|
Turning had a lot more options to boost it though, and many of them where not restricted to certain alignments races, or out of reach for a character who wanted to focus on it. Various spells affected turning, some adding Effectve levels.
In the 3E, Turning was a Cha based check, not a DC, so Breastplate of Command and Circlet of Persuasion worked really nice, both because they did apply to Turning and also because the did not use slots the Clerics and Paladins normally needed for something better anyway. You could arguably get a Masterwork Holy Symbol (NOT a silver one) for a +2, and Synergy from Know Religion, was a no brainer. Various books had options.
Channel Energy on the other hand, has very few, and most are concidered a Feat Tax. Having to pick between wasting a between the battle resource and dealing a few, (and I mean a few) points of damage.
In 3E, Turning was mainly an option to clear a room of minor threats so the party could tackle the BBEG without wasting time. Channel is the exact opposite, making the DM have to calculate and roll saves for a lot of minor creatures. The math doesnt matter so much if you realise that it's mainly circumstantial and needs context, which it doesn't have.
In PF, if the Turn Undead Feat did an automatic half damage, (or rather all Undead automatically make the Save) AND also cause them to possibly flee, it might be ok, but as is, is a very weak option. As is, it's right back to the all or nothing, which is honestly the only downside to 3E Turning, but once again, rather than being based on the character's roll, it targets a generally strongest Save AND most things have a special Resistance. Basically it sounds ok on paper, but realy is only on paper that it's ok.
Exactly! I also forgot about the bonus from Knowledge Religion so that would increase it even more.
You can't sit there is create a chart about how you think Turn Undead doesn't work when that chart is based on gimping your character by giving the PC a below average class score and by not adding any of the available options that increase the ability.
|
|
It doesn't matter if the cleric has a +0 or a +100, at some point you're going to start encountering undead that can't be turned at all, no matter how good your roll, because the mechanic is limited to HD of your level +4.
That rule is in there to prevent a bunch of 1st-level clerics from repelling high-level vampires, but it also means that once undead HD outpace their CR, turning becomes a useless ability after being pretty strong for most of your career. That can happen as early as CR 2 (Large zombie, 6 HD), pops up again at CR 8, mohrg, 14 HD), and occurs more and more as your character level improves.
(Yes, Improved Turning pushes that...
The above I have in bold is not correct. There are items, skills, spells, feats, and other things that increase this and you can't ignore those and expect your argument to be accurate.
Is Turn Undead absolutely perfect? No it's not but it's no where near this useless thing that people are trying to portray it as.
It would be like me creating a chart for the fighter when it comes to damage but I did that chart assuming the fighter had a 10 strength and not counting feats, items and class abilities but mentioning those else where in the discussion instead of adding them to the chart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did read them and I still stand by what I said.So now you're disagreeing with... math?
Seems about par for the course.
Anyway, the point of channel in PF is "not every cleric has to be good at dealing with undead." Whereas the default option for D&D clerics is "I'm good at dealing with undead, even if my deity and character concept have nothing to do with undead."
Every good and half of the neutral cleric gets a special option for dealing with undead whether it would fit their cleric's concept or not, though. Regardless of their chance for success, they are still getting an option that others do not. It may not be as ham-fisted as D&D's alternative, but it is still there.
I guess I'm just not a huge fan of combining the healing of channeling with the ability to turn/rebuke/damage undead. It is something I'm easily able to house-rule though, as the ripple effect in this case seems relatively minor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other major thing for 3E Turning was that it was a very tactial ability, allowing the party to work around it and have fun.
Well, it was tactical in a "wow, that CR-appropriate undead encounter was a cakewalk, good thing we had a cleric!" (Those are words from the designer's mouth.)
Channel Energy is not. I keep stressing fun for a reason. It isn't.
"A fireball that hurts my enemies but not my friends" isn't fun? Wizards would kill to have that ability. :p
It's basically a free Eternal Wand of CLW, sort of.
Because giving PCs more healing and extending the 15 minute adventuring day is a bad thing? :)
In PF, Undead take damage, but that does absolutely nothing to alter the combat, and actually destroying (or taking command of them and turning them on the enemy) is not at all common, even at low level.
I think giving clerics the ability to damage a bunch of opponents without hurting allies OR heal allies without hurting undead opponents is a good thing. In 3E, if you don't fight undead, turn undead is useless unless you've spent feats to alter it. In PF, if you don't fight undead, channel energy is still quite useful.
Turning may be stronger against undead, but it's only useful when you're fighting undead. Channel is weaker against undead (though it has an incremental effect rather than all-or-nothing like turning), but it's useful (in some capacity, such as healing) no matter what you're fighting.
I was using 1d6 (avg. 3.5 divided by 2 for a successful save) for a CR 1/2 creature. I had assumed each creature would make its saving throw since the best chance of failure is still only 35% in the above scenario. Each creature is assumed to be set against a cleric with a level equal to the monster's CR in that table.
Ah, so that last number is the monster's hit points, not the max possible channel damage rolled. Gotcha.
I was using 1d6 (avg. 3.5 divided by 2 for a successful save) for a CR 1/2 creature. I had assumed each creature would make its saving throw since the best chance of failure is still only 35% in the above scenario. Each creature is assumed to be set against a cleric with a level equal to the monster's CR in that table.Ah, so that last number is the monster's hit points, not the max possible channel damage rolled. Gotcha.
Oh, I'm sorry; I misunderstood what you were saying before. Yes, it is the monster's total, average hp. I'll clear that up on my chart.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The above I have in bold is not correct. There are items, skills, spells, feats, and other things that increase this and you can't ignore those and expect your argument to be accurate.
Not in the 3 core D&D rulebooks, other than the phylactery of undead turning (which I mentioned) and the Improved Channel feat (which we've already talked about).
Is Turn Undead absolutely perfect? No it's not but it's no where near this useless thing that people are trying to portray it as.
Don't be mad that we took away a powerful class feature of the best class in the game and replaced it with something more versatile but less powerful. The wizards would like to talk to the clerics about their weaker HD, one good save, fewer spells known at each level, lack of armor proficiency, lack of weapon proficiency, lack of access to healing spells, a primary ability score that doesn't add to saving throws, and having to rely on a spellbook...
Chanel works for out of combat healing well. What does turn undead do if you run into a camp of wounded soliders?
Selective channeling can be bad if there are always lots of enemies like 4 or more.
|
|
The above I have in bold is not correct. There are items, skills, spells, feats, and other things that increase this and you can't ignore those and expect your argument to be accurate.Not in the 3 core D&D rulebooks, other than the phylactery of undead turning (which I mentioned) and the Improved Channel feat (which we've already talked about).
Is Turn Undead absolutely perfect? No it's not but it's no where near this useless thing that people are trying to portray it as.Don't be mad that we took away a powerful class feature of the best class in the game and replaced it with something more versatile but less powerful. The wizards would like to talk to the clerics about their weaker HD, one good save, fewer spells known at each level, lack of armor proficiency, lack of weapon proficiency, lack of access to healing spells, a primary ability score that doesn't add to saving throws, and having to rely on a spellbook...
Those two are still available and should be considered.
I'm debating redoing each table with a more significant investment into Cha, items, feats, etc. than the base of a Cha 10 with nothing added to see how each comes out and to see which ability requires more effort to efficiently handle undead encounters; turn undead or channel possitive energy (though it is an awkward comparison, since one is all or nothing and the other is steady/reliable/versitile but less powerful). Perhaps comparing chances of success with invested resources of a D&D v.3.5 cleric's turn undead to a PF cleric with the feat of the same name...?
So to summarize why it was changed.
-more versatility
-Allows the cleric use more slots for spells other than heals.
-You have to invest next to nothing and it's still good unlike like turn undead.
As for it being a burst, it's because directional vision wasted too much time when it was in the game. Therefore the developers felt it was best that people aren't dumb as rocks and that they look around themselves when in battle.
For those saying a charisma 10 isnt enough to Turn Undead, I agree. But this means that you are placing a higher stat in an ability score which amounts to: "I hope to god this is going to be an undead campaign because otherwise I just wasted my charisma score that could've been put somewhere else."
While a 12 or 14 is reasonable I do not see any cleric putting more in unless they knew upfront they were hunting undead. It just wasn't worth it in 3.5. BTW, it still isnt usually worth it in PF but that is another issue.
Even after a +4 enhancement bonus that still only puts the cleric at +3 or +4 on the turn check (not including feats or other magic items).
Without building yourself as an undead hunter you couldn't really do the job. If you built yourself to hunt undead you better hope it is the kind of campaign to put your skills to use.
IMO PF does not have this problem. You CAN put stats, feats, and magic items into channeling to boost it but are not required to in order to make a major class feature work.
- Gauss
|
Or you could use it to boost your Caster Lever or S.R, boost your AC, grant Resistances to your allies against energy tyes, use it to counterspell, use it to steal summoned elementals, Smite Undead, and other things. There was still more versatility in 3E. When PF said they where allowing the Cleric to use Channel Energy instead of using up spells, well, they also dropped the amount of actual spells Clerics get. They have also boosted all other classes an granted more healing across the board, so it's actually a deficet, not a gain for the Cleric, who is still stuck in the action economy, but can't gain nearly as many Channel attempts per day and must choose between different uses froma single pool.
It also assumes (and kind of forces) the healer role onto the class, even though not all deities are about healing at all, just as it is argued in 3E not all deities care about undead.
Without building yourself as an undead hunter you couldn't really do the job. If you built yourself to hunt undead you better hope it is the kind of campaign to put your skills to use.
IMO PF does not have this problem. You CAN put stats, feats, and magic items into channeling to boost it but are not required to in order to make a major class feature work.
- Gauss
It'll work, but only for healing, not for undead. In my breakdown of a Cha 10 PF cleric, your best chance to do full damage (which isn't much anyway) to any undead creature at any level was a 35% chance against a basic CR 1/3 skeleton at level 1. To turn undead you need a feat of the same name, the area is smaller than in D&D v.3.5 and the DC is rediculously low without a very significant investment; not to mention intelligent undead getting a saving throw every round. Even with a Cha 14 and a headband boosting Wis and Cha at appropriate levels, you still only have a 50/50 shot at best to turn any undead with the feat. And while I don't have it up right now, I think that was only against a bodak at level 8. And you have to use up a portion of what would otherwise be additional hit points across the entire party for the day.
I'd rather turning/damaging undead was divorced from a cleric's primary method of healing.
I think Unearthed Arcana. Probably Unearthed Arcana. Maybe Complete Champion/Divine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I run, I houserule this:
At 1st level, a cleric can choose to replace channel energy with any one of the feats that alters channel energy, such as channel smite, turn undead, elemental channel, etc, etc. If they do, they can pick up the normal channel energy again as a feat.
The Elusive Jackalope: If you divorce the healing from the undead turning then you wind up right back where we started....with a major class ability that does not have any use except in undead hunting campaigns. I like it as it is (even if it gets less worthwhile at higher levels). It lets you build an undead hunter or lets you use the class feature for something else.
- Gauss
I think my biggest gripe with Channel is the either/or aspect of healing living or damaging undead. I, personally, believe that Positive energy should do both at the same time.
Agreed. I can think of certain situations that would make selective channel even more important under those circumstances.
Channel healing can be useless if you don't add the feat tax for Selective Channeling. Enemies can be healed as well if they are in the burst if you don't have that feat.
That does not make it useless, just less useful. You can still use wands, scrolls, or spells in combat, but use the channel outside of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it worked better for their group.How is turning better?Personally, I much much prefere the 3.5 Turning/Rebuking that PF's Channel Energy, and also really hate PF's Turn/Command Undead abilities. They are nerfed and a lot less fun, but also, in my opinion, go against the Cleric concept from all other versions of the game.
In higher level play, both become less important, though in my experience, 3.5 Turning held out longer and also was still sometimes extremely useful, while PF Channeling grows more useless (and boring) much quicker and has much few options to expand it (through Feats or abilities) to either boost it or add some new variaty. It simply quickly becomes a tertiary excuse to get healing between combats, ("I'm going to burn 4 Channels, everyone gets back 12 HP while we are collecting our treasure, lets move on to interesting stuff now"), and honestly just feels like a party resource for any group that has a Cleric (or member that can channel) in it, rather than a Class feature.
It is not useless, but it is not better than 3E Turning at all.
Turning/Rebuking/Destroying/Commanding in 3E was sort of like a super Critical hit, when it happened, and PF really failed with Channel as it does not have that same effect. It is just yet another area affect, that yet again typically targets a highest save.
Well if the "my group" defense is used then no debate on these boards has any merit since almost every option will work in someone's group. Just to be clear I(and many of the others) am/are debating from a general standpoint, while trying to ignore playstyle.
The Elusive Jackalope: If you divorce the healing from the undead turning then you wind up right back where we started....with a major class ability that does not have any use except in undead hunting campaigns. I like it as it is (even if it gets less worthwhile at higher levels). It lets you build an undead hunter or lets you use the class feature for something else.
- Gauss
When the abilities are tied together, though, either the healing will be too great or the ability to damage undead will be pretty much negligible (as with how it seems now). I'd rather have the abilities each exist but be separate with their own adjudication, than have one aspect of the ability do next to nothing and hardly function at all. I'd also rather have a second ability which is really helpful sometimes and not used at all other times than an ability that is too weak to bother with tacked onto another much better option when I have to choose which to use X times per day.
Turning had a lot more options to boost it though, and many of them where not restricted to certain alignments races, or out of reach for a character who wanted to focus on it. Various spells affected turning, some adding Effectve levels.
In the 3E, Turning was a Cha based check, not a DC, so Breastplate of Command and Circlet of Persuasion worked really nice, both because they did apply to Turning and also because the did not use slots the Clerics and Paladins normally needed for something better anyway. You could arguably get a Masterwork Holy Symbol (NOT a silver one) for a +2, and Synergy from Know Religion, was a no brainer. Various books had options.
Channel Energy on the other hand, has very few, and most are concidered a Feat Tax. Having to pick between wasting a between the battle resource and dealing a few, (and I mean a few) points of damage.
In 3E, Turning was mainly an option to clear a room of minor threats so the party could tackle the BBEG without wasting time. Channel is the exact opposite, making the DM have to calculate and roll saves for a lot of minor creatures. The math doesnt matter so much if you realise that it's mainly circumstantial and needs context, which it doesn't have.
In PF, if the Turn Undead Feat did an automatic half damage, (or rather all Undead automatically make the Save) AND also cause them to possibly flee, it might be ok, but as is, is a very weak option. As is, it's right back to the all or nothing, which is honestly the only downside to 3E Turning, but once again, rather than being based on the character's roll, it targets a generally strongest Save AND most things have a special Resistance. Basically it sounds ok on paper, but realy is only on paper that it's ok.
If the ability needs splats books to fix it, or you have to be a cleric of deity X then the ability is no good. We already said splat books can make it better, but the ability on its own is not good.
The party is not clearing the room of anyone unless the GM makes sure to put turnable undead in the encounter. A couple of low CR zombies shuts turn undead down.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other major thing for 3E Turning was that it was a very tactial ability, allowing the party to work around it and have fun. Channel Energy is not. I keep stressing fun for a reason. It isn't. It's basically a free Eternal Wand of CLW, sort of.
In PF, Undead take damage, but that does absolutely nothing to alter the combat, and actually destroying (or taking command of them and turning them on the enemy) is not at all common, even at low level.
3.5's turn means I have to go to that chart and hope it works. That is not fun.
PF's channel heals me. Hopefully I am using it out of combat, otherwise I am getting beat up. That is also not fun.
One of them stays useful though.
Just to be clear once again I am not saying turn undead could not be made to work, but it was more trouble than I wanted to go though.
I should not have to specialise in a class ability to make it useful. <---My main point.
If the entire class is about around the ability then I would understand, but the cleric is not built around turn undead as its main selling point.
I think my biggest gripe with Channel is the either/or aspect of healing living or damaging undead. I, personally, believe that Positive energy should do both at the same time.
I think this issue, and I may be wrong, was more with clerics channeling negative energy which would allow them to heal undead and hurt PC's all at once. It can become quiet brutal especially now with feats that allow clerics to channel twice in one round.
When the abilities are tied together, though, either the healing will be too great or the ability to damage undead will be pretty much negligible (as with how it seems now). I'd rather have the abilities each exist but be separate with their own adjudication, than have one aspect of the ability do next to nothing and hardly function at all. I'd also rather have a second ability which is really helpful sometimes and not used at all other times than an ability that is too weak to bother with tacked onto another much better option when I have to choose which to use X times per day.The Elusive Jackalope: If you divorce the healing from the undead turning then you wind up right back where we started....with a major class ability that does not have any use except in undead hunting campaigns. I like it as it is (even if it gets less worthwhile at higher levels). It lets you build an undead hunter or lets you use the class feature for something else.
- Gauss
Actually I think it is fine as it stands right now. The damage is fine against large groups (which is how most area attacks are) but not so great against one big bad undead. The issue is that there needs to be a way to amp up the damage against a single undead and as of yet that has not been created. There are ways to focus it into a single attack etc but that does not actually increase it's damage since you can only do that ability once per round.
Anyhow, in an imperfect world this seems to me to be a better option than the old turn undead.
- Gauss
|
|
Well if the "my group" defense is used then no debate on these boards has any merit since almost every option will work in someone's group. Just to be clear I(and many of the others) am/are debating from a general standpoint, while trying to ignore playstyle.
I was saying in my experience in general, not "in my group, so not sure where you got that, but it isn't playstyle related.
Turning had a lot more options to boost it though, and many of them where not restricted to certain alignments races, or out of reach for a character who wanted to focus on it. Various spells affected turning, some adding Effectve levels.
In the 3E, Turning was a Cha based check, not a DC, so Breastplate of Command and Circlet of Persuasion worked really nice, both because they did apply to Turning and also because the did not use slots the Clerics and Paladins normally needed for something better anyway. You could arguably get a Masterwork Holy Symbol (NOT a silver one) for a +2, and Synergy from Know Religion, was a no brainer. Various books had options.
If the ability needs splats books to fix it, or you have to be a cleric of deity X then the ability is no good. We already said splat books can make it better, but the ability on its own is not good.
All of these options, with the exception of "Various books had optons", are in the Core PHB1 and DMG1? If you are wanting to debate froma general standpoint, it is usually best to take into concderation basic and practical things that shape them, not ignor them to favor a side.
|
|
I think my biggest gripe with Channel is the either/or aspect of healing living or damaging undead. I, personally, believe that Positive energy should do both at the same time.I think this issue, and I may be wrong, was more with clerics channeling negative energy which would allow them to heal undead and hurt PC's all at once. It can become quiet brutal especially now with feats that allow clerics to channel twice in one round.
While that is an issue, it is more an issue with "going nova" than the ability itself. A fix I had concidered from the begining was that all Channels do both heal and harm, but that it healed normal and did min damage, or vice versa.
That way you are still needing to decide, and again it becomes somewhat tactical, but is still doing some damage or some healing at the same time. It also gets rid of that nasty break in logic with Positive and Negative energy.
|
It's basically a free Eternal Wand of CLW, sort of.Because giving PCs more healing and extending the 15 minute adventuring day is a bad thing? :)
In a general sense I agree, however limiting that extra healing to a single class is what I hate about it, it makes the disparity in healing ability between a party with a cleric and without a cleric greater.
I prefer the Reserve Points optional rule from Unearthed Arcana to achieve the same effect, its sort of like 4e's Healing Surges and Short Rests but much more limited in scope.
All of these options, with the exception of "Various books had optons", are in the Core PHB1 and DMG1? If you are wanting to debate froma general standpoint, it is usually best to take into concderation basic and practical things that shape them, not ignor them to favor a side.
Just to be clear the cleric level+4 cap could be bypassed in core without being Pelor's underling?
|
|
Just to be clear the cleric level+4 cap could be bypassed in core without being Pelor's underling?
I have just been reviewing the rules in light of this discussion (a useful exercise) and noticed that the Improved Turning feat lets you turn "as if you were one level higher than you are in the class that grants you the ability", so you that would at least make the cap level + 5 (as well as adding an extra 1 to the Turning Damage check) :)
Actually I think it is fine as it stands right now. The damage is fine against large groups (which is how most area attacks are) but not so great against one big bad undead. The issue is that there needs to be a way to amp up the damage against a single undead and as of yet that has not been created. There are ways to focus it into a single attack etc but that does not actually increase it's damage since you can only do that ability once per round.
Anyhow, in an imperfect world this seems to me to be a better option than the old turn undead.
- Gauss
The damage is just bad, though. For an ability that will reduce your daily healing it does only 1d6 / 2 levels (half of fireball) with a save that will be made the greater majority of the time for half damage, even with a reasonable investment. If you use one of the feats to alter that damage into an alternate effect, you lose the damage and probably won't gain anything meaningful unless it is the pure focus of your character. For it to be meaningful against multiple creatures you need to be fighting hordes comprised of many very weak creatures that don't really pose much of a threat anyway, so it would be better to simply bash them with the group and move on and conserve your healing for later.
It would be a bit more reasonable of an option if the damage vs. undead was increased by giving undead a vulnerability, perhaps. But I do agree that there needs to be an option to concentrate the channel on a single foe to dramatically increase the damage dealt.
My problem is that turn undead was removed because it was an erratic all or nothing effect that was unlikely to succeed if you had a bad Cha (for a cleric), and because not all clerics should have a powerful option against undead if it doesn't fit their god's portfolio, but it was replaced with an ability that is negligible 99% of the time tied onto a cleric's greatly enhanced healing capacity (which in itself may not fit every god's portfolio) and must pull from the same pool of resources.
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.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Years ago I did a mathematical breakdown using a cleric that was highly optimized for turning and compared it to nearly all the undead in all the Monster Manuals.
90% of the undead he faced at every CR were outright immune to his attempts. I found that they would have to be significantly lower CR than his level in order for him to have much hope--but then, why would you need turn undead?
|
|
Ok, naive old me has just run some numbers, I await your harsh criticism :)
So taking a 2nd level cleric, Charisma 12 (+1), Knowledge (Religion) 5 ranks (i.e. nothing too over the top) the results would be...
Turn 4 times per day
Turning Check: d20 +1 (Cha) +2 (5 ranks in Religion) gives an expected result of 13 (i.e. assume you roll a 10) therefore can turn Undead with 3 Hit Dice or less (Cleric Level +1 for check of 13 to 15)
Turning Damage: 2d6 + 2 (cleric level) + 1 (Cha) gives an expected result of 10 (i.e. assume you roll 7).
So in this instance the 2nd level cleric could turn:
10x Human Skeletons (CR 1/3, 1 HD each), EL 4 (actually these would be destroyed!)
5x Wolf Skeletons (CR1, 2 HD each), EL 4
5x Kobold or Human Zombies (CR 1/2, 2 HD each), EL 3
I don't think that is bad, for an Average Party Level of 2 (assuming the other PCs are level 2 also) the cleric can turn all the undead that make up an encounter that is considered "Very Difficult" according to the DMG (i.e. EL = APL +1 to +4).
Now, that same cleric at level 3 with Improved Turning would do an average Turning Damage of 12; 2d6 + 4 (effective cleric level with Improved Turning) + 1 (Cha). And he could actually Destroy, rather than Turn any undead with 2HD or less, e.g. he could destroy:
12x Human skeletons (EL4)
6x Wolf Skeletons (EL4)
6x Kobold or Human Zombie (EL3)
So, he could take on an APL+1 encounter single handedly!
Yeah, Troglodyte Zombies (4HD are going to be tougher, especially to destroy, but that is where the other party members come in, or if that 3rd level, Improved Turning cleric has the Sun domain he gets to shine (no pun intended) and does a greater turning destroying an average 3 Troglodyte Zombies.
I guess in 3.5 Turn Undead is effectively (to use 4e parlance) an area effect attack that should be effective against minions, i.e. the cleric is fulfilling the Controller role :) But against a single higher CR foe, e.g. a Mummy (CR5, 8HD) facing an APL 4 Party, the Turning is likely to be ineffective (though still possible)
EDIT: Removed the references to Ghouls as they have Turn Resistance +2
Many of the 3.5 clerics who I knew switched to "burn turning" feats from Complete Divine (and others) when that book came out.
That speaks volumes for that ability.
Many of the 3.5 clerics who I knew switched to "burn turning" feats from Complete Divine (and others) when that book came out.
That speaks volumes for that ability.
Actually, I know of a DM who banned those 'burn turning' feats altogether.
Reason? "It's too much of a Power-up for you."| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the 3.5 clerics who I knew switched to "burn turning" feats from Complete Divine (and others) when that book came out.
That speaks volumes for that ability.
Actually, I know of a DM who banned those 'burn turning' feats altogether.
Reason? "It's too much of a Power-up for you."
Sure he did. Other DMs banned other portions or parts of 3.5 because they were OP, or didn't fit their campaign/thematic style. It doesn't make it any less true, it just means it was played that way in your campaign. If you want to argue their power, that's a separate discussion.
What I am saying is: The rules were there, and any number of people used them. At the time, it was seen as a way to get use of "an otherwise useless or too quirky ability."
Was it played differently in your campaign? Sure. It doesn't mean that your campaign was the standard, though. However, were they used because many others thought the ability useless or too quirky?
Yes.
|
Don't be mad that we took away a powerful class feature of the best class in the game and replaced it with something more versatile but less powerful. The wizards would like to talk to the clerics about their weaker HD, one good save, fewer spells known at each level, lack of armor proficiency, lack of weapon proficiency, lack of access to healing spells, a primary ability score that doesn't add to saving throws, and having to rely on a spellbook...
And for some reason the wizards are waving truncheons engraved with the number "7".
Actually I think it is fine as it stands right now. The damage is fine against large groups (which is how most area attacks are) but not so great against one big bad undead. The issue is that there needs to be a way to amp up the damage against a single undead and as of yet that has not been created. There are ways to focus it into a single attack etc but that does not actually increase it's damage since you can only do that ability once per round.
The option already exists: it's called Searing Light! :)
As a tangent, I'm really glad that D&D NEXT is turning Turn Undead into a spell. Over with the "all clerics of all gods have power related to undead creatures" nonsense. If you don't care about turning undead creatures, just don't pick the spell and that's done! :D
|
|
Many of the 3.5 clerics who I knew switched to "burn turning" feats from Complete Divine (and others) when that book came out.
That speaks volumes for that ability.
Actually, I know of a DM who banned those 'burn turning' feats altogether.
Reason? "It's too much of a Power-up for you."
They where also one of the few options for Clerics out there. Paldins also could make a monster build witht them, but Paladins tended to already have a lot of options and could much easier qualify for things than Clerics. Granted, for certain builds and uses, certain of the Feats where too good and give a bad name, like Divine metamagic and Divine Spell Power, but that is as much an issue wit the Feats themseves as it was that there where few other options to make them look that much better.
Just to be clear the cleric level+4 cap could be bypassed in core without being Pelor's underling?I have just been reviewing the rules in light of this discussion (a useful exercise) and noticed that the Improved Turning feat lets you turn "as if you were one level higher than you are in the class that grants you the ability", so you that would at least make the cap level + 5 (as well as adding an extra 1 to the Turning Damage check) :)
It has been my experience that a monster above +4 is well above +4. Zombies are pretty common.