We just had our very first session using the new Pathfinder RPG and, so far, everyone is thrilled about the new changes!
However, the party's Cleric thinks that Turning Healing, as it is right now, could become abusive, both from a rule point of view than from a role-playing point of view.
From a rule point of view, Turning could now be regarded as a "cheap man's mass healing". The concept of healing—Allies AND enemies alike—is not the issue here (actually, the player finds it cool), it's just that he thinks that some mandatory situation should be required to actually use the Turning ability (like a turnable creature to be present).
From a role-playing point of view, he explained to us that Turning should be considered as a "gift" offered by the Cleric's deity (the turn effect) for his fervor (the turn attempt). Like it is right now, it seems to him that the whole "deity gift-giving" concept is a bit let aside.
So, we decided to simply rule out that the Turning mechanism is fine as is it, but we add a "trigger" for the Cleric to use it (a turnable creature present).
What do you think?
We'll see after tomorrow night. The Paizo guys clarified that its not really "wrong" to use turn to heal without a turnable creature present, but other than that, I'll not have much to say until the party cleric gets to use this a bit. Okay, I'll say one thing . . . if the adventure doesn't have any undead, it doesn't make turn undead a useless ability, and if they heal outside of combat and there are undead, it kind of balances out, since they weighted healing against affecting undead.
But anyway, It will be interesting to see how this works out with the cleric in the party. Glad to see some "in play" use of this.
I actually like it as an ability granted by the deity to allow the cleric to channel positive (or negative) energy and it's up to the cleric to decide what to do with it. If it's healing just to heal, that's fine with me.
The Turning-as-Healing/Harming is interesting to me and makes sense given the descriptive use of Positive/Negative Energy to use the ability.
It's use as healing is also a tricky thing since it is non-selective, it is everyone in the area. Which leaves the cleric in the quandry of what if your two frontline combatants are both seriously injured but so are their opponents are less so. If he uses the Turning-as-Healing then he just healed the enemy as well.
The Turning-as-Harming has a drawback as well. Not all evil characters are so callous as to unleash this effect with living allies, friends and loved ones (I despise the view that evil cannot love without being some twisted obsessive and ultimately destructive thing). The evil cleric has the chance to inflict serious harm on an opponent but her faithful Fighter bodyguard and her Rogue lover have already both been seriously hurt and the damaging effect of Turning could kill them both. What does she do?
-Weylin Stormcrowe
What happens if the cleric turns (heals) his party and they are at maximum hit points? Do they gain bonus hit points, or is the effect wasted?
It's in the last line of the Turning/Healing section on page 45 Alpha 1.1. "Hit points gained above a living creature’s total are lost." Same goes for undead with the Negative Energy rebuking.
I need to see these particular rules in action, but I have seen the less effective Sacred Healing(Complete Divine) in action. It was marginally useful at low level, particularly when there was a major lack of undead.
|
Which leaves the cleric in the quandry of what if your two frontline combatants are both seriously injured but so are their opponents are less so. If he uses the Turning-as-Healing then he just healed the enemy as well.
I think if you tweaked the turning-as-healing so the cleric could target a number of living creatures inside the area of effect up to his Wisdom bonus, that would prevent inadvertent healing of enemies. This would also grant clerics with higher WIS more capability in using it, which is similar to other class features in many classes that are somehow based on the primary ability score for spellcasting.
Can I ask for a quick show of hands, who is converting classes across as they appear and who is waiting for them ALL to appear and then convert them?
Similar issue with our group - we're eagerly waiting for the paladin, sorcerer and psychic warrior. Ah - last one's not going to happen any time soon.
We're updating them all tonight - in preparation for tomorrows game.
I'd suggest updating slowly, with each new release. It puts the feedback in bite sized chunks and lets you participate sooner. Use group vote to find a compromise for the classes not yet covered in the alpha.
RE: Sorcerer, we were thinking the same 0-level spell boost as the other casters, plus diplomacy/intimidate/deceive added to class skills and a free bloodline feat from the Dragon Compendium. Share what choices you make if you update any of the classes early - I'm sure I'm not alone in being curious as to my fellow gamers' thoughts.
Peace,
tfad
I think some of the design philosophy behind the turning attempts also curing the party is to do two things, if I understand Jason correctly.
1. Help alleviate the 15 minute adventuring day, where after 3-4 encounters the party is out of healing and spells, forcing the party to rest when the spell casters are out of spells and not when the group or adventure dictates.
2. To allow clerics to be more versatile, most clerics end up as medics and often have to convert their spells across from the cool ones chosen to the mundane curing ones, most of the clerics I have seen run, bemoan this fact more than anything else.
Having run the new turning ability for 3 sessions now, in a heavy undead adventure, the new rules work well. Infact, it is the first time I can remember in a long time, where the cleric ran out of turning before I ran out of undead.
Alpha playtest feedback:
I'm running a table-top group of 6 PCs...one of whom is a cleric of Desna. We instituted the new turning/healing rules and we've hit upon a snag (from our perspective at least). We don't favor the idea of Desna answering her priest's entreaties for healing in the middle of combat and having the resulting positive energy heal not only his friends, but also their enemies.
Basically, a god (or goddess) is supposed to be all-knowing and powerful enough to know which creatures are threatening her priest and which are supporting him. So, using the turn ability, we've started ruling that it only heals the cleric's allies (not their living enemies) and it will damage any undead who also happen to be in the area (because Desna can certainly use the positive energy as a weapon against her priest's enemies at the same time she heals his allies).
We much prefer to play it this way. Otherwise, a lot of the situations described above play out in a meta-gaming fashion. Players start worrying about the tactical positioning of the positive energy effect. Once the battle's over, they have to pull off somewhere to heal the party lest they inadvertantly heal up some enemy who hasn't died yet and is actually only into negative hit points. That's not cool. Meanwhile, the notion that a cleric's deity is wise enough and powerful enough to heal only his allies is cool. And even cooler if the deity does that at the same time he or she blasts away undead enemies in the same area of effect.
On the flip side, we've made the same ruling regarding evil clerics and the use of their turning ability to wield negative energy. Their evil deity uses that energy to heal any of the cleric's undead allies, but only uses it to harm the cleric's living enemies. Now obviously, some evil clerics may also use this ability to bring down pain upon their living allies too...in order to chastise them or inspire fear of their god's dark power. But, unless the evil cleric specifically views those living followers as in need of being taught such a lesson, the negative energy effect doesn't touch them.
Our two-cents so far,
--Neil
But by the same token 50 priests of Desna may be calling on that power at the same time...I guess it comes down to how all knowing the god or godess is. I think they were going for a, you call on the positive energy that, being bonded to your diety, you have access to. Sort of like a well that you can get a bucket of and dump over a thirty foot radius and it's effect on all living creatures is heal. My question is: If a good cleric is healed when he uses turning healing, is an evil one harmed when he uses rebuke/inflict? or are all living and undead creatures effected except the cleric? This would tend to support your "house rule" of selective healing/inflicting (sort of like "Bless") but in that case I think the progression of how much damage is healed/inflicted should be slower, thus making it advantageous at low level and not so much at higher levels...say an additional d6 every 3 or 4 levels above 1st ( just to prevent munckinism)
I was posting in response to Nspicer which apparently disappeared!!
Your post showed up for me. But I think the boards are just acting up again.
At any rate, to further explain what we've decided to do, the way I've been interpreting the new healing/turning rules for my tabletop group goes sort of like this...
--Yes, it's an unleashing of positive energy...usually called down in the form of some kind of rebuke (against undead) by a good-aligned cleric in order to damage them. Or, it can be called upon as a form of prayer (for your allies) to ensure they're healed.
--A cleric's deity knows the heart of his servant. And so he knows which creatures are his allies and which are his enemies. So, when the positive energy is unleashed, the god's power clearly damages undead in the area (because of the positive energy effect), but it only heals the cleric's allies...not every living breathing creature in the immediate vicinity. Otherwise, your god would be answering your call to assist and heal your friends while also healing your living enemies. And that just doesn't make sense (unless maybe your god is a total pacifist)...
--The most applicable time to ensure a full blessing (and healing) from your god is to have all of your allies join hands (probably before going to bed that night) and use whatever turning "charges" you've got left for the day. That way, it's maximum healing as everyone willingly recognizes, appreciates, and dedicates themselves to the cleric's deity and/or expresses a willingness to receive his blessing.
--At other times, like during combat, it isn't feasible for all of a cleric's friends to be gathered close together. In these circumstances, you've got the option of using a turning check to fill an area with healing power (for your allies)...possibly missing one or two of them that are outside the area of effect. Or, you've still got the ability to prepare individual healing spells (e.g., cure light wounds, etc.) that you can use to target specific allies who need it. In addition, the Healing domain provides something similar in the form of spell-like abilities that duplicate those healing spells. So a cleric can opt for that, too. And, of course, you can also gather everyone together after a fight and still use one of your turning abilities for the day to do a mass healing effect again.
--The reverse of all of this is also true for evil clerics who wield negative energy. They can use that power to "heal" their undead servants. Or, their dark god will allow them to call upon that power to damage their enemies (but not their allies) in a specific area of effect. And, of course, evil clerics can also prepare individual cure or inflict spells as necessary to augment those abilities.
--Neil
A Good Deity that Rebukes is already coloring outside the the typical lines as it were, even in 3.5 which makes the same assumption about Good and Evil clerics. If such a deity were written with the Pathfinder system in mind I would guess that a modified Rebuke would be called for by that deity. Perhaps allowing the Cleric to Command undead hit by the positive energy instead of making them Frightened.
I think a Feat could address the 'accidental' splash on enemies, or allies with negative. Even if we assume that it is the deity that is directly granting the power it is doing so through the Cleric, who is not a perfect conductor of Divine will. Much better then most but not perfect.
Not sure what to call it but:
SOME KIND OF TURNING FEAT {Flow Control?}
Perquisites: Turn or Rebuke Undead
Benefits: When you Turn or Rebuke Undead you may choose which creatures within range are affect by your positive (or negative) energy burst.
Normal: All creatures within range of your Turn or Rebuke are affected.
Should there be a cap(level based) on the number of creatures that can be omitted?
Not everyone is concerned about splashing foes, or even allies. Some people don't mind keeping track of tactical positions. This also brings back an element of the feats a cleric need before to turn Turn Checks into healing.
A Good Deity that Rebukes is already coloring outside the the typical lines as it were, even in 3.5 which makes the same assumption about Good and Evil clerics.On the contrary. In the PHB it lists at least one deity that specifically grants rebuke even to good Clerics. I don't remember the naem off hand.
You are incorrect. It sounded wonky, so I checked. The closest thing is that a LN cleric of Wee Jas rebukes undead.
See, I think of it as the cleric channeling positive energy through a link with her deity; not that the deity itself is using the cleric's body as a funnel to heal/harm people in the vicinity. The cleric is expected to uphold her end of the contract and use this link according to the principles of her church.
In that way, the cleric just taps into the energy and it does what it does: harms undead and just so happens to heal living beings.
I see the fantasy pantheon as more akin to gods from the ancient world: neither omniscient nor omnipotent. The deity in question is not sitting around waitng for clerics to ask for things like some demented Santa Claus. No, the deities tend to wage battles on a cosmic level with their nemeses or work to further their own mega goals. Order of the Stick did a great strip involving this concept, with Thor having to stop in the middle of a battle with Loki to take a call from a cleric, granting spells for the day.
So - to summarize, I have no problems at all with the healing burst as written.
Which leaves the cleric in the quandry of what if your two frontline combatants are both seriously injured but so are their opponents are less so. If he uses the Turning-as-Healing then he just healed the enemy as well.I think if you tweaked the turning-as-healing so the cleric could target a number of living creatures inside the area of effect up to his Wisdom bonus, that would prevent inadvertent healing of enemies. This would also grant clerics with higher WIS more capability in using it, which is similar to other class features in many classes that are somehow based on the primary ability score for spellcasting.
I think you misunderstood me. I LOVE the fact that Turning-as-Healing/Harming is nonselective. I love the quandry it puts characters (PC and NPC alike) in those situations. I think it is just fine as is.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Simple easy fix: have the cleric give each of their allies some small, specially prepared token of their deity similar to, but not a important asthe actual holy symbol. For good neutral clerics, onlty those bearing the toekn (or holy symbol of their deity) are healed; for evil/neutral clerics, only those wearing the token are excluded from the effects of the negative energy.
I think you misunderstood me. I LOVE the fact that Turning-as-Healing/Harming is nonselective. I love the quandry it puts characters (PC and NPC alike) in those situations. I think it is just fine as is.
I'm with Weylin - the nonselective Healing works just fine as a limitation. If you're going to call out for the beneficence of Divine Holy Healing Power in such an uncontrolled way (i.e. not a spell), it's going to hit everybody in range.
Also - compare with Mass Cure Light Wounds - at 9th level, Turn healing is already more powerful (5d6 =~ 17.5 vs 1d8+9 =~ 13.5), but the spell gives you control over the targets. Makes lots more sense.
I do have some issues with the Rebuke/Harming end, as many people have eloquently described the problems with. But while I agree with all those, I think it just goes along with the already extant issue of spontaneously inflicting wounds, instead of curing. It doesn't create a new problem, and require a resolution.
I'm with Weylin - the nonselective Healing works just fine as a limitation. If you're going to call out for the beneficence of Divine Holy Healing Power in such an uncontrolled way (i.e. not a spell), it's going to hit everybody in range.
Also - compare with Mass Cure Light Wounds - at 9th level, Turn healing is already more powerful (5d6 =~ 17.5 vs 1d8+9 =~ 13.5), but the spell gives you control over the targets. Makes lots more sense.
I do have some issues with the Rebuke/Harming end, as many people have eloquently described the problems with. But while I agree with all those, I think it just goes along with the already extant issue of spontaneously inflicting wounds, instead of curing. It doesn't create a new problem, and require a resolution.
Actually, I would point out that it makes evil clerics less powerful than the good ones. An evil cleric who works with anything other than undead is hosed, and that happens a lot more often than good clerics that work with the undead, especially if the creators of 3.P are going with the "necromancy is made of evil" notion. I don't like the idea of evil clerics being a burden to their parties, especially since they become more burdensome the higher their level rather than less.
On the flip side, yes, I see your point, and it's a damn fine one, and I'm really close to being convinced by it. However, this issue still bothers me to much to let it go.
I'm also going with a day of smurf avatars, just to see if I should keep them full time. I mean, I don't have an avatar otherwise, do I?
EDIT: That and sometimes they're just freaking too funny not to use.
Honestly the way the new Turning rules were written this ability will be used more often as a healing power than to turn.
I suggest that the power's name be "channeling positive energy" or "channelling negative energy".
When used agains undead you can say that "Channeling positive energy turns undead", or "You can use channeled positive energy to turn undead".
That way the term "turning" is still used so the sacred cow still lives. But the power's name itself needs to be changed.
Honestly the way the new Turning rules were written this ability will be used more often as a healing power than to turn.
I suggest that the power's name be "channeling positive energy" or "channelling negative energy".
When used agains undead you can say that "Channeling positive energy turns undead", or "You can use channeled positive energy to turn undead".
That way the term "turning" is still used so the sacred cow still lives. But the power's name itself needs to be changed.
Agreed. And also I think that's what the current plan is - they just either haven't come up with a new name or have retained the old name for a brief bit so as to make it clear where the bridge lies. Or was that a bridge to far? No, wait, that's the Skills debate. ;-p [URL=smurf][/URL]
I can't help wondering, given that the new turning ability has engendered so much convoluted discussion over its logic, if maybe the designers need to reformulate it from the beginning again.
Personally, I'm not wild about the notion of its doing damage to undead as the main effect. Other things - like searing light and, yes, mass cure spells - can already do that. To me, part of what made turning interesting as an ability was that it didn't work quite like any other.
The damaging version also weakens undead of pretty much all CRs (except perhaps those that would ordinarily be instantly incinerated). Just a couple of turning attempts will whittle them down en masse. The more powerful undead are probably hurt the most by this, even if their turn resistance reduces the damage somewhat. Let us not forget that undead have pretty much the worst hit points of all creature types.
This also produces, in my opinion, not the best in-game aesthetic. Consider these two (albeit exaggerated) examples:
1. Standard 3.5 cleric tries to turn the uber-powerful lich. Nothing happens, and the lich gets to say something cool, like, "Your petty gods cannot harm me, mortal!"
2. Alpha cleric does the same thing. The lich takes some damage and says something more along the lines of "Ow! Quit it!"
Admittedly, 3.5 turning has its flaws in that regard, too. I don't enjoy making an undead creature cower in the corner while my friends beat on it until it's dead again. More proof that some third alternative needs to be worked out.
The healing of allies is a whole other question, of course, but I don't much like that either. In fact, I hate the idea of a cleric, in character, standing there going, "Well, we need some healing, but maybe I should wait until some undead show up. Or until those non-undead bad guys move away. How many times a day can I do this again?"
Yes, that kind of calculation will always go on to some extent with healing spells and other things, but let's not encourage more of it than necessary. It tends to pull one out of character, and while it would be nice to lengthen the average adventuring day with more available healing, but it's not worth sacrificing flavor and suspension of disbelief.
The uber-lich probably has several levlels of turn resistance which translates in the rules to Resistance to Positive Energy..every level is 5 points of resistance as i recall. A powerful lich or vampire should probably have several levels of turn resistance (and possibly spells) which means he will probably shrug off the turning damage, make the will save and laugh at the petty little priest who thought a mighty undead would be impressed.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
2. Alpha cleric does the same thing. The lich takes some damage and says something more along the lines of "Ow! Quit it!"
Assume an 11th level lich. It'll have a Will Save of something like +11, and with +4 turn resistance it'll get +15 or more (assuming no significant modifications). This will give it a damn good chance against a level 11 cleric (DC 20 or so). Including the damage reduction granted by the turn resistance, this'll be something on the order of about 5 points of damage inflicted. I doubt it's too frightened, especially when it casts spells to protect itself from positive energy damage.
As for the calculation of when to do things, that sort of stuff happens all the time anyway, and is supposed to happen. It's tactical planning and risk assessment, two concepts at the heart of the game.[URL=smurf][/URL]
|
I've been thinking about the turning rules for a while. I didn't want to get too much into them, since I'm really more interested in seeing how skills develop, but I think that is coming along nicely, and will probably be in a near final form in the very near future. Maybe in time for the Paladin and Barbarian classes to be released.
I've talked to my group about converting over to Pathfinder Alpha, and it just isn't a go. The first document has things that just don't work for us and things that are missing. While I'd really like to get some serious playtesting feedback in, that just won't really happen until we finish Rise of the Runelords.
Regarding the Turn as damage - I don't like it. Adam Howat is right. Undead are already among the weakest creatures. Even though they get a d12 hd, with no con modifier, just about every creature above CR 4 is weaker when turned to an undead form. I'd love to see that issue addressed separately (I think giving Chr bonus to hit points is absolutely appropriate for all undead and should not require a feat - since their 'force of personality' is all that holds them together anyway). But whether a change is made to make undead tougher or not, the turn as damage clearly will result in a situation where clerics are 'fireballing' undead - dealing a massive amount of damage to all undead in the area for however many rounds it takes to eliminate them. I don't really like that visual.
Having thought about it, without regard to how I've seen Turn Undead work before, I think I do have a solution that would make turning 'better'. Before explaining the idea, let me explain the 'why' of the idea.
First, I think that turning should have a chance to affect a large number of weak undead, or the chance to affect a small number of powerful undead. I think that the player should get a choice about what undead is targeted. I think that the turn attempt should either have an effect, or have no effect (not a partial effect, at least not on intelligent undead).
I think that Turn Undead should work a little like destruction. The player picks one undead within the area as the 'target'. The target makes a saving throw. If the target has 1/2 the HD or fewer he is destroyed. If he has more than 1/2, he takes damage. Let's say 1d8 per two cleric levels. If the target is destroyed, the target moves to another creature. It can chain from one creature to another as none are more than 30' away from each other.
The way I visualize this is as a bolt of divine energy moving from the cleric to his chosen undead, then shooting to another, etc, etc. I like this because it allows the player to choose who to try to affect, and if the cleric 'turns' a powerful undead it does have an effect, even if he can't destroy them.
This has nothing to do with the turning as healing, of course. If that is considered important, the beam could be used to target allies, but in that case I suggest that the total number of targets cannot exceed the cleric's level + charisma modifier... And of course, no creature could be targeted more than once by a single turn attempt.
I do hope that further revision of this idea is made, since I just don't care for it the way it is now.
PS - Rebuke could work similarly, though it might 'dominate' undead instead of acting a little like 'destruction'. If the undead has more HD than the caster but fails it's save, perhaps it can be 'charmed' instead.. .
Personally, I agree with DeadDMwalking that channeling energy isn't the right flavor or mechanic. For backwards compatability the mechanic should have similar effects and have the same name. Altering it as much as the Alpha document has no longer makes it a Turning effect but rather a healing effect. Cure spells have always damaged undead and this is just another way of healing. How many clerics use their Cure spells to harm undead anyway? What if this mechanic becomes the same? Cleric thinks, "None of my allies are injured, so why waste the Turn on these undead?" Or worse yet, "The lich just Fireballed my party, so let's heal them back to full and damage the lich at the same time."
The function of the 3.5 Turn Undead wasn't exactly broken- many posters here will agree that the fleeing effect was a pain, but not the concept. The chart was a pain, but not the cleric level vs undead level. No DM wants the players to reach the vampire/lich BBEG and simply use Turn to destroy it, so there needs to be a feeling of scale.
Alpha playtest feedback:
I'm running a table-top group of 6 PCs...one of whom is a cleric of Desna. We instituted the new turning/healing rules and we've hit upon a snag (from our perspective at least). We don't favor the idea of Desna answering her priest's entreaties for healing in the middle of combat and having the resulting positive energy heal not only his friends, but also their enemies.
Basically, a god (or goddess) is supposed to be all-knowing and powerful enough to know which creatures are threatening her priest and which are supporting him. So, using the turn ability, we've started ruling that it only heals the cleric's allies (not their living enemies) and it will damage any undead who also happen to be in the area (because Desna can certainly use the positive energy as a weapon against her priest's enemies at the same time she heals his allies).
We much prefer to play it this way. Otherwise, a lot of the situations described above play out in a meta-gaming fashion. Players start worrying about the tactical positioning of the positive energy effect. Once the battle's over, they have to pull off somewhere to heal the party lest they inadvertantly heal up some enemy who hasn't died yet and is actually only into negative hit points. That's not cool. Meanwhile, the notion that a cleric's deity is wise enough and powerful enough to heal only his allies is cool. And even cooler if the deity does that at the same time he or she blasts away undead enemies in the same area of effect.
On the flip side, we've made the same ruling regarding evil clerics and the use of their turning ability to wield negative energy. Their evil deity uses that energy to heal any of the cleric's undead allies, but only uses it to harm the cleric's living enemies. Now obviously, some evil clerics may also use this ability to bring down pain upon their living allies too...in order to chastise them or inspire fear of their god's dark power. But, unless the evil cleric specifically views those living...
I'm not sure if that qualifies as metagaming.
It's not like you don't know the cleric can heal in advance...hell you may choose to stand close-by to an enemy cleric just because you know he might drop one if worse comes to worse. :P
Course your enemies might do the same...how's that for weird?
Not only that, but the deity gave the cleric access to power because the cleric had the wisdom to use it wisely. The cleric can heal the bad and the good alike, along with setting them ablaze with divine fire... I choose to believe the gods don't micromanage their clerics, seeing it as a weak management strategy.
Then again, turning also isn't a massive game-concern for me. The cleric certainly lacks healing ability anywhere close to damage output so I don't see this effect as terrible. For others it may be a larger concern.
I do however love the idea of CHA effecting an undeads HP.
I do have some issues with the Rebuke/Harming end, as many people have eloquently described the problems with. But while I agree with all those, I think it just goes along with the already extant issue of spontaneously inflicting wounds, instead of curing. It doesn't create a new problem, and require a resolution.Actually, I would point out that it makes evil clerics less powerful than the good ones. An evil cleric who works with anything other than undead is hosed, and that happens a lot more often than good clerics that work with the undead, especially if the creators of 3.P are going with the "necromancy is made of evil" notion. I don't like the idea of evil clerics being a burden to their parties, especially since they become more burdensome the higher their level rather than less.
On the flip side, yes, I see your point, and it's a damn fine one, and I'm really close to being convinced by it. However, this issue still bothers me to much to let it go.
Making evil clerics (or negative energy channeling clerics anyhow) less powerful was precisely my issue with the Rebuke/Harming - we're pretty much in agreement.
On the topic of the *name* of the power, it *MUST* stay Turn/Rebuke Undead, for backwards compatibility reasons.
One thought on the "Fireball vs. Turn" - a cleric could *finally* defend a group of commoners with his god's holy power. Evil sorcerer/necromancer in his tower? Threatening to fireball the populace? Ready a Turn to counter the damage. Glorious visuals.
|
Actually played in a campaign with a cleric that had sacred healing and sacred purification. It actually was fairly useful for being able to recover the party - especially if multiple folks went down and the cleric was otherwise occupied.
I had no issue with some of the new "uses" that turning had - it made the "extra turning" feat seem a great deal more useful.
As well though, I agree about the complaint regarding evil clerics. Any cleric should be able to choose whether he is calling upon positive or negative energies. An evil cleric should be able to heal his partners in crime if they're living beings.
Obviously, a good cleric choosing to call upon negative energies is choosing to commit an "evil" act. But if he does so and saves the party, has he sacrificed in his own soul and his relationship with his deity to save their lives? I see this as a great role-playing opportunity - it's a slippery slope to the dark side you know. :-)
Pete