| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'm playing in a pathfinder game and I would really like to know why in the Hell did they change the whole turning aspect of the Clerics? I mean in all of the versions so far you had to present your holy symbol and try and turn said bad undead creatures. But now its an area of affect ability. WTF?? You still have to present your Holy symbol, but it now affects everything within 30ft. Even the stuff you didn't know was there? REALLY.
Can someone please explain to me why this was changed to this nerfed aspect. I'm ok with the whole channel energy thing, kinda. I still don't think a 1st lvl cleric should be able to harm a greater undead creature, but oh well.
Actually no just please tell me where to look or explain in detail, because I will be asking questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was not nerfed.
Option 1) Channel Positive Energy and damage undead (harms nothing else). This option was presented back in 3.5 as a rules option (alot of us HATED the all or nothing aspect of turn undead and wanted a damage option).
Option 2) Heal everyone in 30feet unless you have selective channeling. This does not affect undead.
You may select which option you want to use when you use Channel Positive Energy.
When you compare the amount of damage that a low level cleric will do to a high level undead it really doesn't matter if the low level cleric can dish out a few points. However, back in 3.5 you make a roll and either undead were unaffected or they ran away (only to return later). And yes, you 'could' destroy undead but this mainly occured when a GM was throwing really underpowered undead (for your level) at you. The only other option was to use a 1/day power that one domain gave you to destroy any undead even if they were not half of your level.
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Woah, woah, slow down there, loose cannon...
First of all, hi.
How exactly do you consider this a "nerf?" In 3.5 clerics couldn't do anything but turn or possibly destroy undead with this ability. Now, they can either do damage to all undead (whether they know they're there or not) with a burst of positive energy, or they can heal all living creatures in a 30ft radius. Or, if they're channeling negative energy, they can harm the living and bolster the undead. I'd hardly call that nerfing.
Sure, a first level cleric can harm a high HD undead, but 1d6 points of damage (or more likely half that, since it will in all likelihood make its Will save) isn't going to do much more than make it angry.
The change makes clerics more versatile. They have another avenue for healing (or doing damage) and with the various feats they can even do the old "turn undead" trick, or use their channels to do damage to other creatures like elementals or outsiders.
Turn undead has always been an area effect. High hit die undead don't care about 1d6 damage so it doesn't really effect them. It was changed to make it so that clerics have another way to heal besides spells so they don't have to spend all their magic to keep the party going, and because damage is fun and cool, if you want the whole keep undead away thing there is a feat for that.
Calm down.
Go read the Feats chapter: turning and/or commanding undead are now feats based off of the Channel Energy class feature.
As far as I know, there aren't feats to turn demons, devils, etc., but the Alignment Channel feat lets you put the hurt on 'em with Channeled energies.
And a low-level cleric can't REALLY harm a greater undead creature... d6 damage, a maximum of 8 times a day? Or up to 12 times if you're a human who blew both of his available feats on Extra Channel AND absolutely maxed-out your Charisma... and the hit die limit for turning/commanding undead means the greater undead creature chuckles and continues to eat the low level cleric's face.
Try checking the index of your CRB and reading the relevant rules BEFORE throwing a tantrum on the boards.
EDIT: curse you, ninja!
|
Ok, I'm playing in a pathfinder game and I would really like to know why in the Hell did they change the whole turning aspect of the Clerics? I mean in all of the versions so far you had to present your holy symbol and try and turn said bad undead creatures. But now its an area of affect ability. WTF?? You still have to present your Holy symbol, but it now affects everything within 30ft. Even the stuff you didn't know was there? REALLY.
Can someone please explain to me why this was changed to this nerfed aspect. I'm ok with the whole channel energy thing, kinda. I still don't think a 1st lvl cleric should be able to harm a greater undead creature, but oh well.
Actually no just please tell me where to look or explain in detail, because I will be asking questions.
Ummm.... Channel Energy is so much better than Turn Undead it's not even funny. I'm not even sure where to find a discussion on why they did this since it's been so long, but...
It's easier to track than the old Turn Undead since the math is fairly straightforward, it allows a good cleric to vastly increase his healing potential without breaking anything (since a d6 with no modifier isn't all that good, and it opens up a whole sweet of feats and abilities for directing, focusing, and targeting the ability. It also standardizes it for all builds that might have access to it, and gives clerics with alternative channel energy types a solid mechanic to hang their flavor on. Also, while a low level cleric might be able to harm a powerful undead with Channel Energy, it's not going to do any kind of damage that said creature is going to be overly worried about. Again, unmodified d6's.**EDIT**
I edited my post at the same time it was moved threads and now everything I said is repetitive since I got moved to the bottom of the thread... Sigh...
In my opinion it was altered and buffed. The old way was an all or nothing gambit that required intensive ability, feat, and item investment to maintain it's usefulness as a cleric progressed in levels. Now it's moderately useful all the time and gives a free aoe healing option which is very beneficial in it's own right. I'd never go back to the 3.5 mess.
Undead can't be at negative hp totals; they are destroyed upon reaching 0.
Thanks for the better title. I'm an old 2nd Ed DM, and I'm trying to get back into things. So alot of things that I notice are from the DM eye. Channel Energy really isn't what I'm going on about. I really don't mind it and yes it does make a Cleric more versatile.
What gets my goat so to say, is the 30ft rad. Did they ever explain why they were going this direction? Playing as Cleric, yes I want to heal or damage undead. I understand that, but its almost to much. The description still says that you have to present your holy symbol, but now it affects everything around you, instead of in whatever direction you presented. Thats what I'd like to know.
Dorn of Citadel Adbar, back in 3.0 and 3.5 if affected a 60' radius. The 3.X version of alternate version that did damage dropped this to 30' and it looks like PF has adopted that concept.
Range: You turn the closest turnable undead first, and you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away or that have total cover relative to you. You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect (see page 176).
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'm playing in a pathfinder game and I would really like to know why in the Hell did they change the whole turning aspect of the Clerics? I mean in all of the versions so far you had to present your holy symbol and try and turn said bad undead creatures. But now its an area of affect ability. WTF?? You still have to present your Holy symbol, but it now affects everything within 30ft. Even the stuff you didn't know was there? REALLY.
Can someone please explain to me why this was changed to this nerfed aspect. I'm ok with the whole channel energy thing, kinda. I still don't think a 1st lvl cleric should be able to harm a greater undead creature, but oh well.
Actually no just please tell me where to look or explain in detail, because I will be asking questions.
I checked out the new rules, played in games with them for a bit, the whole positive and negative spam. Yeah, no thanks. Gone back to 3.5 turning. Some people think it is hard, simply roll the check and do the damage, consult the table, determine result, keep on playing. Another pathfinder rule change I didn't like. Stick with what you like guy.
|
What gets my goat so to say, is the 30ft rad. Did they ever explain why they were going this direction? Playing as Cleric, yes I want to heal or damage undead. I understand that, but its almost to much. The description still says that you have to present your holy symbol, but now it affects everything around you, instead of in whatever direction you presented. Thats what I'd like to know.
Interestingly, it was 60' foot radius in 3.X (page 159 PHB), so this is a downgrade.
Edit: Damn, ninjaed.
There's no facing rules in PfRPG, so there's no need to say which "direction" you're "presenting." You threaten in combat into all adjacent squares equally.
In addition, channeling positive energy (either to damage undead or to heal the living) is a burst effect, rather than a line or a cone, so you can gather your party around and heal them all at once rather than having to use individual cure spells.
I actually preferred the D&D v.3.5 turn undead to PF's channel positive energy to harm undead and never found it as difficult to adjudicate or succeed with as some claim. I like the added healing of clerics being able to channel so many times a day, however, and am thinking about house-ruling that part into my D&D games. That said, PF does have feats which alter a cleric's channel that somewhat emulate turn undead, but if you aren't keen on them, you could always house-rule away channel and replace it with turn undead if you are the GM, or ask to do so for your character as a player. Turn undead is generally regarded as weaker than channel positive energy, so I doubt it would be much of an issue if you are looking for it for a PC.
Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hated turn undead. It was good at low levels, and sucked at high levels since undead many times had a very high number of hit die, that was very far from their CR. The only way to make it good over a character's careers was to use splatbooks. I also hated having to look up that table every time it was used. I am sure someone had that table memorized, but I never met anyone that did. As much grief as 3.5 grappling had, I could do it without the book.
To add to Joann's statement, there was no facing in 3.5 either.
Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.
It is easier to heal all of your allies with a radius affect. If you do a cone, and your allies are not in the same general area you might have to choose who to save. In short the radius is more efficient. It is also better for damaging all of your enemies.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.It is easier to heal all of your allies with a radius affect. If you do a cone, and your allies are not in the same general area you might have to choose who to save. In short the radius is more efficient. It is also better for damaging all of your enemies.
So to phrase this in such a way as to answer what he's trying to ask, you'd say the reasoning was to increase the overall power level of either clerics in general or the ability in particular?
Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.It is easier to heal all of your allies with a radius affect. If you do a cone, and your allies are not in the same general area you might have to choose who to save. In short the radius is more efficient. It is also better for damaging all of your enemies.
Thats part of problem in my books. This willie/nillie its more efficient stuff is what I'm getting at. Just show me the reasonings that Pathfinder changed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to phrase this in such a way as to answer what he's trying to ask, you'd say the reasoning was to increase the overall power level of either clerics in general or the ability in particular?Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.It is easier to heal all of your allies with a radius affect. If you do a cone, and your allies are not in the same general area you might have to choose who to save. In short the radius is more efficient. It is also better for damaging all of your enemies.
I think it was to improve the ability and keep it useful over all 20 levels instead of being really good at low levels, and have it fall off later.
By improving the ability, you also improve the cleric. :)
Thats part of problem in my books. This willie/nillie its more efficient stuff is what I'm getting at. Just show me the reasonings that Pathfinder changed it.Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.It is easier to heal all of your allies with a radius affect. If you do a cone, and your allies are not in the same general area you might have to choose who to save. In short the radius is more efficient. It is also better for damaging all of your enemies.
I just gave the reasons. It is not willie/nillie. That would imply no rhyme or reason.
It seems you don't like it. If that is so, why?
Also as stated above WotC changed it to a burst effect back in 3.0 Pathfinder simply reduced the size and changed it to a scaling dice effect of damage/healing.
Thats part of problem in my books. This willie/nillie its more efficient stuff is what I'm getting at. Just show me the reasonings that Pathfinder changed it.
Turn undead was a burst in 3.x, too, albeit a larger one. Link to SRD So you'd have to talk to the people who designed 3rd edition to ask them why they changed it.
I no longer have my 2e books, but my 1978 AD&D books never define the area affected by Turn Undead at all. The cleric must be able to step in front of the undead and present his holy symbol, but there's no specifics beyond that pertaining to whether the turn effect travels in a straight line like a ray or spreads like a cone or bursts from the holy symbol like channeling does in PfRPG.
|
|
Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.
There are two questions at hand here:
1. Why did they change it to a burst? Well for that you'll have to go back 13 years and figure out why it was codified that way into 3.0.
2. Why did they change it to a healing/damage burst? Well a little search-fu will do you wonders:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1a4m&page=3?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Pre view-5-The#126
It's really not fair to call it "willy/nilly" just because you don't agree with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody now where there would be an area that would tell me WHY, turning/channeling changed from a cone/line in the direction presented to a circular burst that affects everything within 30ft. Thats what I'm really trying to figure out.There are two questions at hand here:
1. Why did they change it to a burst? Well for that you'll have to go back 13 years and figure out why it was codified that way into 3.0.
2. Why did they change it to a healing/damage burst? Well a little search-fu will do you wonders:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1a4m&page=3?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Pre view-5-The#126
It's really not fair to call it "willy/nilly" just because you don't agree with it.
Corrected the link. Good find, by the way. I was trying, but could not locate this post to show to the OP.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1a4m&page=3?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Pre view-5-The#126
Thank You Friends for the assist, didn't mean t be an ass, well yeah i did, but that doesn't matter. JK. I'll keep looking, I just looked it up in a 3.5 players handbook, and yes it was 60ft but it was line of sight. The PF version from a Player aspect is better, because of the heal or harm choice. I guess my big b~!%! was with the 30ft rad. burst, one way or the other.
Remember, "line of sight" doesn't equal a "line-shaped spell" like lightning bolt. Also, the actual wording is "You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect."
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
So having to have line of effect doesn't mean it wasn't still a burst effect in 3.5.
Remember, "line of sight" doesn't equal a "line-shaped spell" like lightning bolt. Also, the actual wording is "You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect."
So having to have line of effect doesn't mean it wasn't still a burst effect in 3.5.Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
True but it didn't automatically affect everything within a 30ft burst of the caster.
True but it didn't automatically affect everything within a 30ft burst of the caster.Remember, "line of sight" doesn't equal a "line-shaped spell" like lightning bolt. Also, the actual wording is "You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect."
So having to have line of effect doesn't mean it wasn't still a burst effect in 3.5.Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
If everything within 60 feet is possibly affect then the center has to be caster. It pretty much behaved like a burst.
I actually prefer the 3.5 method. Don't ask me why; I really don't know.
That being said, I wish the actual turning effect was included in channel energy, rather than a feat tax; the cleric is feat starved as is, and now if you want to use the iconic cleric ability, you must spend a feat.
I never liked the turning(3.5) for the reasons SKR mentioned. If it had a paralysing affect so they could not run it would be better.
3.5 turning certainly isn't useless. I've seen powerful undead sent packing, if you roll well and then check the table, you can turn quite a lot. You can also take some feats and beef that turning up if you happen to be fighting undead 5+ hit die above you all the time.
Why just last game, the party paladin turned a huge skeleton closing in on the party while the rest backed up to heal and consolidate. This was done even though 3.5 Paladins are penalised for turning compared to the cleric, but this guy could still pull it off. Routed that sucker, pursued in tunnels, routed it a second time, killed it.
Never liked dumping positive or negative over a wider area as the path cleric does from the get-go, because that ability is a higher level 3.5 spell (if memory serves). Very online gaming, but not what I want for my pen and paper.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said upthread that if you use splat books you can make it remain relevant, but other than that it falls by the wayside quickly.
Vampires and Liches might fall victim to it because the HD is probably close enough to the party's level that a lucky roll can get rid of them, but many undead had a lot of HD.
The Charnel Hound had 21 HD but it was only a CR 13. The max hd you could turn was cleric's HD+4. That means even with your best roll that monster was not going anyway.
Zombies could be 20 HD and still only be CR 6.
|
Also, fleeing undead tend to bring back friends.
[3.5L posting style mode on]
Savior the quick relief of seeing a fleeing Lich brave heroes, for he's back in a jiffy! Yeees, outnumber the adventurers, bring your skeleton underling and wraith cronies with you. Pile on, encroach, strike fear, rend apart. No hope left for the poor Cleric as he whimpers "but I really wanted to do good!" with his dying breath. Curse in a blessing's disguise, so many times Turn Undead was!
[3.5L posting style mode off]
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike:
And thats why I HATED 3.X Turn Undead. All or nothing, either you can or you cannot mechanics suck. Especially when HD is so high compared to the player's. The moment I saw the splatbook version of it that did damage instead of all or nothing I immediately switched my table to that style.
At least in the case of a spell like Sleep (which is also extremely outclassed in a hurry) it is just a single spell rather than a major class feature.
- Gauss
Edit: Complete Divine p87: Variant Turning Rules: Destruction of the Undead. 30' radius, 1d6/cleric level damage. Will save DC 10+1/2cleric level+charisma modifier for half. Hmmmm, oh wait...except for being half that amount of damage and the healing option, isnt that PF Channel Energy?
If they are routing, they are not attacking you. Chasing a lich ain't hard, they don't have the best speed. Simply pursue and wipe them out, use barbs or monks, go for grapple if you wish against vulnerable undead. Or, use the turn rout as a means of escape if your party is in real trouble.
Turning saves lives, it isn't a doom spell cast on your party.
Ok, I'm playing in a pathfinder game and I would really like to know why in the Hell did they change the whole turning aspect of the Clerics? blagh blagh blagh yadda yadda
well that was an interesting loss of all sanity.
if you have not played since 2nd ed you should probably play pathfinder for a 5 or 6 sessions before your next rant so that you have a better frame of refference.
...
you could of course read every version release since your last game in order to understand the evolution of the game... but I think playing the game and getting a feel for how the changes effect the modern game.
3.5 Loyalist: Key word there..IF. Unless you built an anti-undead cleric the chances of turning higher HD undead was not that great. Unfortunately, an anti-undead cleric had to sacrifice other stats for not alot of gain (beyond social) since the charisma he put everything into did not do anything else (in combat).
- Gauss
|
|
Also, fleeing undead tend to bring back friends.
[3.5L posting style mode on]
Savior the quick relief of seeing a fleeing Lich brave heroes, for he's back in a jiffy! Yeees, outnumber the adventurers, bring your skeleton underling and wraith cronies with you. Pile on, encroach, strike fear, rend apart. No hope left for the poor Cleric as he whimpers "but I really wanted to do good!" with his dying breath. Curse in a blessing's disguise, so many times Turn Undead was!
[3.5L posting style mode off]
Yup, that alone makes PF Turn Undead far preferable.
If they are routing, they are not attacking you. Chasing a lich ain't hard, they don't have the best speed. Simply pursue and wipe them out, use barbs or monks, go for grapple if you wish against vulnerable undead. Or, use the turn rout as a means of escape if your party is in real trouble.
Turning saves lives, it isn't a doom spell cast on your party.
That's assuming the lich flees 30ft on foot (no fly, no expeditious retreat, etc). Besides, the lich might just lure you into the NEXT encounter.
Still, I'm being overly paranoid. :)
My dislike for 3.5 turning is (as already mentioned) that it either works or totally fails. Even if it does work, the whole party simply says "well, we've got 10 rounds til it comes back". Dull and predictable. Now, even a low level cleric can do a tiny bit of damage to a monstrous undead, right before it crushes him/her. :)
One thing I appreciate with Pathfinder though, is that it caters for both. Biggest difference I can see is that Turn Undead is a feat now (+ the damage of course)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another aspect of the change to turn undead was to help the cleric in another area. Many people complained that clerics in 3.X came in 2 flavors: healbot and better fighters than the fighter. If your character wasn't geared for the fighter half, all you could do with your spells in many parties was heal everyone. So the change to turn undead let clerics keep a few spells handy so they could buff, support, or otherwise do something beyond "I heal the fighter" every round. It wasn't the whole suite of tools for that task, but it was one of them.
I checked out the new rules, played in games with them for a bit, the whole positive and negative spam. Yeah, no thanks. Gone back to 3.5 turning. Some people think it is hard, simply roll the check and do the damage, consult the table, determine result, keep on playing. Another pathfinder rule change I didn't like. Stick with what you like guy.
It wasn't hard, but it was time consuming, IMO. The Pathfinder version is the exact same mechanic I created as a house rule in 3.5. Funny how things work out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, after a certain point, the 3.5 turning was pretty much useless. Congratulations! You need to roll 19 or higher to turn a CR 1 zombie as a first level cleric, yay! Boy, spending a standard action to do nothing sure is fun.
That isn't quite accurate. The Cr 1 troglodyte zombie has a lot of hit die, four to be exact and 26 hp (a zombie commoner only has two hit die). It is pretty damn good compared to the level 1 cleric, it is tougher, it is pumped on necro-juice. Now since it is +3 hit die, you do need a 19-21, but, that isn't a roll of 19 exactly.
To the result you do add your charisma mod. If you have cha 10 it is 19, but if you have 14 cha it goes to 17. Have a great cha or throw a feat in and it goes lower. Now that trog was stacking those hit die, so is difficult to turn, but a level 1 cleric with a cha of 12 only needs a 12 to turn a standard raised human zombie, and then they roll the damage 2d6+their cleric level+cha mod to determine how many of the suckers they turn and hurt. It is great when you send the swarm packing, and are just a neonate in your order.
Skeletons were a fair bit easier to turn, the Cr 1 skeleton has only two hit die, not the trog zombies 4. A cleric with no power of personality turns them on a 13 at level one.