stuff. Worshippers throw positive energy towards the gods they venerate, and the gods "re-invest" it in clerical powers, so as to further their portfolios and generate more worshippers.
Undead, in this scenario, are abominations precisely becasue they're not fueled by positive energy. They're mockeries of creation, and even 'good-aligned' undead are walking blasphemies.
In this case, the priests of most evil gods would be turning (rather than rebuking) undead alongside their good-guy brethren. The only exceptions might be gods of death, fear, or madness.
--
Another way to look at the turning effect is to imagine that "turning undead" is shorthand for "manifesting the god in a limited way". A cleric of Desna who presents her holy symbol forthrightly and activates her "turn undead" power is filling the space with Desna's presence.
Many gods would banish undead from their presence. Others might, as you suggest, carry other apparitions or affects. A goddess of the hearth might fill the room with mouth-watering smells of cooking and a temporary, area-effect sanctuary spell.
I would like the see a cleric's god matter beyond the domain ability.
Like:
- Clerics are also proficient with the favored weapon of their deities
- A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the
deity’s alignment - A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features
Not to mention "role play"
Why do evil clerics have to channel negative energy anyway? Or, why has turning to by channeling any form of energy?
Turning undead doesn't do any acutual harm to the undead.
Rebuking undead is practically the same and does not heal undead.
Bolstering or controlling undead doesn't heal them either.
So I guess we could make any turn undead options disconnected from channeling any form of energy. As things are, negative energy channeler are allready at a huge disadvantage, as they have to prepare a lot of cure spells. I don't see good clerics preparing the same amount of inflict spells.
Disconnect turning from channeling energy completely and allow both good and evil clerics to spontaneously cast both cure and inflict spells.
Mass cure is also a positive energy burst, except that you can target it and it it is not as powerfull. But as clerics are one of the most powerfull classes as they are, I don't think they should become even more powerful. If you then try to also make the other classes more balanced to them, compatibility breaks down completely.
|
|
Looking at the turn undead rules and seeing some of the various comments, my feelings are that a) as written turn undead is too powerful (both in damage and amount of healing that can be done) and b) the ability to rebuke can be dangerous to the cleric's allies and lead to the power being a useless trapping.
My suggestions:
Alternate areas of effect - the cleric can direct the flow of energy, affecting different areas. The wider the area, the less overall power a single creature feels.
Single target - The cleric can direct the energy into a target up to a range of 30 feet. The target is healed/damaged using d8.
Cone - The cleric directs the energy in a 30 degree cone outwards from himself to a range of 30 feet. Targets in the area are healed/damaged using d6.
Burst - The cleric directs the energy in a 360 degree burst from himself to a range of 30 feet. Targets in the area are healed/damaged using d4.
|
|
So essentially, the potential 'abuse' for the ability is actually why the new rule was instituted. I was sure I had saw as much said in other threads as well.
Yes, but I would argue there is a difference between granting a cleric multiple mass cures at right out of the gate and providing extra healing in the game. Honestly, I am not sure why I used the term abuse. I don't believe the issue has anything to do with abuse. Really, I think there are more effective and cleaner ways of providing more healing in the game.
The ability has limited in-combat use because of the effect it has on all living creatures. A 30-foot burst that heals 1d6 points of damage every two caster levels has some serious repercussions in the vast majority of combats. If the cleric doesn't place himself correctly (sometimes he doesn't have a choice) he might very well heal unconscious enemies, thus extending the combat and increasing the chances even more damage is being dealt to the PCs. The dark elf wizard that gets back up to unleash his fireball actually goes against the whole point of this ability. So the cleric has to make a choice, heal enemies while healing allies or simply depend on spells. In the end, very little has changed.
It is most useful out of combat where a cleric can blow all of their "turning" usages to heal the whole party. Great. So its effect on undead serves what purpose again?
And this doesn't even touch on rebuking, which has been terribly altered for absolutely no reason. Sure, enemy clerics now have a way to heal their undead minions while harming the PCs. Meanwhile, the good cleric has a way to harm undead while healing the enemy cleric. What? PC rebukers are nearly useless because 1) they now harm the party and 2) do not provide all this extra healing the new ability facilitates. In the end, all this does is limit choice and punish players for making the "wrong" choice when creating their character.
If this is meant to be used out of combat as a ready source of ample healing, great. Why not simply give clerics the ability to mass cure within an area a number of times per day? Why marginalize turning even more? Why limit character options for neutral clerics? Why limit the cleric's in-combat choices by forcing him to blow a standard action that might save the whole party but also heal his enemies as well? Or, if this really is the only design choice that can be made, at the very least give the cleric some level of targeting control.
In the end, I really think tying this to the turn undead ability is a bad design choice. If this is really a "positive energy burst" then provide a suite of options that a cleric can utilize, don't Frankenstein together two previously unrelated powers and make it difficult to use well. For that matter, don't punish players that might not want to play a cleric that channels positive energy. As it stands I don't think this is the best option to mitigate a dearth of healing in the game.
I don't consider it abuse; it's just the way the ability should work. The whole point of it is to keep the cleric from having to constantly blow his spell allotment for healing spells. Otherwise, just give him only healing spells and restorative spells only.
For what it's worth, here's the alternate way we currently use Turn Undead.
Turn Undead (Su): Clerics of good alignment (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) and paladins have the power to affect undead creatures by channeling the power of their faith through their holy symbol. The cleric (or paladin) must hold forth his holy symbol to channel this power. A character that is held, grappled, or restrained in some other manner cannot turn undead. A cleric (or paladin) does not need to speak to invoke this power. Turning undead is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It is considered an attack.
Times per Day: You may attempt to turn undead a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Range: 30 foot burst, centered on you, or a 60-foot cone with you as the starting point. You cannot turn undead that have total cover relative to you. Undead that you cannot see (due to invisibility or some other method) are affected normally. You cannot affect undead that are on a different plane than you. You don't need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect.
Turning damage: You deal 1d6 points of positive energy damage per cleric level to undead within the area. The undead are allowed a Fortitude save for half damage (DC=10+1/2 cleric level+Cha bonus). The damage is divided equally among all undead within the area of effect. If the amount of damage dice cannot be divided evenly among the undead in the area, the closest undead to the cleric are affected by the remainder.
For example, Jozan and his companions are exploring an old graveyard. They are set upon by three ghouls, and drifting through an old crypt approximately 60 feet away is a spectre. Jozan, on his action, turns undead. A burst of positive energy radiates from him and catches all the ghouls (since they were within 30 feet of him). The spectre is unaffected (since it is beyond 30 feet). Since Jozan is 9th level he deals 9d6 points of damage to the ghouls, or 3d6 points each. Each ghoul is allowed a Fortitude save for half at DC 17 (10+1/2 cleric level, or 4+Cha modifier, or +3 for Jozan's 17 Charisma). One of the ghouls fails the save and is destroyed by the positive energy damage. Another fails the save, but Jozan does not do enough damage to destroy it, though it is badly injured. The last ghoul makes its save and only takes half damage.
Special: Clerics with the Sun Domain can double the damage they deal 1/day. Clerics with at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (religion) gain a +1 on the DC of their turn undead check. The Improved Turning feat works exactly as described in the PH, effectively increasing the DC of the turning check.
Some reasons. We chose to have the damage divided between the undead present because it seemed too powerful to have it effect each one singularly, but we offset that with making it a Fortitude save for the undead to resist...not something they usually have a lot of. These two seem to balance each other. It makes the Turn Undead ability useful, scales with level, but doesn't make the cleric the party member that stands out all the time. It allows for the rest of the party to contribute in these encounters.
After reading the Turn Undead ability in the Alpha set...I kind of like them, but there are things that I think should change. We currently use the above rules as an option for the cleric character. He can also use the rules out of the book if he chooses, depending on the situation. It has just always been frustrating for our group to have the undead run away. They'd much rather keep them around to destroy instead of just driving off...however, there are times that it is useful to make the undead go away. I think options for Turn Undead are better than just one way to do it.
I have the same reservations as some who have already posted about the healing portion of the ability. If it said that it heals allies only, that might make it work. I just think it's strange to channel positive energy and you're healing your living enemies as well as your allies. That's no fun.
Same fix for the negative energy guy. Just have it damage enemies and you're good to go. Solves the problems of having a mix of living & undead minions.
I generally like the new turn undead rules--it's pretty similar to a house-rule I use in my game.
Granted, this does give good/positive energy clerics yet another leg up over evil/negative energy ones. However, getting rid of spontaneous casting as a class ability could return some balance.
Let it be known that I hate spontaneous casting as a class ability; this really puts evil clerics at a disadvantage. Evil clerics get to trade out for inflict spells--how friggin' lame. And don't forget druids--not only are summoning spells way less useful than cure spells, but they also slow down the game by tossing in 1 or more creatures to adjudcate. Make Spontaneous Casting a feat, and allow it to be taken multiple times--each time, the divine caster can choose a group of spells to spontaneously cast--cure spells, inflict spells, summoning spells, etc.
Hey there everybody,
Although the name will soon be changed, this power was meant to be used as an alternative healing source for the party. Healing is too vital a commodity in the game to reside in only one source (spells), and this gives each party a fixed, reliable amount of healing each day. Add a paladin to the group and you get even more.
The key here is that the cleric will actually be able to adventure longer and cast more of his spells for their intended purpose with this rule. Which is a good thing.
Give it a try and let me know what you think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Okay, that makes more sense, but what does this mean for evil clerics? Will they be able to reverse their negative energy flow to positive energy to heal others?
Also, I do agree that there could be a more elegant rule for extra healing than simply changing the turn undead ability.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I just have to say ... it feels really wonderful to read threads where people are giving each other constructive feedback on the game we love. ...<<wipes tear from eye>> ... seriously, I've missed this.
...
Oh, and I kind of like the healing burst aspect of this. Beats having potions of cure light wounds being more common than power pellets in pacman.
Something like turning and rebuking undead is something that is intrinsic to the D&D game. It is one of those things that (to me) makes the game feel like D&D. What we need to decide as a whole is wether we want Pathfinder to feel like D&D or to feel like something else. Part of the reason I want to play 3.5 (and thus Pathfinder) is to retain the feel of D&D, which I feel 4e does not have. Moving too far from the true feeling of D&D could potentially turn customers rather than undead. :)
My personal opinion is that you should need an additional feat to heal people with your Turning/Rebuking. If not a feat, perhaps the damage should be d8s and the healing be an equal number of d4s. Linking the ability to CR rather than HD is one of the better ideas I've heard here. Turn resistance could easily be considered as an addition to CR rather than HD.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
My personal opinion is that you should need an additional feat to heal people with your Turning/Rebuking. If not a feat, perhaps the damage should be d8s and the healing be an equal number of d4s. Linking the ability to CR rather than HD is one of the better ideas I've heard here. Turn resistance could easily be considered as an addition to CR rather than HD.
Actually I really like this rule and the logic behind it. I think that the damage and healing should balance out d4s vs. d8s would bug me.
I don't get this thread.
It was stated that Turn Undead was meant to be another source of healing to keep clerics from having to use all spells for healing.
Apparently no one read that part.
Most came on here and ragged on it.
Then Jason Bulmahn comes on here and restates that and all of a sudden people are all, "Whoa, that's a cool idea now. 10 minutes ago I thought it was a rules abuse. Now, by telling me it was intended, I think it is the best thing since sliced bread."
I think it's a great idea. I don't think many evil clerics would care if they hurt people. Honestly, being forced to spontaneously cast inflict instead of cures is a bigger disadvantage to evil and neutral clerics that choose poorly than this. How have you managed to live with that little piece of pain in the ass?
I'm not sure why burning a turn to heal is "abusive"; it's a limited resource. 3+CHA mod/day. It's conceptually like burning spells for spontaneous heals. I have no problem with it as written.
Hey there everybody,
Although the name will soon be changed, this power was meant to be used as an alternative healing source for the party. Healing is too vital a commodity in the game to reside in only one source (spells), and this gives each party a fixed, reliable amount of healing each day. Add a paladin to the group and you get even more.
If this is the goal, then why not focus on solutions that do specifically what you want (more healing) and not two separate things (healing and turning)?
EDIT: As noted in another thread, I also want to note here that I think the power as written is too powerful.
" I still liked the old Specialty Priest concept, so I House Ruled Turn Undead as a Divine Granted Ability (something like a Feat/Class Special Ability/Domain Ability for Priests only) that only certain deities provided. I also use custom Sphere-of-Influence-based spell-lists for each priesthood, but that's a different matter.
Right now in my game there is a Priest of the Luck Goddess who does not turn undead. Neither could the Priest of the Goddess of Night nor the Goddess of Magic. However, the Priest of the Sun God hated undead and turned them with added ferocity. So could the God of the Dead.
I think Turn Undead needs to be an optional Cleric ability that is chosen from a list of options that help tailor divine Classes to their patron deity. It could easily be an option in the Death (Command/Rebuke), Destruction (Turn/Destroy), Evil (CR), Glory (TD), Good (TD), Healing (TD) and Sun (TD) Domains.
Not every Cleric or Paladin should automatically have it."
I just want to add an AMEN to this thought.
When a player picks the deity it should be tied to domains and daily abilities that seem to fit the theme. Turn Undead doesnt need to be a universal ability for all clerics.
Its good that the name of the ability is going to be changed, I suggest Channel Divine Energy for a start.
Second, Channeling Negative Energy is MEANT to be a suboptimal choice. Clerics that are casting Harm spells, and controlling undead are not going to be as wanted, needed or trusted by adventuring groups.
I think though that the character should get their choice of what they Turn or Rebuke at character creation. Essentially choose a creature type, and then you either command it and heal it or turn it and damage it.
The list of Cleric Creature Turning should be something like this maybe -
Erastil - Command Animals (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Undead (Damages Undead)
Iomedae - Command Good Outsiders (Heals Living Creatures)/ Turn Evil Outsiders (Damages Monstrous Humanoids)
Torag - Command Constructs (Heals Living Creatures)/ Turn Undead (Damages Undead)
Sarenrae - Command Fire Elementals (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Other Elementals (Damages other Elementals)
Shelyn - Command Air Elementals (Heals Living Creatures / Turn Other Elementals (Damages other Elementals)
Desna - Command Good Outsiders (Heals Living Creatures)/ Turn Evil Outsiders (Damages Evil Outsiders)
Cayden Caielan - Command Chaotic Outsiders (Heals Living Creatures) / Turn Lawful Outsiders (Damages Lawful Outsiders)
Abadar Command Earth Elementals (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Other Elementals (Damages Other Elementals)
Irori - Command Lawful Outsiders (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Chaotic Outsiders (Harms Chaotic Outsiders)
Gozreh - Command Water Elementals (Heals Living Creatures)/ Turn Other Elementals (Damages Other Elementals)
Pharasma - Command/Rebuke Undead (Heals or Harms depending on situation)
Nethys - Command Magical Beasts (Heals Living Creatures)/ Turn Fey (Damages Fey Creatures)
Gorum - Command Chaotic Outsiders (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Lawful Outsiders (Harms Lawful Outsiders)
Calistria - Command Chaotic Outsiders (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Lawful Outsiders (Harms Lawful Outsiders)
Asmodius - Command Evil Outsiders (Harms Living Creatures)/Turn Good Outsiders (Heals Evil Outsiders)
Zon-Kuthon - Command Undead (Heals Undead)/Turn Good Outsiders (Harms Living creatures)
Urgathoa - Command Undead/Turn Living
Norgerber - Turn Good Outsiders/Command Evil Outsiders
Lamashtu - Command Monstrous Humanoids/Turn Humanoids
Rovagug - Command Undead/Turn Living
This would negate the Turn Outsider and Turn Elemental Feats as they would be chosen for you when you choose your god.
It deals with the issue of "All Gods Care about undead", now just the gods that care about undead either way deal with them, and since most gods care about their living followers most gods heal the living when they channel divine energy.
These are the rules I'll probably use on Monday for my first Pathfinder Playtest.
|
|
Erastil - Command Animals (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Undead (Damages Undead)
-snip-
Calistria - Command Chaotic Outsiders (Heals Living Creatures)/Turn Lawful Outsiders (Harms Lawful Outsiders)
Asmodius -...
I like your idea, but this can generate balance issues for encounters for different groups.
For one group an undead encounter might be cakewalk due to the cleric's turning ability, the other group might bash through an elemental encounter but get their a§§ handed to them by some Undead.
Also there are vast difference between the Creatures that the different Cleric turning abilities. Command Constructs is superior to Command animals.
This could also create balance issues.
I think the easiest way is to start out with a new generic turning/healing mechanic and then see if we can add other turning/command abilities to other clerics.
This would make it easier for those who will use Pathfinder rules but do not use Golarion as setting.
As for the "different powers for different deities" issue, one could tie certain class aspects to domains, rather than to specific deities. This would give player more options. Turn Undead, for instance, could be available to any cleric who chooses the Good, Sun, or Death domain.
In fact, I'd like to see other class features tied to domains. For example:
Saves: All clerics get 2 good saves. Those who chose Trickery or Luck would have the option of using Reflex as a good save rather than Fortitude.
Armor proficiencies: As written, all clerics have the following 5 feats--Simple Weapon Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, & Light, Medium, & Heavy Armor Proficiency. As most gods with the Magic, Knowledge, Luck, & Trickery domains would be unlikely to wear full plate or carry a shield themselves, those these domains would not grant proficiency with shields or the heavier armors, but other abilities instead. I realize this needs some more thought, but it's a place to start for those who enjoy clerical variety.
|
|
I really like the healing/turning rule as written. There are tradeoffs with this ability. You can heal your party very well, and you might heal your enemies at the same time. This means more choices and consequences for the player...and I always like that. Outside of killing undead...just use it before or after a big fight and avoid healing your enemies. This is a very good idea that gives the cleric more flexibility than "medic!"
I also like healing that is centered upon the cleric. what I mean is this, if healing is centered upon the individual players and how they can only receive a certain amount of healing each day...that's more bookkeeping for the whole party. If healing is centered on the cleric...I know how many times that power has been used and how much is left. I do not have to remember that Dave has already been healed once, but Sara has not. For myself, this is easier to keep track of, and I appreciate that.
Thanks,
Scott
The abuse wouldn't be so great if the enemy the party they're trying to kill is also within 30'. Remember that it heals "everyone" within 30'.
On the other hand, say just the party stands within the boundary, this is the only action the cleric takes, and I'm not bothered by any additional help clerics provide their allies.
I like the new positive/negative energy thing and don't consider it an abuse at all whether undead are present or not. The friendly fire aspects are game balancing, no different than flame strike or fireball.
Mike
Well, having my own questions as to how it would work, I decided to take the new rules for a spin. Being a lazy sod, I hijacked the level 1 iconics from the back of Burnt Offerings and ran them through the tunnels beneath Parrot Island (There is no Honour; Dungeon 139). Carnage ahoy!
Baseline assumptions:
- As per the adventure, the characters are not necessarily expecting to face undead, and are thus not outfitted for them.
- The PCs will generally get the first hits in in any encounter, as outwitting shambling zombies is not difficult.
- While compelling, domain powers and the like will be ignored, as will options for bonus HP at first level. It's the turning rules I'll be focusing on.
- No, there were no actual players involved. No actual character deaths were racked up in the course of this post.
Round 1: Zombies!
The first wave of three zombies didn't pose much of a problem. Fighter and cleric to the fore, rogue on the flank, and wizard supporting from the rear. A single Turning attempt was expended fixing up a wound Valeros had sustained and sending one zombie fleeing. The remaining two were destroyed in short order and the third chased to the door it was scrabbling at and destroyed in turn. So far, so good.
Wave two was similarly dispatched. Two dead, one fleeing, wounds all patched up. Two Turnings down, two to go. It's worth noting that, despite not having a slashing weapon, Merisiel's newly effective sneak attack was actually allowing her to inflict damage on the zombies. Sometimes quite helpful damage. A slashing weapon was duly loaned by someone with a spare, and the characters settled in to wait for the third and final wave.
It's worth noting at this point that I selected Parrot Island as a well-known site with a certain history of TPKs. A worst-case scenario, if you will. The fact that as a cleric, the huecuva has access to rebuke undead didn't occur to me until some way into the process.
The third wave consisted of one shamefaced returning zombie and three fresh ones, plus the huecuva. This time, turn undead was unleashed at the start, sending two zombies fleeing and leaving two standing between the party and the huecuva (With a +5 will save and +2 turn resistance, there wasn't much chance of turning it). Valeros and Merisiel ganged up on one zombie, not quite destroying it, while Seoni magic missiled the huecuva. Then the huecuva hit everyone with rebuke undead.
Three failed will saves later, the party was in bad shape, with Merisiel down and the others wounded. The undead, naturally, were now fighting fit once more. The party never really recovered. Another turning attempt failed to see off any of the undead, and the healing it provided was duly countered by rebuke undead. Valeros and Kyra were brought down soon after, with Seoni subsequently fleeing into flooded, barnacle-encrusted tunnels. With no pursuit, a reasonable GM would likely allow her to eventually locate the underwater exit and escape.
End result: Near TPK.
It's worth noting that despite the huecuva's famed nastiness, it didn't actually do anything a 1st level cleric couldn't have done. As long as the cleric could have survived for a couple of rounds (staying behind the screening zombies would have done it), the end result would have been the same. This isn't to say that superior tactics might not have triumphed (okay, maybe not against DR 10/silver, but I'd handwaved that down to DR 5/silver, giving the party a fighting chance), and certainly, better luck with the turning checks would have helped.
Nevertheless, I think the outcome is interesting, and I shall have to rerun the experiment with one or another bonus hit point system. I invite others to do the same.
Lessons learned:
1) 1st level characters are fragile (okay, not so much a lesson as a reminder).
2) Whatever you do, KILL THE CLERIC.
I don't think many evil clerics would care if they hurt people. Honestly, being forced to spontaneously cast inflict instead of cures is a bigger disadvantage to evil and neutral clerics that choose poorly than this. How have you managed to live with that little piece of pain in the ass?
I haven't played an evil cleric, but I've had three neutral ones who channel negative. Not being able to spontaneously cast cures was painful, but being able to rebuke undead was considerable compensation. I'd usually take a splatbook feat to allow spontaneous casting of domain spells, so as to get some use out of spontaneous casting.
It's quite possible to have a cleric who hardly ever casts any healing spells: it just costs money. The cleric plays as either a buffed fighter or a combat caster (Silence, Sound Burst, Searing Light, Blade Barrier, etc.) PCs carry healing potions and everyone who can use one has a wand of CLW. We got most of the way through SCAP with this setup. I won't claim it's optimal but it's quite feasible. If you don't use the cleric spells for healing you have a *lot* more spells available for buffing, and then you can take less damage so you need less healing in the first place.
In any case, it's painful to lose a fun and interesting option, and I had a lot of fun with the neutral clerics. In the current system, I don't think I would be able to do this anymore, as harming the other PCs with every rebuke would not go over well at all.
I like the "give a token to your allies" idea; that would help a lot, though in the last party it would lead to intense theological arguments (as, indeed, the rebuking did--every time he used it he ended up in an argument with Shensen).
Mary