I'm running Rise of the Rune Lords as our playtest campaign for the Pathfinder RPG. One topic that came up was the new turning rules. I've seen the fact that the burst effect hits enemies as well as allies discussed to death around here and personally, I like that particular portion of the rule. I am, personally, a bit concerned about how easily intelligent and more powerful undead resist such things.
With Charisma typically being a secondary stat for a cleric, sometimes not even that as some clerics tend to put more focus into combat stats than their charisma (Dwarven warpriest anyone?) the DC of 10 + 1/2 level + Cha bonus strikes me as being a touch low. Add to that the fact that for every +2 of turn resistance gives a 5 DR against positive energy you have the ability becoming virtually useless in many cases. It seems these days every intelligent undead and it's skeletal dog has turn resistance which makes them hard enough to turn, but now this DR thing? I've heard of a couple feats that can boos you into a more competent DC but it's my understanding that feats should make you excel, not bring you from miserable to passable. Suffice to say I'm a bit skeptical.
Is all this too complex? Just right? In need of fixing? I'd like to hear what others have to say. We've only run a couple of rough scenarios which amount to little more than number crunching rather than any solid in-game playtesting (i.e. clerics might as well just lay into Nosferatu with Mace and shield in the second module of Curse of the Crimson Throne rather than waste any turning attempts) so despite my skepticism over the new rules I have only loose ground to stand on. So, what say ye?
Couple guys in my group hate the healing part of it, they think it gives the players way to much healing we are talking about it and when we test we will give it a shot
Couple guys in my group hate the healing part of it, they think it gives the players way to much healing we are talking about it and when we test we will give it a shot
And yet, I see Paizo being responsive to the "people don't want to play clerics and be a walking Wand of Cure Light Wounds" here. By adding healing to this ability, the Cleric and Paladin are given options that free up party spell slots for other uses.
It's a pretty powerful ability, too. So powerful that you could argue that it's broken.
Consider a 5th level cleric, in the middle of his party. They're facing undead - let's say 5 wights. And let's give the wights Turn Resistance to the point where they save automatically. The party is kind of beat up by this time, and things aren't going so well in the crypt room. Then WHAM! the cleric channels positive energy.
The crypt room isn't that big, so no party member is more than 30 feet from the cleric. Each party member is healed for 3d6 damage. Basically, you just cast Mass Cure Moderate Wounds.
The wights are all in the burst, because they're all engaged with the party. They all make their saves as we agreed, but each takes 3d6 damage/2. Given 10.5 points as average for 3d6, we'll say 5 points each. That cleric would have to be one serious combat dude to put 5 points of damage on 5 wights in 1 round, at 5th level.
An 8th level Paladin also has this ability, and can use it 3x/day plus Charisma modifier. 16 Charisma? That's 6 times per day. Or 18d6 of healing per day, for every single PC in the party, if they play their cards right. Yowsa. Want to take Extra Turning too? Make it 24d6 per day, per party member. I'd haul the 8th level Paladin along as a henchman with my 15th level party for that!
If I'm a good or neutral cleric, there's no way I take anything else but the Extra Turning feat as soon as I can. Heck, I'd take it just for the healing. What other feat gives you equivalent power to 2 healing waves like that? Nothing. And Wisdom? Feh. Put your best score in Charisma instead. If you don't believe me, do the math and figure out how many spells you'd need to gain, in order to equal the benefits conferred by this ability.
Change Proposal, edited: I'd change the rules to say that Energy Channeling heals d6 damage to appropriate creatures within its radius, +1 point for every d6 of damage it can do to opponents. That means my 8th level Paladin with 16 charisma can end up healing each party member for 39 points per day (6 times x 6.5 {3.5 avg + 3} points per). Not shabby, that's about equal to 2 Cure Serious Wounds for each party member.
NOTE: Added the 1d6 base because Paizo is trying to do 2 things (see their sidebar): help the "cure stick cleric" out, and not force low-level parties to stop and rest as much. The previous 1 point per d6 option would not have helped low-level parties. This option gives it enough oomph at lower levels to do so, without making the ability overkill at mid levels.
The wights take no damage at all. With at least +2 Turn Resistance, they absorb the 5 points of damage and having made their saves go about their business as if nothing happened.
Ah, yes. Page 59 sidebar. Hmm, this is a serious problem.
The solution seems simple, then - remove the DR from Turn Resistance, with a possible counter-balance of increasing the Will save to +2 for every +1 or Turn Resistance. So undead with resistance are quite unlikely to be turned, and are very likely to take 1/2 damage, but still take some damage.
As the example above shows, that works out well - and should still work for the 9th level cleric facing nosferatu.
In the counter-example, if said party was facing 5 ogres, the Cleric would be healing the Ogres of just as much hurt as he would be healing his or her allies. As a combat heal, there are only very limited applications for Channel (only if facing foes of the appropriate type, in this case Undead, and only if those are the only foes the characters are facing). The same is true of the Paladin.
Unless the Cleric has taken the Selective Channeling feat. And of course, channeling is an ideal healing action outside of combat, where a lot of healing still takes place.
My experience with using the new turning rules is that fighting undead got significantly more difficult, and it often is better to save your channel energy for other times, but it can sometimes be a nice (small) boost to damage. Of course all the undead we've fought since switching to channel energy have had turn resistance so that may color my perception of that somewhat. And even with a good Cha score (14) they almost always make the save.
As far as the healing aspect of it being broken, say what? It's not as much as it looks like. I've rolled those d6s a lot. It just isn't that big of a number. I like it since it keeps my very squishable cleric (no dwarven defender here) out of harm's way and still lets me provide healing as needed.
If you want someone to sling around the math I'm not the one to do that. I screw it up more often than not. (Dysnumeria is fun like that.) In fact I screwed up my math and ended up rolling one more d6 than I was supposed to on my channel energy for a whole string of combats. And it still wasn't that impressive as to how much damage it healed. Useful, but not broken. But that's just my experience from playing with the mechanic for awhile. YMMV.
Selective Turning is the clerical equivalent of the Druidic Natural Spell. My playtest group has found that healing enemies is worth it for the healing they get from the cleric - but they're just as happy not to pass the healing along. Playing whack-a-mole with goblins is fun. Playing it with mercenaries who quaff potions of healing? Not so much fun.
In the battle with Malfeshenkor, the ability to heal the party while dealing out even half damage to the barghest was critical - especially to the cleric, who was dancing around in the bottom of the fire pit and sapping his channeling to remain conscious. It made the difference between a dead PC and a reason to worry the fight wouldn't be over soon enough.
Does the party go longer with this healing and the 'freebie' wizard spells? Of course they do. Do my poor, deceased monsters need a boost, also? Of course they do. But the intention of letting the cleric actually use their spells for something other than band-aids is certainly met by this ability.
Does it scale upward? At the same rate as sneak attack, and it allows a save for half damage (unlike sneak attack). Is it more useful at later levels than earlier ones? Absolutely. Is it broken? Possibly, but the threat of evil priests has the PCs targeting priority by so much that it isn't likely to ever see playtest.
I'd have liked to see how the other group handled having a negative energy channeler in the party, but that group fell apart due to nothing replacing the UnNatural Beauty feature of elves. Again, Selective Channeling is a must for tactical use of energy channeling.
|
I've been using the new turn rules in my campaign as well, and thus far they have gotten favorable results. Used outside of combat to heal, they save the cleric from either burning through a want so quickly or having to convert a spell or two that could be used later.
In combat, they aren't always so effective, but I think they are more so then the old style of turning. Undead are generally weak for their hit dice, and so to provide a reasonable challenge they are normally going to have quite a few HD more then the party. That means that before, if you tried to turn, there was a very good chance that it just was going to have no effect whatsoever.
In the new system, in the few times my cleric has been fighting undead and used this ability, he has either done an amount of damage equal to about a single melee attack to all undead within range(and scared a few of them as well), or if they are a bit more powerful and have turn resist, then he has still down at least a couple points to all of them and at the same time healed the party.
The burst aspect of it makes it interesting for combat when you aren't fighting undead as well. It adds a lot of tactical niftyness to the play. If the party is looking pretty beat up, is it worth healing the enemy some to help them all? The fighter drops to the negatives out of your reach in a move, should you get closer and burst to bring him back up, knowing that the enemy will benefit as well?
It adds a lot that has been really fun for my group thus far(just hit 5th level, with a cleric and a paladin, but also just went through a pretty heavy undead area so it got some real use).
-Tarlane
If you want someone to sling around the math I'm not the one to do that. I screw it up more often than not. (Dysnumeria is fun like that.) In fact I screwed up my math and ended up rolling one more d6 than I was supposed to on my channel energy for a whole string of combats. And it still wasn't that impressive as to how much damage it healed. Useful, but not broken. But that's just my experience from playing with the mechanic for awhile. YMMV.<sidenote>
Sorry to hear. I'm dyslexic, which makes it harder for me to post on the forums (most of my posts end up being edited after posting, even after proof-reading). Be that as it may, being a dysnumerate gamer must suck.
</sidenote>
Thanks, Pneumonica. Yeah, somtimes it does suck. You want real irony? I'm in charge of the loot list for my group. That's right. They rely on me to tell them how much money we have and what everybody's share is. I have repeatedly explained to them why this is complete idiocy, but they all just tell me that it doesn't matter. ???! Oh well, it's their treasure I'm screwing up...
And FWIW, you do a really good job with the edits, cause I would never have guessed from reading your posts that you're dyslexic.And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. :)
The base ability for clerics should be Charisma, not Wisdom. I know, not very backward compatible, but Charisma just makes sooo much more sense. And this would change the effect of clerics having insane will save bonuses.
New turn system is great and the healing is just yummy. Clerics get to cast their spells conservatively not while still having the ability to heal is just awesome.
Cleric and Wizards no longer for the party into 5 minute work days
I have to agree with SirUrza for karmic balance. ;D
I agree. Granted I'm working with the lower levels, but I'm not seeing any real problems. Some encounters have had to be tweaked to keep the challenge there, but that hasn't been completely due to the positive energy burst. Clerics and Wizards are contributing to the party more effectively full stop, regardless of this ability.
The 'heal the party' while 'harm the undead' effect hasn't bothered us.
And I REALLY like that it isn't selective. It keeps this ability very very tricky to use in combat when the opponent isn't undead. That keeps it from being a good combat option, while not preventing it from being a combat option at all. Consider: every fight is unique and individual. Let the cleric decide if giving the enemy a few hit points along with your ally is worth it or not. That's a desperation move and a gamble that you can kill the enemy off before your ally gets killed. I'd rather not see this ability become dummied down, or 'safe.' It also keeps proper healing spells still valuable because they are selective and generally more potent.
My experience with using the new turning rules is that fighting undead got significantly more difficult, and it often is better to save your channel energy for other times, but it can sometimes be a nice (small) boost to damage. Of course all the undead we've fought since switching to channel energy have had turn resistance so that may color my perception of that somewhat. And even with a good Cha score (14) they almost always make the save.
As far as the healing aspect of it being broken, say what? It's not as much as it looks like. I've rolled those d6s a lot. It just isn't that big of a number. I like it since it keeps my very squishable cleric (no dwarven defender here) out of harm's way and still lets me provide healing as needed.
If you want someone to sling around the math I'm not the one to do that. I screw it up more often than not. (Dysnumeria is fun like that.) In fact I screwed up my math and ended up rolling one more d6 than I was supposed to on my channel energy for a whole string of combats. And it still wasn't that impressive as to how much damage it healed. Useful, but not broken. But that's just my experience from playing with the mechanic for awhile. YMMV.
Where turn damage is most effective is when facing undead like the CR 14, 32 HD Necronaut in the MM3. Since it has a high will save, but no turn resistance, a 14th level cleric can hurt it with turn undead (unlike a 3.5 cleric that cannot affect it at all).
My one complaint is the fear effect. It is a pain to handle. I would make undead shaken instead (or some similar penalty).
but that group fell apart due to nothing replacing the UnNatural Beauty feature of elves.
This is a bit off topic... but wow, to have a group fall apart over a small ability that elves got being removed? What were their builds? Were they all fans of elves? I'm not in a position to judge my group holds a particular animosity towards elves (the fact that one is an elf and two are half elven is considered a quirk, we typically don't talk about it much to avoid deep shame) but it seems like an odd reason for a group to fall apart. Just curious.
The base ability for clerics should be Charisma, not Wisdom. I know, not very backward compatible, but Charisma just makes sooo much more sense. And this would change the effect of clerics having insane will save bonuses.
I strongly disagree. Honestly I think their base abilities should be focused on Wisdom. Make turning undead an element based on the sheer might of the characters will. Honestly I was never sure why ones personality and ability to influence others affected their divine power to turn beyond a meta-reason to keep charisma from being 'useless' (which I never thought it was when you can effectively change someones mind about killing you with the right skills). Why should a priest not have strong will saves anyway?
My one complaint is the fear effect. It is a pain to handle. I would make undead shaken instead (or some similar penalty).
Hmmm, that sounds interesting, though I will say the fear mechanic is definitely helpful in keeping the PC's from being overwhelmed that's for sure but penalties are certainly an interesting change. I could see a house rule where that's the case for the more intelligent undead so that the PC's don't have to chase down their fleeing foe but can feel like they still accomplished something with the turn ability... not sure though.
Beyond the above two comments the healing factor has never been much of an issue. It's conserved our clerics spells (they presently have a tapped out wizard, one who's up at full due to using his generalist ability all the time, and the cleric is about half down and they still effectively have two mini dungeons left) and helped the party remain at full through the thistle maze portion of Burnt Offerings.
What I'm concerned about is the DR undead get for undead resistance. Considering, as mentioned before, every undead above skeletons and zombies and their little dogs have TR +2 or greater (at least it seems that way in the modules I've looked at) that would make the turning ability virtually useless. I personally would recommend nixing the DR entirely. Turn resistance helps with their saves and keeping them from running away but you shouldn't practically nullify the ability because of it. Perhaps the previously suggested +2 will save for every +1 turn resistance would be more fitting. It would ensure that the tougher monsters remained on the battlefield without utterly nullifying a clerics turn resistance.
I think when I run the Skinsaw Murders I'll play with that. Run one session with turning being as it is and then run another without the DR but the boost to the will save bonus. Alas that is some weeks off.
My group just started playtesting last weekend (starting Burnt Offerings), and the new turning rules seemed to work very well. The cleric was able to use his spells to be more effective in combat (well, if his dice hadn't hated him, he would have been more effective), and he was still able to heal my wizard up when some unlucky crits took me down. Overall, I think it is a fairly good mechanic, and I really like that it heals the enemy, too. Makes it more strategic and balanced.
My group over all enjoy it one even said hey a cleric may get to cast some of his spells now. The rebuking is nice as well ghoul cleric with undead minion was not pretty but was very cool. A heart felt 10 from us
Not certain what you're saying. Are you complaining about the amount of damage output or do you prefer it increased? I like the DR option, but I'm also a fan of the curren Channel.
Damage output is fine if 1/2 damage and no morale issue is the outcome for turn-resistant creatures, not fine if turn resistance also includes DR.
Remove the DR, and apply the turn resistance bonus to the undead's will save. If you like, double the Will save bonus to +2 per +1 of turn resistance (would want to run this through more iterative testing to see results). As long as there's no DR from turn resistance, taking 1/2 damage in place is balanced.
It's a win-win scenario - the players get to play more and get further into the adventures before needing to rest, the cleric is able to cast spells other than healing (in the 3.5 game I'm currently in the Cleric has cast maybe two spells that weren't cure or heal), and the turn undead effect does something other than just make the undead fight you later.
Agree. But the DR needs to go, and the collateral heal/ damage needs a tone-down.
Consider negative channeling. Boy it could be interesting next time a 7th level party invades a temple and faces, oh, 4 5th level clerics behind a wall of 12 2HD zombies (3 ranks deep), in a 10' wide corridor. 4 x 3d6, for 3 rounds, is probably a TPK. Even 2 rounds could be pushing it, and that may remain true even assuming most saves are made against the DC 12-16 blasts.
Something to consider, and really, another reason to think about my proposed 1d6 + 1 per d6 damage modification for positive channeling as healing, or negative channeling as damage.
|
|
When my party was facing
A very different system, indeed.
We have used the new turning twice in our playtest.
It has worked out well so far (2nd level-slow advancement).
I really like that as a DM I can engineer more complex encounter with more opponents than before as the Cleric will still be the healing battery, but the players choice of spells is important not just a throw away ability destined for cure ____ spells.
The next encounter is a third level cleric that channels negative energy... will the party survive? A 30 foot burst of 2d6 save for half is going to be eye opening. (an advanced Nirashi from Haunted Forest).
Consider negative channeling. Boy it could be interesting next time a 7th level party invades a temple and faces, oh, 4 5th level clerics behind a wall of 12 2HD zombies (3 ranks deep), in a 10' wide corridor. 4 x 3d6, for 3 rounds, is probably a TPK. Even 2 rounds could be pushing it, and that may remain true even assuming most saves are made against the DC 12-16 blasts.
While the zombies may be getting healed in this scenario, the 5th level clerics will be killing each other before anyone in the party dies. Even if each PC only has 10hp left at this point, I'm sure 4 7th level PCs with 10hp each can wipe out 12 2HD zombies without even one of them dying.
I like the current channel energy rules except I'd like to see a 1d4 round daze effect instead of the fleeing on a failed save.
While the zombies may be getting healed in this scenario, the 5th level clerics will be killing each other before anyone in the party dies. Even if each PC only has 10hp left at this point, I'm sure 4 7th level PCs with 10hp each can wipe out 12 2HD zombies without even one of them dying.
Hmm, you're right. For some reason I had read it as "good" creatures when it's "living". Must be some kind of mental holdover from 1E's evil clerics turning paladins.
You'd have to spring this one as an interesting sort of ambush, with undead and a cleric pouring out of 4 secret doors or rooms near a cross intersection, trapping the party in the middle and keeping each other out of the blast radius. Doable, but very difficult, and we'd have to up the zombies to 32 (8 each, 2 ranks deep in front of each cleric). At that point, we're probably past EL 7.
Still sounds like a fun one to try some time. And the whole thing does give me some fiendish ideas for an Egyptian pyramid/ tomb adventure with undead clerics of Set...
Having play tested this for a while now, in a group of 7 characters that includes one multi-classed cleric and one 6th level cleric I can say that I like the rules for turning a lot:
1) The clerics are actually casting none curing spells in combat.
2) The party now tends to run out of spells at the same time as they run out of curing, which makes the resting seem more natural.
3) The party interrupted a ceremony with 11 1st level evil clerics and one 6th level boss involved. After it became apparent that the clerics could hardly hurt the party and were getting wiped out, the remaining 4 (3 mooks +1 boss)decided to do a combined turn. They killed them selves, but I managed to inflict enough damage on the halfing rogue to push him into negative numbers. Made for a more interesting battle.
4) I like the fact that the turning can potentially effect more undead than a traditional turn rule.
So far it is working out for our group.
I love the new turning rules. Though not overly complicated, the old rules for turning were confusing enough that my players resisted turning at all costs simply because it would mean a 5-10 minute detour into the PH while the rules were examined and rules were made.
The Pathfinder RPG fixes this problem in my mind while adding the interesting factor that one must be careful as to how they use such "blasts of healing" so as to not heal enemies.
What if there was a feat chain that allowed you to heal?
Maybe like
Healing Surge
Prereq 3 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Positive Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it heals all living creatures equal to half the dice the cleric does in damage.
Greater Healing Surge
Prereq 8 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Positive Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it heals all living creatures equal to the dice the cleric does in damage
And maybe for the Evil Clerics
Damaging Surge
Prereq 3 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Negative Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it damages all living creatures equal to half the dice the cleric does in damage
Greater Healing Surge
Prereq 8 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Negative Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it damages all living creatures equal to the dice the cleric does in damage
What do you guys thinks, one of my players came up with this idea and i really like it so i might house rule this any how
|
Consider negative channeling. Boy it could be interesting next time a 7th level party invades a temple and faces, oh, 4 5th level clerics behind a wall of 12 2HD zombies (3 ranks deep), in a 10' wide corridor. 4 x 3d6, for 3 rounds, is probably a TPK. Even 2 rounds could be pushing it, and that may remain true even assuming most saves are made against the DC 12-16 blasts.
This is true (except for the multiple clerics part, which is a drawback then). In a recent playtest game the party faced an 8th Lvl cleric that commanded eight ghouls. Boy, that was a tough fight for the PCs, because each time the cleric healed his undead, the players took serious damage. I didn't find it to be overpowered or even broken, it was just damn hard. The key to winning was, of course, to kill the cleric first; so the new turning/channeling rules improve tactical gaming as well. If the players would've used the archtypical first come/first serve approach to fighting their enemies, they would've been toast.
I really, really like these rules. They're great and I hope they'll be kept. And I'm wondering if we'll see additional feats that are based on these rules (to replace the old and somehow boring "If you spend one turn attempt you can XY". Okay, these would still work, but I find most of them quite lame).
I think channel energy should be selective.
For example, lets say I'm playing a LN cleric, of a LN deity. I chose to use negative energy, so that I'd have a chance of commanding undead to fight for my allies. After all it's better to use dead meat shield then live ones any day. Besides, players tend to complain when you ask them to take fire for you.
Under Pathfinder rules, I'd have to take a feat or I'd become a sever hindrance to my own party.
I think channel energy should be selective.
For example, lets say I'm playing a LN cleric, of a LN deity. I chose to use negative energy, so that I'd have a chance of commanding undead to fight for my allies. After all it's better to use dead meat shield then live ones any day. Besides, players tend to complain when you ask them to take fire for you.
Under Pathfinder rules, I'd have to take a feat or I'd become a sever hindrance to my own party.
Perhaps so. Then again, think of the level of power your PC has.
Full armor, good attack bonus, cleric spells which are already quite powerful - oh, and by the way, your 5th level cleric is more powerful with the blasting magics than the 5th level wizard. Which isn't enough, so we'll take that blasting power equal to 3-7 lesser fireballs and let you exclude your allies, as a fireball can't. For which you give up the fireball's range.
Cleric was already way overpowered - and that is simply ridiculous.