Nobody mentioned Variant Channeling from Ultimate Magic? It's free (doesn't cost a feat) and since the damage done by Channel Energy are already poor, halving them is not a big loss, but the added effects can be really strong. I think that Variant Channeling "fixed" Channel Energy.
I played a "turning focused" cleric back in 3.5, and my character was really effective against the single undead creature that we meet in this low-level module. :P
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part of the issue is thinking that Turn Undead should be able to deal with BBEG's, (or at least somewhat commonly). I don't think it should do that in all but the most rare (and very fun) times. It should work more in clearing the lesser threats so that the party can focus on BBEG(s). The game wasn't designed to constantly have a single Vampire/Lich/Mummy as the boss fight or even a common encounter (which seems to be the condition used for how Turning is so poor an option), but rather to drive off or destroy the skeletons, zombies, Vampire spawn, etc . . . that are suppossed to be part of that encounter's CR.
Playing the game differently than it was written does change how the ability functions.
The other side is that a Turned Undead, made to flee for 10 rounds (at either double move if not full out run) does count as a victory in the encounter. They may come back if they are inteligent, but at the same time, if they are inteligent why would they want to if they know a Cleric/Paladin can affect them like that. Even if from surrize, there are weaker and much less painful prey. Uninteligent Unded should not come back, they have no reason to and do not remember that the party is there or were they where. That is the DM metagaming, (though it's not that huge a deal).
The other side effect to this is that Undead are notorious for having various debuffs/cursesdraining abilities. Being able to divide and conquere also has the added benefit of basiclly acting like a minor Deathward (for everyone) and Remove Curse/Disease and Lesser Restoration. PF's Turning is extremely unreliable, as Int Undead get a save every round. Being that they make the save on the Channel Attempt, but do not actually move until their action, (it's a lucky if they even fail a roll to begin with), they make a 2nd save at the start of their turn, which they will probably make, meanig they where turned, but had absolutely no effect on them, even though they failed their first save. If it does, they move away, and then get yet another save.
All those saves, having to remember each round which Undead are or are no longer effected, all add to the stress of combat for DM's, not to mention, muddling with the "fog of war" aspects of dungeons in combat. These things, in my mind, make PF Turning/Commanding and Channeling (except to heal) far inferior.
|
|
Nobody mentioned Variant Channeling from Ultimate Magic? It's free (doesn't cost a feat) and since the damage done by Channel Energy are already poor, halving them is not a big loss, but the added effects can be really strong. I think that Variant Channeling "fixed" Channel Energy.
Actually I did mention how poor an option it is above. I like the concept, but it is a terrible trap, simply because almost all the effects last either 1 round or a few rounds only. That means to have the effect, you essentually need to burn a healing at the start of a combat when no one actually needs it, thus wasting half of the effect of the Channel for a very minor bonus. The Harm effects are generally not so bad for this, as you are not wasting the harm effects so much by burning it at the start of teh fight, (dealing a little damage AND also debuffing the enemies or budding the allies).
No disrespect to the people that came up with the idea, I like the idea, but in play it is a terrible option in atual use, basically wasting 1 or the other uses of the ability in most cases.
One thing I wanted to add is that saying that making the undead creatures run away with Turn Undead could actually make the following encounters harder is a fallacy. If, in a given situation, running away is the best way for undead creatures to hurt the PCs, intelligent undead would do it anyway, without being turned. Killing fleeing opponents is also very easy if the PCs have some way to deal damage at range or slow their escape (wizard, archer, etc.)
It is not really a fallacy, because it can make things harder, but it is not guaranteed to do so. It depends on who is running away, and where they can escape to.
Nobody mentioned Variant Channeling from Ultimate Magic? It's free (doesn't cost a feat) and since the damage done by Channel Energy are already poor, halving them is not a big loss, but the added effects can be really strong. I think that Variant Channeling "fixed" Channel Energy.Actually I did mention how poor an option it is above. I like the concept, but it is a terrible trap, simply because almost all the effects last either 1 round or a few rounds only. That means to have the effect, you essentually need to burn a healing at the start of a combat when no one actually needs it, thus wasting half of the effect of the Channel for a very minor bonus. The Harm effects are generally not so bad for this, as you are not wasting the harm effects so much by burning it at the start of teh fight, (dealing a little damage AND also debuffing the enemies or budding the allies).
No disrespect to the people that came up with the idea, I like the idea, but in play it is a terrible option in atual use, basically wasting 1 or the other uses of the ability in most cases.
I was referring to the harm effect, since we are talking about harming undead creatures here. I agree with you: with no investment, it is a poor option in battle. However, combining Variant Channeling with Channel Smite or Quick Channel is very potent. Who cares if you burn your healing ressources away by using Channel Energy in such an offensive way? 3.X clerics didn't even have the option to heal with Turn Undead attempts without spending a feat. Beside, groups without cleric can use wands of cure light wounds as their main healing ressource, so I don't see why a group that counts a cleric can't do the same.
I think that part of the issue is thinking that Turn Undead should be able to deal with BBEG's, (or at least somewhat commonly). I don't think it should do that in all but the most rare (and very fun) times. It should work more in clearing the lesser threats so that the party can focus on BBEG(s). The game wasn't designed to constantly have a single Vampire/Lich/Mummy as the boss fight or even a common encounter (which seems to be the condition used for how Turning is so poor an option), but rather to drive off or destroy the skeletons, zombies, Vampire spawn, etc . . . that are suppossed to be part of that encounter's CR.
Playing the game differently than it was written does change how the ability functions.
The other side is that a Turned Undead, made to flee for 10 rounds (at either double move if not full out run) does count as a victory in the encounter. They may come back if they are inteligent, but at the same time, if they are inteligent why would they want to if they know a Cleric/Paladin can affect them like that. Even if from surrize, there are weaker and much less painful prey. Uninteligent Unded should not come back, they have no reason to and do not remember that the party is there or were they where. That is the DM metagaming, (though it's not that huge a deal).
The other side effect to this is that Undead are notorious for having various debuffs/cursesdraining abilities. Being able to divide and conquere also has the added benefit of basiclly acting like a minor Deathward (for everyone) and Remove Curse/Disease and Lesser Restoration. PF's Turning is extremely unreliable, as Int Undead get a save every round. Being that they make the save on the Channel Attempt, but do not actually move until their action, (it's a lucky if they even fail a roll to begin with), they make a 2nd save at the start of their turn, which they will probably make, meanig they where turned, but had absolutely no effect on them, even though they failed their first save. If it does, they move away, and then get yet another save.
All those saves, having to remember each round which Undead are or are no longer effected, all add to the stress of combat for DM's, not to mention, muddling with the "fog of war" aspects of dungeons in combat. These things, in my mind, make PF Turning/Commanding and Channeling (except to heal) far inferior.hey failed their first save. If it does, they move away, and then get...
It does not work against zombies either though. A 20 hd zombie is a CR 6 encounter.
I am not saying the skeleton should come back, but if their orders are to guard a certain area they will. The party could also run into them while they are with other monsters.
As for intelligent undead saying they won't come back because they were turned is like saying the party won't fight a villian because he cast a fear spell on them and made them run away. He might also see his running as a momentary lapse in mental toughness.
I do agree the PF turning could be better, but that does not make 3.5 turn undead worthwhile either.
What I think could have been done was for cleric to have channel, but to still be able to burn the attempts to turn undead without a feat.
I don't get the GM "fog of war" argument. It is no worse than having my bad guys debuffed or only partially debuffed(some buffs are still up while others are down).
It is even worse when some of them make the save, and some of them fail. That is a lot more complicated than dealing with who runs verses who stays. At least I don't have to quickly redo the math with run away undead. Either they stay or they go.
edit:Why would the GM have to remember? He can mark it down on a piece of paper.
S=Stay
G=Go.
One thing I wanted to add is that saying that making the undead creatures run away with Turn Undead could actually make the following encounters harder is a fallacy.No, it's just not applicable in the example you mentioned. In other examples, like some upthread, it's very true.
Are you reffering to intelligent undead creature that can teleport or fly away, or just mundane undead creatures that will run away on their legs? In the former case, they could have done it anyway, no turning needed. If they don't then the GM is playing them dumb. In the latter case, spells like grease, web, slow, black tentacles and such can quickly turn fleeing opponents into death opponents, or shoul I say un-undeath opponents.
|
This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
Are you reffering to intelligent undead creature that can teleport or fly away, or just mundane undead creatures that will run away on their legs? In the former case, they could have done it anyway, no turning needed. If they don't then the GM is playing them dumb. In the latter case, spells like grease, web, slow, black tentacles and such can quickly turn fleeing opponents into death opponents, or shoul I say un-undeath opponents.One thing I wanted to add is that saying that making the undead creatures run away with Turn Undead could actually make the following encounters harder is a fallacy.No, it's just not applicable in the example you mentioned. In other examples, like some upthread, it's very true.
That assumes the party has the initiative set up so that those spells can work in conjunction. In short it is still circumstantial, so it is not a fallacy until it is promoted as something that always happens. Sometimes it works to the party's favor, and other times it may not.
This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikazes that never run away unless they were forced to.
Playing the game differently than it was written does change how the ability functions.
The other side is that a Turned Undead, made to flee for 10 rounds (at either double move if not full out run) does count as a victory in the encounter. They may come back if they are inteligent, but at the same time, if they are inteligent why would they want to if they know a Cleric/Paladin can affect them like that. Even if from surrize, there are weaker and much less painful prey. Uninteligent Unded should not come back, they have no reason to and do not remember that the party is there or were they where. That is the DM metagaming, (though it's not that huge a deal).
Looking through my 3.5 PHB, DMG and MM, I do not see anything in the raw that says unintelligent undead "forget" what just happened to them after the turning wears off. That might be your interpretation of unintelligent, but it is not in the RAW.
Your intelligent undead response is a 'rational' response to such a situation. The descriptions of things like ghouls and shadows do not strike me as particularly rational. Most such undead types usually include some sort of extreme hatred of the living, or an overwhelming urge to feed.
They might be intelligent, but they're even less rational than a junkie who can see the plastic bag that holds his next fix.
Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikaze that never run away unless they were forced to.This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
Why are you assuming the undead that got turned would have thought they might need help. They might be about to turn the party into spawns, but then that lucky turn undead might hit them. They might also be assigned to a certain area "or else". They might also not be on good terms with the other undead for other reasons. Being intelligent creatures they also capable of over estimating themselves. Just because the party knows they can take on the shadows, that does not mean the shadows know it.
|
|
In truth, some undead are that way, tormented constantly by their unded nature, and whse only drive is to cause death in the living. It's reasonable that they would fight until destroyed, both because that ends their torment and also because for whatever reason (prior commands, their nature, whatever) that is wht they have to do. A lot of undead actually, fall into this catagory.
Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikazes that never run away unless they were forced to.This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
Again, we were trying to cross a small region that holds several tens of thousands of undead. Most are weak, zombies and skeletons, but when you could potentially be outnumbered 100:1 or more, you try to not draw attention to yourself. Let's say a ghoul is smart enough to run away and get friends... Do you want to panick it and send it running? Or kill it?
When in enemy territory, I avoid sending up signal flares as often as possible.
That assumes the party has the initiative set up so that those spells can work in conjunction. In short it is still circumstantial, so it is not a fallacy until it is promoted as something that always happens. Sometimes it works to the party's favor, and other times it may not.Are you reffering to intelligent undead creature that can teleport or fly away, or just mundane undead creatures that will run away on their legs? In the former case, they could have done it anyway, no turning needed. If they don't then the GM is playing them dumb. In the latter case, spells like grease, web, slow, black tentacles and such can quickly turn fleeing opponents into death opponents, or shoul I say un-undeath opponents.One thing I wanted to add is that saying that making the undead creatures run away with Turn Undead could actually make the following encounters harder is a fallacy.No, it's just not applicable in the example you mentioned. In other examples, like some upthread, it's very true.
OK, I stand corrected, it is not a "fallacy", I shouldn't have used this word, but to use this as an argument to say that turn undead is a poor class ability just seems wrong (I do understand and agree with the math-based arguments however). It would be like saying that Black Tentacles is a poor spell because it can kill civilians when used in a inn or that Rage is a poor class ability because it is not effective in a ranged battle. The player should be able to judge when it is a good idea to use Turn Undead in a given situation, just like all other abilities/powers/spells/combat maneuvers in the game.
|
|
Looking through my 3.5 PHB, DMG and MM, I do not see anything in the raw that says unintelligent undead "forget" what just happened to them after the turning wears off. That might be your interpretation of unintelligent, but it is not in the RAW.
They do not have any capacity for choice or memory. They can not really doing anything except what they are Commanded to do, except that the negative energy that animates them does cause them to attack living on sight, if they do not have other orders. inside of a dungeon or even outside in most forests or whatever, if they basically move out of sight from a living target, they will just sit there or wander around aimlessly. There is no reason for them to go back to their last location when they where turned nor can they track the party. Assuming that 10 rounds (1 full minute) of fleeing to the best of their ability (in most cases double moving or more) should put them out of sight unless they are trapped in a room. They can't open doors, but if trapped will cower (in 3E, unclear in PF).
Your intelligent undead response is a 'rational' response to such a situation. The descriptions of things like ghouls and shadows do not strike me as particularly rational. Most such undead types usually include some sort of extreme hatred of the living, or an overwhelming urge to feed.
They might be intelligent, but they're even less rational than a junkie who can see the plastic bag that holds his next fix.
It ddepends really. Many Undead are NE or CE, and both would reasonably (or generally) prefere to find easier prey than risk further pain or destruction. Some undead though may be motivated by a desire to actualy die, and woud reasonably ignor such a threat, as instinct, not philosophy.
Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikazes that never run away unless they were forced to.This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
Again, we were trying to cross a small region that holds several tens of thousands of undead. Most are weak, zombies and skeletons, but when you could potentially be outnumbered 100:1 or more, you try to not draw attention to yourself. Let's say a ghoul is smart enough to run away and get friends... Do you want to panick it and send it running? Or kill it?
When in enemy territory, I avoid sending up signal flares as often as possible.
If you were 10th-level, such weak undead, even shadows and ghouls, should have been destroyed on a successful turning check, no? Unless your speaking about the Pathfinder version of Turn Undead. And the fact that you couldn't use this ability in his specific situation doesn't mean that it's a bad ability. The math behind Turn Undead makes it a bad ability, not the fact that it can make undead flee.
Why are you assuming the undead that got turned would have thought they might need help. They might be about to turn the party into spawns, but then that lucky turn undead might hit them. They might also be assigned to a certain area "or else". They might also not be on good terms with the other undead for other reasons. Being intelligent creatures they also capable of over estimating themselves. Just because the party knows they can take on the shadows, that does not mean the shadows know it.Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikaze that never run away unless they were forced to.This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
In a similar way, why are you assuming that other creatures will be more alerted by a fleeing undead than by a fireball exploding in the horizon, the sounds of a battle nearby or the death scream of a dying ghoul. It might be, but not always, and, once again, even if the usefulness of Turn Undead is circumstiantial, its main flaws are associated with it chances of success, and not the success result.
Looking through my 3.5 PHB, DMG and MM, I do not see anything in the raw that says unintelligent undead "forget" what just happened to them after the turning wears off. That might be your interpretation of unintelligent, but it is not in the RAW.They do not have any capacity for choice or memory. They can not really doing anything except what they are Commanded to do, except that the negative energy that animates them does cause them to attack living on sight, if they do not have other orders. inside of a dungeon or even outside in most forests or whatever, if they basically move out of sight from a living target, they will just sit there or wander around aimlessly. There is no reason for them to go back to their last location when they where turned nor can they track the party. Assuming that 10 rounds (1 full minute) of fleeing to the best of their ability (in most cases double moving or more) should put them out of sight unless they are trapped in a room. They can't open doors, but if trapped will cower (in 3E, unclear in PF).
It ddepends really. Many Undead are NE or CE, and both would reasonably (or generally) prefere to find easier prey than risk further pain or destruction. Some undead though may be motivated by a desire to actualy die, and woud reasonably ignor such a threat, as instinct, not philosophy.Your intelligent undead response is a 'rational' response to such a situation. The descriptions of things like ghouls and shadows do not strike me as particularly rational. Most such undead types usually include some sort of extreme hatred of the living, or an overwhelming urge to feed.
They might be intelligent, but they're even less rational than a junkie who can see the plastic bag that holds his next fix.
Like I said, I was looking through my rule books and I am not seeing what you are seeing as RAW. I can see how you might interpret it that way. If you've got a page to cite that explicitly says what you are saying, I'd be interested to see it. Otherwise I see it as perfectly acceptable to return to where they saw prey mere seconds before. They aren't smart enough to look for tracks or anything if you're gone or hiding.
By the time that Turn Undead reliably destroys undead, so does the Fighters Great Cleave. Which also works on non-undead minions as well.
Turn Undead is extremely situational. If all the conditions were right, it rocked. If they weren't met, it was meh and you needed to spend feats to make it useful in other ways.
My story was about a situation that had lots of undead, but it still wasn't useful.
I agree, Channel Energy to harm undead is kinda worthless. Overall, I still find it more useful because it is more versatile than turn undead, without needing to pick a domain or feat.
In truth, some undead are that way, tormented constantly by their unded nature, and whse only drive is to cause death in the living. It's reasonable that they would fight until destroyed, both because that ends their torment and also because for whatever reason (prior commands, their nature, whatever) that is wht they have to do. A lot of undead actually, fall into this catagory.
True enough, but those kind of "berserk" undead could also not care about the torment of other of their kind. It's up to the GM to roleplay them in a way that will seem consistant in the eyes of the players. An undead creature seeing a group of his kind fleeing an unknown source could even flee with them, thinking that a very powerful foe is coming this way and not understanding that his fellows are not fleeing of their own volition. Even if they choose to come back and attack the PCs after the effects of Turn Undead ended, this will give a few rounds to the PCs for buffing/healing themselves, making Turn Undead a good option when the PCs stumble into a fight they are not prepared for.
In a similar way, why are you assuming that other creatures will be more alerted by a fleeing undead than by a fireball exploding in the horizon, ...Why are you assuming the undead that got turned would have thought they might need help. They might be about to turn the party into spawns, but then that lucky turn undead might hit them. They might also be assigned to a certain area "or else". They might also not be on good terms with the other undead for other reasons. Being intelligent creatures they also capable of over estimating themselves. Just because the party knows they can take on the shadows, that does not mean the shadows know it.Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikaze that never run away unless they were forced to.This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
I said that?
No, he assumed that in the story I told of my experience playing that in our attempts to remain unnoticed, we cast fireball all over the place. I'm not sure how he reached that conclusion, but he did.
Btw, we didn't cast fireball all over the place... because we felt that that too would draw attention. Yes, the sounds of fighting can carry, there's nothing we could do about that, except finish the fight quickly and try to move on. It was also a low magic campaign... Otherwise we would have just bought a scroll of teleport.
|
Time to be Captain Obvious, but the discussion has veered off into campaign-specific issues.
I think Turn Undead has its place, but I agree with one of SKR's original points that it doesn't mesh with many a deities portfolio. But I also think that Channel Energy wasn't quite right as a fix and brings up quite a few world-building issues.
Personally, Turn Undead should be an optional feature. The standard replacement could be as simple as allowing both domain spells to be prepared at each level.
I said that?In a similar way, why are you assuming that other creatures will be more alerted by a fleeing undead than by a fireball exploding in the horizon, ...Why are you assuming the undead that got turned would have thought they might need help. They might be about to turn the party into spawns, but then that lucky turn undead might hit them. They might also be assigned to a certain area "or else". They might also not be on good terms with the other undead for other reasons. Being intelligent creatures they also capable of over estimating themselves. Just because the party knows they can take on the shadows, that does not mean the shadows know it.Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikaze that never run away unless they were forced to.This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
No you didn't, what I said was inspired by Irontruth example where fleeing undead would have alerted more opponents than killing them in the middle of a plain. Sorry for misinterpreting your thoughts.
No, he assumed that in the story I told of my experience playing that in our attempts to remain unnoticed, we cast fireball all over the place. I'm not sure how he reached that conclusion, but he did.
Btw, we didn't cast fireball all over the place... because we felt that that too would draw attention. Yes, the sounds of fighting can carry, there's nothing we could do about that, except finish the fight quickly and try to move on. It was also a low magic campaign... Otherwise we would have just bought a scroll of teleport.
Sorry about that, it was kind of an overstatement from my part, and in your specefic example Turn Undead might have been indeed a very poor tactical choice, but my point is that you can't judge the usefulness of an ability based on very specific situations. A "plain of undead" is not something that you encounter in every modules out there.
Time to be Captain Obvious, but the discussion has veered off into campaign-specific issues.
I think Turn Undead has its place, but I agree with one of SKR's original points that it doesn't mesh with many a deities portfolio. But I also think that Channel Energy wasn't quite right as a fix and brings up quite a few world-building issues.
Personally, Turn Undead should be an optional feature. The standard replacement could be as simple as allowing both domain spells to be prepared at each level.
I'm a huge fan of actual play examples. Too often people spend pages and pages on hypotheticals that might happen once per year in one out of a hundred gaming tables. Actual play grounds a discussion in the realities of how people play the game. Looking at the rules purely in hypothetical means that a discussion or thought process can get removed from the reality of game play and pushed so far into a narrow concept that it is completely useless.
I personally am a huge fan of Channel Positive Energy. It's not for in combat healing... Except maybe to reduce the effect of enemy AoE spells, but rather out of combat healing. The cleric doesn't have to invest in a CLW wand, because his CPE is just as effective, if not more, and takes less time as well, if the party is pressed for time. I think it's perfect and at a good power level for the class. It isn't intended to be the primary focus of the class, that's why they have access to 9 levels of spells.
Sorry about that, it was kind of an overstatement from my part, and in your specefic example Turn Undead might have been indeed a very poor tactical choice, but my point is that you can't judge the usefulness of an ability based on very specific situations. A "plain of undead" is not something that you encounter in every modules out there.No, he assumed that in the story I told of my experience playing that in our attempts to remain unnoticed, we cast fireball all over the place. I'm not sure how he reached that conclusion, but he did.
Btw, we didn't cast fireball all over the place... because we felt that that too would draw attention. Yes, the sounds of fighting can carry, there's nothing we could do about that, except finish the fight quickly and try to move on. It was also a low magic campaign... Otherwise we would have just bought a scroll of teleport.
But that's my point as well. It's kind of an iconic ability, in theory for Clerics vs undead, but it isn't always useful, even against undead. It's highly situational and iconic abilities shouldnt be situational. It's like redesigning barbarian's rage ability to only be useful some of the time, like only against things that are colored red.
I think one area neglected in the games design so far is utilizing channels to help power spells. Either for additional effects or improved effects. Like Daylight, could have an added part written in, if the caster channels while casting, it does their level in damage every round to undead while they are in the bright light. The Remove spells could affect additional people, etc.
Someone's said "because it sucked", right?
Yeah. The counter was you can take feats and use it to do things beside turn undead. My reply was that maybe those other things should be features of the game thing if undead is better at those things that what it was designed to do.
PS:I have not seen you around for a while. <--neutral comment.
OK, I stand corrected, it is not a "fallacy", I shouldn't have used this word, but to use this as an argument to say that turn undead is a poor class ability just seems wrong (I do understand and agree with the math-based arguments however). It would be like saying that Black Tentacles is a poor spell because it can kill civilians when used in a inn or that Rage is a poor class ability because it is not effective in a ranged battle. The player should be able to judge when it is a good idea to use Turn Undead in a given situation, just like all other abilities/powers/spells/combat maneuvers in the game.That assumes the party has the initiative set up so that those spells can work in conjunction. In short it is still circumstantial, so it is not a fallacy until it is promoted as something that always happens. Sometimes it works to the party's favor, and other times it may not.Are you reffering to intelligent undead creature that can teleport or fly away, or just mundane undead creatures that will run away on their legs? In the former case, they could have done it anyway, no turning needed. If they don't then the GM is playing them dumb. In the latter case, spells like grease, web, slow, black tentacles and such can quickly turn fleeing opponents into death opponents, or shoul I say un-undeath opponents.One thing I wanted to add is that saying that making the undead creatures run away with Turn Undead could actually make the following encounters harder is a fallacy.No, it's just not applicable in the example you mentioned. In other examples, like some upthread, it's very true.
I missed this post. Good point though. :)
|
|
Someone's said "because it sucked", right?
That's as constructive and witty as me saying Channel Energy and PF Turning suck, because I really dislike them that much.
Honestly, even in an Undead lite game, I think i would stll like 3E Turning/Rebuking more than Channeling. As a straight up healer, Channel might <might> win, but it just isn't the flavor of the class to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This
I think that part of the issue is thinking that Turn Undead should be able to deal with BBEG's, (or at least somewhat commonly). I don't think it should do that in all but the most rare (and very fun) times. It should work more in clearing the lesser threats so that the party can focus on BBEG(s). The game wasn't designed to constantly have a single Vampire/Lich/Mummy as the boss fight or even a common encounter (which seems to be the condition used for how Turning is so poor an option), but rather to drive off or destroy the skeletons, zombies, Vampire spawn, etc . . . that are suppossed to be part of that encounter's CR.
Edit:
One of the fun think with this game is when you feel it not a computer game like Diablo, where everything just level up with you. Being able to deal with lesser threats at higher levels is actually fun (as long as you can deal with greater threats too in some other way).In 3.5 a level 6 cleric with char 12 and 5 ranks in know. religion could auto -destroy a wight.
A Pathfinder Cleric needs to be level 16 to do that. Level 16 provided the wight fails it save. If it make the saves the cleric needs to be level 30 (assuming the averaged roll is 3,5).
Someone's said "because it sucked", right?
Nice to see you back.
It perhaps sucked, but channel isn't better. At least in 3.5 you could at a point auto-destroy lesser threats regardless of die roles.
In Pathfinder that is almost impossible.
Someone's said "because it sucked", right?Yeah. The counter was you can take feats and use it to do things beside turn undead. My reply was that maybe those other things should be features of the game thing if undead is better at those things that what it was designed to do.
PS:I have not seen you around for a while. <--neutral comment.
C'mon, Pathfinder has been tweeked too. in APG, UC, UM, etc.
Take the healing part of Pathfinder Channeling. It can't be used in combat past level 5 unless you have the quicken Channeling feat. That feat is not from the core book.
Someone's said "because it sucked", right?Nice to see you back.
It perhaps sucked, but channel isn't better. At least in 3.5 you could at a point auto-destroy lesser threats regardless of die roles.
In Pathfinder that is almost impossible.
Channel is definitely better. It is not better for killing undead, but that is an entirely different discussion. :)
Someone's said "because it sucked", right?Yeah. The counter was you can take feats and use it to do things beside turn undead. My reply was that maybe those other things should be features of the game thing if undead is better at those things that what it was designed to do.
PS:I have not seen you around for a while. <--neutral comment.
C'mon, Pathfinder has been tweeked too. in APG, UC, UM, etc.
Take the healing part of Pathfinder Channeling. It can't be used in combat past level 5 unless you have the quicken Channeling feat. That feat is not from the core book.
The healing stays useful. It loses "in combat" potential as you level up, but spells heal more than channel in combat anyway. If you are that beat up the caster should be going to spells. I never advocated channel as an "in combat" heal so I don't see the feat as a must have.
|
No you didn't, what I said was inspired by Irontruth example where fleeing undead would have alerted more opponents than killing them in the middle of a plain. Sorry for misinterpreting your thoughts.I said that?In a similar way, why are you assuming that other creatures will be more alerted by a fleeing undead than by a fireball exploding in the horizon, ...Why are you assuming the undead that got turned would have thought they might need help. They might be about to turn the party into spawns, but then that lucky turn undead might hit them. They might also be assigned to a certain area "or else". They might also not be on good terms with the other undead for other reasons. Being intelligent creatures they also capable of over estimating themselves. Just because the party knows they can take on the shadows, that does not mean the shadows know it.Shadows and ghouls are not mindless and if they think that it's a good idea to run away and seek some help from their fellows, they should do it without being turned. Sounds like Irontruth's GM played undead creatures like mindless Kamikaze that never run away unless they were forced to.This one.
Later in the campaign, we had to cross this plain several times. As a cleric, I knew I couldn't turn, because if something failed the save and fled, it would flee for 10 rounds (I was 10th level) and certain undead can be pretty quick, like shadows and ghouls. That means those things go screaming across the plain and other undead get perception checks to notice them and come check out what all the fuss was about.
So yeah, the place with the most undead was a No Turning zone as well.
Unintelligent undead, and undead that don't speak, won't be alerting anyone.
About the 20HD zombie being a CR 6 as an example. This is one of those situations where Turn Undead isn't needed. All this is is a bag of hit points that everyone will pound on until it's dead. This is not a good example to use for your argument. Now imagine about 15 20HD zombies, that would be a better representation as part of a high level encounter in which a 15th or 16th level Cleric could turn.
Beckett was right, Turn Undead was never meant to take out the BBEG.
|
|
Someone's said "because it sucked", right?That's as constructive and witty as me saying Channel Energy and PF Turning suck, because I really dislike them that much.
Honestly, even in an Undead lite game, I think i would stll like 3E Turning/Rebuking more than Channeling. As a straight up healer, Channel might <might> win, but it just isn't the flavor of the class to me.
If you wanted to do mass healing, all you had to do was spontaneously cast the Mass "Cure" spells.
Unintelligent undead, and undead that don't speak, won't be alerting anyone.
About the 20HD zombie being a CR 6 as an example. This is one of those situations where Turn Undead isn't needed. All this is is a bag of hit points that everyone will pound on until it's dead. This is not a good example to use for your argument. Now imagine about 15 20HD zombies, that would be a better representation as part of a high level encounter in which a 15th or 16th level Cleric could turn.
Beckett was right, Turn Undead was never meant to take out the BBEG.
That does not change the fact that it is effectively* immune to turn undead, and up thread I listed other monsters such as liches, mummies, and morghs that also don't have to worry about it too much.
In theory it will get turn, but most games dont have level 16 characters fighting CR 6 monsters, and if they do there are a lot of them so turning more than one of them is not likely. On average the roll for total hd, not just once creature will be about 30. After the zombie eats up 20 die that does not leave much for the remaining 10 die to do.
This
I think that part of the issue is thinking that Turn Undead should be able to deal with BBEG's, (or at least somewhat commonly). I don't think it should do that in all but the most rare (and very fun) times. It should work more in clearing the lesser threats so that the party can focus on BBEG(s). The game wasn't designed to constantly have a single Vampire/Lich/Mummy as the boss fight or even a common encounter (which seems to be the condition used for how Turning is so poor an option), but rather to drive off or destroy the skeletons, zombies, Vampire spawn, etc . . . that are suppossed to be part of that encounter's CR.
Edit:
One of the fun think with this game is when you feel it not a computer game like Diablo, where everything just level up with you. Being able to deal with lesser threats at higher levels is actually fun (as long as you can deal with greater threats too in some other way).In 3.5 a level 6 cleric with char 12 and 5 ranks in know. religion could auto -destroy a wight.
A Pathfinder Cleric needs to be level 16 to do that. Level 16 provided the wight fails it save. If it make the saves the cleric needs to be level 30 (assuming the averaged roll is 3,5).
The level 6 cleric could be the wight man for the job.
A level 6 cleric cannot destroy a wight. Your charisma and know religion affect your maximum HD you can turn, but they do not alter your level. A wight has 4 HD, you need to be level 8 to destroy them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A level 6 cleric cannot destroy a wight. Your charisma and know religion affect your maximum HD you can turn, but they do not alter your level. A wight has 4 HD, you need to be level 8 to destroy them.
True, My bad. I mixed up HD with CR.
Yes I know charisma and know religion affect your maximum HD.
A 8th level cleric with five ranks in know religion and char 12 could destroy 4 wights with average rolls, right?
Turning Check: 11 + 1 + 2 = 14, Turning damage: 7 + 8 + 1 = 16
Even if we look at the ability is when it is at its worst he could still destroy 2 wights:
Turning Check: 1 (d20 a natural 1) +1 (char) +2 (know religion) = 4 = cleric level -2
Turning damage: 2 (2d6 = 2 natural 1 rolls) + 8 (cleric level) +1 (char) = 11 HD
With a charisma score of 14 he could auto-destroy 3 wight even if he rolled natural 1s on every die.
Edit:
Pathfinder, if we look at the ability is when it is at its worst, needs to be level 103 (Yes it is silly. A cleric could never roll 1 on 52 dice chances that all wights make their saves is about 0.)
But even with all average rolls the Pathfinder Cleric needs to be level 15(DC is 18 at level 15)
A level 6 cleric cannot destroy a wight. Your charisma and know religion affect your maximum HD you can turn, but they do not alter your level. A wight has 4 HD, you need to be level 8 to destroy them.True, My bad. I mixed up HD with CR.
Yes I know charisma and know religion affect your maximum HD.
A 8th level cleric with five ranks in know religion and char 12 could destroy 4 wights with average rolls, right?
Turning Check: 11 + 1 + 2 = 14, Turning damage: 7 + 8 + 1 = 16Even if we look at the ability is when it is at its worst he could still destroy 2 wights:
Turning Check: 1 (d20 a natural 1) +1 (char) +2 (know religion) = 4 = cleric level -2
Turning damage: 2 (2d6 = 2 natural 1 rolls) + 8 (cleric level) +1 (char) = 11 HDWith a charisma score of 14 he could auto-destroy 3 wight even if he rolled natural 1s on every die.
Edit:
Pathfinder, if we look at the ability is when it is at its worst, needs to be level 103 (Yes it is silly. A cleric could never roll 1 on 52 dice chances that all wights make their saves is about 0.)
But even with all average rolls the Pathfinder Cleric needs to be level 15(DC is 18 at level 15)
They also have a 15 AC, +4 to attack and only 26 HP. In 3.5 a fighter could put all of his BAB into power attack with a 2 handed weapon. If that weapon is a great sword, 18 strength and weapon specialization, he kills one every hit, even if he rolls snake eyes on damage. He'll need to roll 7's to hit, but if it's a +2 weapon, that drops to a 3, the straight bonus to hit, plus needing to put 2 less into PA.
By the time a cleric can auto destroy undead, so can other classes, so why do clerics need a unique ability that is only useful to accomplish what other classes can do with their standard abilities that are also useful against the BBEG?
Channel Energy is not superior at killing undead. It is a superior ability in the versatility of clerics though. I can use it to heal my allies, saving my spells for stuff like Searing Light.
|
|
Unintelligent undead, and undead that don't speak, won't be alerting anyone.
About the 20HD zombie being a CR 6 as an example. This is one of those situations where Turn Undead isn't needed. All this is is a bag of hit points that everyone will pound on until it's dead. This is not a good example to use for your argument. Now imagine about 15 20HD zombies, that would be a better representation as part of a high level encounter in which a 15th or 16th level Cleric could turn.
Beckett was right, Turn Undead was never meant to take out the BBEG.
That does not change the fact that it is effectively* immune to turn undead, and up thread I listed other monsters such as liches, mummies, and morghs that also don't have to worry about it too much.
In theory it will get turn, but most games dont have level 16 characters fighting CR 6 monsters, and if they do there are a lot of them so turning more than one of them is not likely. On average the roll for total hd, not just once creature will be about 30. After the zombie eats up 20 die that does not leave much for the remaining 10 die to do.
If you put enough CR 6 creatures together, you can have a level appropriate encounter, on top of the BBEG.