I notice the Turn Undead feat lets you either cause damage or turn the enemy. Not both at the same time.
What's the point of this? When choosing between either killing undead or letting them run away, wouldn't the former be more used? Why bother letting the enemy run when killing them is more beneficial for the PCs?
Sure, there may be some circumstances that might warrant letting the enemies just flee, but those most likely would be very rare cases. It's the same Will DC, so when stuck between hoping the enemy flees if your party is in danger or killing them off, the latter choice makes more sense because at least they take half damage even on a successful saving throw.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I notice the Turn Undead feat lets you either cause damage or turn the enemy. Not both at the same time.
What's the point of this?
Some PrC needed "Turn Undead" specifically which is probably why they made the feat (for backward compat.)
The other thing is just flavour.
The third is that sometimes you may have so many and one turn can't kill them so you need to make them run away.
As for the direct question, why did it change?
In Beta (which we used for my cleric in Weds night game for over a year), I was basically a GOD when I dealt damage AND made them run. Pretty much no undead were a challenge. Had one battle with about 8 undead, one was Straad (who was immune to sunlight) and it was TPK in 3 rounds (I was the ONLY one standing after round 3) except I lived for another 8 rounds killing every single undead solo using nothing but turning (beta) that healed me, hurt undead, and made them run on failed saves. A single 10th level Cleric shouldn't solo a CR 14 Ultimate Magnus Undead Vampire with lots of 3rd and 4th level spells.
|
I notice the Turn Undead feat lets you either cause damage or turn the enemy. Not both at the same time.
What's the point of this? When choosing between either killing undead or letting them run away, wouldn't the former be more used? Why bother letting the enemy run when killing them is more beneficial for the PCs?
Sure, there may be some circumstances that might warrant letting the enemies just flee, but those most likely would be very rare cases. It's the same Will DC, so when stuck between hoping the enemy flees if your party is in danger or killing them off, the latter choice makes more sense because at least they take half damage even on a successful saving throw.
At least some GMs (myself included; note that my own playtest campaign features both a cleric and a paladin) were concerned about how powerful Channeling was in the Beta rules, because it allowed the divine PCs to heal their buddies and damage plus turn the undead with the same action. Whenever I tried to run an encounter with evil clerics or wizards the end result was this: all the minions (the ones that weren't outright destroyed) panicked and fled on the first round, leaving my poor BBEG at the mercy of the "melee" types (because both of the PCs used Channeling). I started using divine and arcane NPCs four or five levels higher than the PCs and cheating on minion saves so that I could run at least moderately challenging encounters against undead.
As to your second question, I think it's occasionally tactically more advantegous to use Turning to make some of the most dangerous or nastiest enemies flee than cause 10% HP loss to every one of them. For example, if none of the PCs have high Fort saves, it's likely better to try to get rid at least half of those Ghasts or the Mohrg than doing a moderate amount of damage to them (especially if the undead act before the rest of the PCs do). Naturally, if you *can* destroy them all with a single Channeling attempt then it's a better choice than scattering them around the dungeon.
Pretty much as stated above: killing 5 undead in 5 rounds, is 5 rounds of being attacked by 5 undead, for 25 attacks to the party. Turning 2 undead and killing the rest in 6 rounds, is 6 rounds of 3 attacks, or 18 total. If there are nasty saving throws being made or if you're trying to conserve resources, this is absolutely desirable.
Also consider that if Turn Undead also damaged them, then Command Undead would also heal them. This would be highly undesirable to the negative-channeling neutral cleric who is fighting those undead and whose tactic is to make them fight each other.
I'm not for healing/damaging/turning or even healing/damaging. That's understandable.
My question was what was wrong with combined turning and damaging with the feat? Or making the damage be a feat instead of the turning? I still don't see why turning the undead would ever be chosen over damaging them?
Pretty much as stated above: killing 5 undead in 5 rounds, is 5 rounds of being attacked by 5 undead, for 25 attacks to the party. Turning 2 undead and killing the rest in 6 rounds, is 6 rounds of 3 attacks, or 18 total. If there are nasty saving throws being made or if you're trying to conserve resources, this is absolutely desirable.
Also consider that if Turn Undead also damaged them, then Command Undead would also heal them. This would be highly undesirable to the negative-channeling neutral cleric who is fighting those undead and whose tactic is to make them fight each other.
Yes but when a Turn fails, it fails. You're screwed in a situation like that. When a Damage fails, they still take half damage. So you're still a lot better off with damaged enemies than enemies that failed to turn. Maybe the half damage possibly will even kill a few.
See the damage has the benefit of still dealing half damage. The turn does what exactly? Nothing. It may even be a complete waste of the Cleric's time if all the undead pass their saving throw.
See the damage has the benefit of still dealing half damage. The turn does what exactly? Nothing. It may even be a complete waste of the Cleric's time if all the undead pass their saving throw.
If your risk/reward analysis short-circuits at "there is risk," that's your thing... it doesn't make the feat useless to those who don't mind gambling when the odds are favorable. :)
See the damage has the benefit of still dealing half damage. The turn does what exactly? Nothing. It may even be a complete waste of the Cleric's time if all the undead pass their saving throw.If your risk/reward analysis short-circuits at "there is risk," that's your thing... it doesn't make the feat useless to those who don't mind gambling when the odds are favorable. :)
My whole problem is there is no justification to waste a feat slot on this, moreso for a player than an NPC. Not many players are stupid, I'm bound to have one of mine catch this flaw and throw it in my face one day (especially since on of them plays a Favored Soul and switched the bonus feats for Channel Energy and takes Divine feats).
Creative Director
|
My whole problem is there is no justification to waste a feat slot on this, moreso for a player than an NPC. Not many players are stupid, I'm bound to have one of mine catch this flaw and throw it in my face one day (especially since on of them plays a Favored Soul and switched the bonus feats for Channel Energy and takes Divine feats).
Fortunately, there's more than one feat to choose from. This feat's in the game mostly to appease folks who wanted an option to have turning work the way it did in every previous edition of the game... if it feels "stupid" to one person, that person can simply ignore it in favor of the many, many other feats in the game, while the person who thinks it's a cool feat still gets to use it in HIS game.
I view it as sort of a version of the Area-Denial-Weapon - that big microwave dish pain ray they mounted on a Humvee. Turning sends out low-intensity energy that can hurt, but not damage, the undead, turning them away. This has a broader range of effect, in that it covers a larger area or larger variety of targers. Channeling for damage, on the other hand, is turning that low-intensity microwave into a MASER. It has a different focus and instead of denying an area passively, it is actively burning targets.
To me, it's two different intensities that cause different effects. A 1000 watt power microwave will reheat your soup. A 100 kw microwave will vaporize it.
Don't know why I am stuck on microwaves as an example...
When playing the Beta version (I was DM) my cleric in the party, as aforementioned, became darn near godlike. Balancing encounters was getting harder and harder, and I just don't like to fudge the dice.
My group is going to dump the "Turning" as a feat choice and make it so the cleric can choose at the time of using Channel Energy if they want to Turn Undead OR Channel Positive Energy to deal-and-heal.
Has anyone else given this a go? Does it work? Is it unbalanced (again)?
|
Consider changing Turn Undead so that it still hurts undead, but if they fail the save by 5 or more (or 10 or more?), they are turned as well, just like normal. If your effective turning level is twice their HD, instadeath.
Similar for Rebuke/Control.
Also consider that channel energy to hurt undead heals minimum hp for allies, and vice versa, (no save to make combat go faster unless is is a boss fight or something dramatically appropriate). Both really help make the Cleris feel more like a Cleric of old.
My whole problem is there is no justification to waste a feat slot on this, moreso for a player than an NPC. Not many players are stupid, I'm bound to have one of mine catch this flaw and throw it in my face one day (especially since on of them plays a Favored Soul and switched the bonus feats for Channel Energy and takes Divine feats).Fortunately, there's more than one feat to choose from. This feat's in the game mostly to appease folks who wanted an option to have turning work the way it did in every previous edition of the game... if it feels "stupid" to one person, that person can simply ignore it in favor of the many, many other feats in the game, while the person who thinks it's a cool feat still gets to use it in HIS game.
That I agree with, but I think what should've happened was the other way around. Leave the Turning as part of the Channel Energy and leave dealing the damage and healing as feats. Too late for it now, but I am just surprised no one was able to catch this early on.
There's a design flaw in it being the way it is now. For flavor, yes, someone choosing to Turn Undead instead of dealing damage makes sense. But then your fellow players are clawing your back when those same undead return later on and you begin to realize just damaging them and killing them off was the better idea to begin with. Feats are supposed to enhance or provide an equal alternative, not a downgrade.
Personally, I've decided to allow the feat to harm AND turn the undead. (so that the undead that haven't been killed now run off in terror on a failed saved, half damage and no fleeing on a success).